Bill O'Reilly causes Joy and Whoopi to walk off set of "The View"

page: 21
38
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


i've been saying there is translation bias and what appears to be modifications/additions, for a long time now. pretty much every text on the planet has the same types of problems. edits, additions, ya know, like the posts on ats. it's that you don't know me very well and make alot of assumptions. i'm just defending other people. you should too. i know you don't like the way some people apply their free will but it is their free will and we are all at various stages of growth. i also am concerned with the direction all the anti-religion stuff is going in and i'll tell ya why:

here, on planet earth, you have billions of people who believe in a religion of some kind. some are much more serious about it than others. many just go along because it's socially comfortable and they adapt to the environment (isn't adaptation a human strong suit and survival mechanism?) if you raise up an army of people who believe the religious folks are evil bad crazy people, you are setting up most of the people on the planet to be stereotyped into oblivion and tinkered with in ways that are psychologically dangerous. this is not acceptable to me.




posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by whatukno
 


i've been saying there is translation bias and what appears to be modifications/additions, for a long time now. pretty much every text on the planet has the same types of problems. edits, additions, ya know, like the posts on ats. it's that you don't know me very well and make alot of assumptions. i'm just defending other people. you should too. i know you don't like the way some people apply their free will but it is their free will and we are all at various stages of growth. i also am concerned with the direction all the anti-religion stuff is going in and i'll tell ya why:

here, on planet earth, you have billions of people who believe in a religion of some kind. some are much more serious about it than others. many just go along because it's socially comfortable and they adapt to the environment (isn't adaptation a human strong suit and survival mechanism?) if you raise up an army of people who believe the religious folks are evil bad crazy people, you are setting up most of the people on the planet to be stereotyped into oblivion and tinkered with in ways that are psychologically dangerous. this is not acceptable to me.


There are those that are just born into religeon without any say in the Matter.
Male Jews introduction into religeon is a pretty violent one, they have no say and
are forced to be a part of it. Much like sacrifices of years gone except on a different
body part. If the Parents go to church or whatever, there's a pretty good chance their
offspring will do the same. Some religeons, if you marry someone outside the religeon,
then you will be ostracized. Religeon controls who they marry and their lives for the rest
of their lives.

And I'm sure somebody has some stats somewhere that says
Jews marry Jews, Muslims marry Muslims 99.9% of the time.

What if:
The Parents were not Religeos, will their offspring have the desire to go to chuch?



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE

Originally posted by fonenyc
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
 


Are you Muslim? Have you even been around muslims or a mosque? Did you know Islam is a religion of peace? Fanatacism is eveywhere and in many forms; one would say that what you just stated, basically writing off the largest religion in the world, is a form of zealotry called ignorance. This country was founded on extremism, the complete genocide of some native american tribes to colonize America, so lets not completely disenfranchise the extremists.


You are correct. I am not Muslim nor do I know many. I know about five and they are all Americanized, peaceful and nice people. But...if the "extremists" who call, quote and use Islam as their reason for extremism were instead...I don't know...vegetarians, and call, quote and use vegetarianism as their reason for killing us...I would also be weary and careful around them, and call for the non-radical vegetarians to stand up against them and POLICE THEIR OWN!


When Yousef did the WTC in 1993, he never cited the reasons as being for Islam or Muslem. The Muslem Extermist tag was placed on him by Christians because he was a Muslem and tried to blow something up. And 8 years Later, with help from Jewish Owned Media like FOX, turned it into a War against Muslims vs Christians taking all focus off the real reason "Israel". It worked a Treat. And as everybody learned later, the White House gets all their Intel and News from Fox.





Please correct me if I'm wrong...but...all the terrorists on 9/11 were Muslim. And I believe that all or most in our "wars" and other attacks were Muslim. Also...the governments of these countries are Muslim/Islamic based and their method of governing, their laws, etc. are all Islamic. I'm sorry to say, but my understanding is that we are being attacked, killed and are at war with Muslims. Not Islam, not all Muslims...but the people I am speaking of ARE Muslim. If I am correct...THAT is a problem the non-radical Muslims need to deal with and/or correct. It is their own people causing them any problems they are experiencing...and I feel bad for them and the position a minority of their religion have created for them. For us Americans...it is simply fact. Also...the radical Muslims are not simply killing Christians...they are killing Americans, non-Americans, etc.

PS: For the record, I am not Jewish and was raised Christian. Though now I am non-religious. FYI.
edit on 10/17/2010 by WeAreAWAKE because: Added PS



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


that's not our call. it's their call. if they have free will, they have free will.
the laws of the usa, provide for people to have personal free will within the confines of the laws, which are presumably based on common sense and consideration for the free will of others. to suggest everyone just pitch out what they believe because you don't believe it, is wrong in my estimation and to insist others believe as you believe, is also wrong, in my estimation. mental tyranny of any kind, is illogical (to me), but i can't force you to agree with me on it. i shouldn't raise up an army to force you to believe as i do, or i am presuming that i have the right to think for you, which of course, i don't.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeverApologize
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


I am sure you can give me a whole bunch of false quotes that Bill, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh have stated also, no? Quotes, not what you have "heard", that they have stated. I wa nt cold hard facts. Can you stick to that for me?

Also, Whoopie pie got owned. She caved and crumbled like a burnt cake!


Oh and sorry, Liberals are the topic at hand. This was a well known Liberal "Attack the Conservative" show.
edit on 15-10-2010 by NeverApologize because: Addition
As naive as comments like these are, I will reply to you. Here's an instance of Bill O Reilly's obvious bias: www.youtube.com...

I'll probably post more on him as well as Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh later on.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE

Please correct me if I'm wrong...but...all the terrorists on 9/11 were Muslim.



You are wrong. What defines a terrorist?


Definition of TERRORISM
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Merriam-Webster's definition of Terrorism



Definition of TERROR
1: a state of intense fear
2a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3: reign of terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Merriam-Webster's definition of Terror



Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE

Please correct me if I'm wrong...but...all the terrorists on 9/11 were Muslim.




Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE

Please correct me if I'm wrong...but...all the terrorists on 9/11 were Muslim.




Correct me if I am wrong, but have you (and Bill O'Reilly, Joy and Whoopi ) actively or passively participating in the following:

1) a system that makes use of terror, especially as a means of coercion
2) creating and substaining a state of intense fear
3) inspiring fear & creating/spreading/supporting mediums that are a cause of anxiety
4) violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
5) A system that impliments and deploys Fear tactically in order to control

Terrorist. What is a terrorist? How have terrorism tactics been implimented in Muslim nations prior to 9-11 by America, and American tax payers, actively and passively? I don't accept this he started it school ground B.S.. And since entire professions have been prevented from following through with their investigations according to the standards of their specialities (such as NFPA standards for fire inspectors) , coupled with other factors, it is difficult to believe that 300+ million people got outsmarted by a few dozen.

As long as the truth is suppressed, and mistakes are not learned from, and professional standards abandoned because of proponents of fear, and those subjugating themselves to fear, and expouse many symptoms of fear, and it's subsidiaries, and it's side effects, then they fit many definitions of terrorist.

Patriotism is walking upon a foundation that is real, and based on facts, not just empty meaningless words and emotions devoid of actionable deployment of behaviors that make a positive change and being a proponent of non-detrimental influences.


Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE

Please correct me if I'm wrong...but...all the terrorists on 9/11 were Muslim.




You are wrong on this point. There were more terrorists who laid down the foundation and created the environment for the events of that day, and participated in the suppression of, and manipulation of, information concerning what truly happened that day and the days afterward.

WeAreAWAKE
If American interests and the American governments would lie to the American people and the world about the death of one person ( *Pat Tillman* ) in order to exploit the event and distort the truth in order to meet their objectives and agendas, then maybe they would would exploit and misrepresent the facts for a few thousand more deaths on September 11th, 2001.


Patrick Daniel "Pat" Tillman (November 6, 1976 – April 22, 2004) was an American football player who left his professional sports career and enlisted in the United States Army in June 2002, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks. He joined the United States Army Rangers and served multiple tours in combat before he died in the mountains of Afghanistan. Initially, the U.S. government attempted a cover-up, reporting that Tillman had been killed by enemy fire, with Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal approving a Silver Star citation. Later, his actual cause of death by friendly fire was recognized.

A New York Times book review of Jon Krakauer's Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman noted that the book did well to compile the facts and "nauseating" details regarding the cover-up of Tillman's death, stating "After Tillman’s death, Army commanders, aided and abetted by members of the Bush administration, violated many of their own rules, not to mention elementary standards of decency, to turn the killing into a propaganda coup for the American side.
en.wikipedia.org...


I'm just sharing some observations, thoughts, and ideas. People should draw their own conlusions, but governments should not own a monopoly on the words, paper, and all the writing utensils.

A sheepdog a few sheep shy of a flock

Pleasantries,
ET



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


yeah leaders of nations are not exactly in the position to be honest, are they. NONE of them are, anywhere, be it third world, first world, or other world. you aren't going to get far pointing out the ends that leaders of nations go to, to maintain control, particularly in the face of organizations demanding to be dictators by offering people free stuff to join their cause. "hey join our cause, and we'll give you the farmland of some poor schmuck in iowa." totally delusion.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


I was hoping for something a little more (or less) than the simple picking apart of my wording to make an opinion to which I don't necessarily disagree. But, just in case you didn't realize...my last post was a simple response to an earlier rebuttal meant to point out that (let me be careful here and save you some posting time) "The individuals who were on the airplanes and aided and/or flew them into the Word Trade Center towers were Muslims".



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Yeah...or...join us in support of Islam, strap on a vest of dynamite and die, while your leaders sit on their fat asses. The whole world has gone nuts. I guess its a good thing our time here is coming to an end.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
When these subjects are brought up for discussion, I still don't understand why people take sides. I mean, is it a surprise that people toe a party line or that they have no good argument and so they resort to huffing and puffing and incoherence.

It's not like Bill O'Reilly is somehow above the fray. He's just as ridiculous a showman as Beck, Limbaugh, Obermann, etc, etc. Liberal/Conservative...yawn...At the end of the day, they know the line not to cross to maintain the narrative. GE owns MSNBC, so how liberal is a news station owned by a defense contractor?

Why did Phil Donohue loose his show back in 03 or 04 on MSNBC...I thought they were the big, bad liberal media. Phil was a little too "radical" which has shifted semantically to mean "looney toons" rather than it's original meaning:

From etymonline.com

radical
late 14c. (adj.), in a medieval philosophical sense, from L.L. radicalis "of or having roots," from L. radix (gen. radicis) "root" (see radish). Meaning "going to the origin, essential" is from 1650s. Political sense of "reformist" (via notion of "change from the roots") is first recorded 1802 (n.), 1820 (adj.), of the extreme section of the British Liberal party (radical reform had been a current phrase since 1786); meaning "unconventional" is from 1921. U.S. youth slang use is from 1983, from 1970s surfer slang meaning "at the limits of control." Radical chic is attested from 1970.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by undo
 


Do I think you're 12? Absolutely not, most 12 year olds have the capacity of tolerance and acceptance of new cultures without prejudice, unless of course acted upon by a closed minded parental figure.

And no, no wars have ever been fought "in the name of Atheism". Wars may have been fought for Secular reasons. But that is different than killing in the name of Atheism.

reply to post by nightbringr
 


yes it is flawed.

The reason it's flawed is because you can do the exact same thing with the Bible or the Torah. Both of which have similar passages in them, yet they are obviously not evil religions are they? Because a concept cannot be evil or good, it's only actions that determine whether something is evil or good, and a concept cannot act. Only a person can act.



Yes well that is all fine and good. Why is it then that over 96% of people in the Middle East are muslim with the exception of Israel? Because they are indoctrinated at birth. Of course people have free-will, but when you are told something is a fact from the day you can understand words, you tend to believe it. Im sure some of the forward thinking Arabs decide on other religions or none at all, but it is very rare. Believeing heaven is a paradise that can be reachable by blowing up Jews or Westerners with a bomb strapped to your chest is a very powerful tool to those who want to cause problems.

Facts: 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims. Fact: They im sure all believed their god was pleased with their actions. You cannot deny those two simple truths.

And i welcome you to find passages from the Bible that are nearly as hate-filled to non-believes as half of what has been posted here about the Quran. Torah is a different matter, im asking about the Bible.

And a concept cant be evil? Im sorry i disagree. Espousing that all Jews slaughtered is evil, plain and simple. It does not have to be acted upon to be evil.

edit on 17-10-2010 by nightbringr because: missing text



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
 


Not all black people are on welfare, smoke crack and have billions of babies. I feel sorry for majority of them who don't do those things, but some of them do, so it justifies social stigmatization, media coverage tilted to the delinquent minority, bias laws and reciprocal rates of incarceration.

Does my analogy suit you?



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Did you know, that the more fundamentalist the Muslim, the LESS likely s/he is to be a terrorist.

You have to ask the why the west dislikes Islam so much, is it because:


I don't think the West dislikes Islam as much as fears what lengths Muslins are willing to go to when it comes to what they think is religiously right for them to do. When you say the West you are suggesting the people of the West and the vast majority care little about your list below.

I understand the whole World Bank is evil concept and I agree that corporations that are a part of this are wrong and should be stopped.

With that said extremism goes well beyond the extremism that is focused towards the west since much of their extremism is focused inward among themselves. They have very little tolerance within their own ranks and this is multiplied when dealing with anyone outside of their world.



O~ They don't allow loans at interest

Most have very little money to begin with, so there really isn't much to be made off them anyways as an outside source to lend money. They don’t lend much internally…So this goes into the no one cares folder…



O~ They don't buy american pork
O~ They practice modesty
O~ They fast regularly
O~ They grow beards
O~ They use Coca-Cola as a degreaser


Above is another pile of no one really cares, and I fail to see how this plays into their extremisms.



O~ They are sitting on the stuff that makes the US empire possible.
O~ etc etc etc


Would it not be easier just to buy it? It seems we spend Trillions to make Billions.... I know people love to use this as the big reason but it just does not add up when they do use it. If we just let them do anything they wanted and all we did was buy oil we would have 50 billion barrels of more oil with the money wasted over there. 50 billion barrels my friend…



Just like in Latin America, the US has been poking its nose in where it don't belong in an obtuse manner - and they wonder why the Mid East hates them.


True we do poke around...like every other country that has that capability...

Once again I don't see this driving their extremisms, but it sure allows them to focus that extremism towards us.




edit on 17-10-2010 by Xtrozero because: quotes



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
 


Pretty much all Arabs are Muslim, your point being....



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 


I went over this, but I'll go over it again.


Yes well that is all fine and good. Why is it then that over 96% of people in the Middle East are muslim with the exception of Israel? Because they are indoctrinated at birth. Of course people have free-will, but when you are told something is a fact from the day you can understand words, you tend to believe it. Im sure some of the forward thinking Arabs decide on other religions or none at all, but it is very rare. Believeing heaven is a paradise that can be reachable by blowing up Jews or Westerners with a bomb strapped to your chest is a very powerful tool to those who want to cause problems.


And you forget about Chaldeans who are Christian Arabs. Course, let's just ignore them right?


Fact: They im sure all believed their god was pleased with their actions. You cannot deny those two simple truths.


You used your opinion as fact? How can one do that?


And i welcome you to find passages from the Bible that are nearly as hate-filled to non-believes as half of what has been posted here about the Quran. Torah is a different matter, im asking about the Bible.


Already did that, read the thread or don't bother me. It's not my fault you are too lazy to read the thread, if you had you wouldn't have made this post.


And a concept cant be evil? Im sorry i disagree. Espousing that all Jews slaughtered is evil, plain and simple. It does not have to be acted upon to be evil.


No it's a concept, until it's acted upon by someone, it has harmed no one. If it harms no one, then it's simply a concept and neither good nor evil.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
 


Pretty much all Arabs are Muslim, your point being....


Not all Muslims are Arabs
Therefore, it be Arabs that destroyed the WTC, not Muslims

Does race rather than religeon make a difference in the reasons for 9/11,
Hmmm, what could the reason be I wonder.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I'm surprised that this lame-ass show got this much traffic on ATS.


Whoopie and Joy. Big freakin' deal. They get upset about anything that conflicts with their estrogen filled, liberal, commie, dope-smoking, hippie, roll-over, pacifist viewpoint. What do you expect from two experienced, open-minded, progressive, tolerant clowns like that?

I mean, if all is great and good in the Muslim world, why aren't they there? I bet both of them would love to be in downtown Mecca, rockin' a burka, with practically no rights. Pretty much what their status would be.

I gave up placing any importance on Whoopi Goldberg's views (like she had that much to start wth) after expressing her opinion on the child rape by Polanski:

"it wasn't rape rape"

Indeed Ms. Goldberg, WTF was it then??



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


I stand by what I wrote.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by AB173-1970
reply to post by rakkasansct
 

I agree holding fast and asking a few intelligent questions with the right delivery could have taken him out. But they chose to flee rather than fight.


Sometimes Bill isn't the worth the time. He's too narrow minded, so why bother?



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
O'Reilly has thrown people off his "Show" because of his intolerence at what they were saying. I didn't see any of the women telling him to get out, or throwing him out. In any case, he tried to dominate the debate. The chairwoman failed miserably to keep order. Too many of those American chat shows end up as slanging matches and point scoring anyway, and are a waste of time. The POTUS has no right to comment on the "Wisdom" of the mosque in his capacity, and to do so in the negative would contradict the ethos of freedom of religion. You can't separate thought and religious freedom, it's all in the mindset. That freedom belongs to you PLUS, everyone else. You are not entitled to interfere with the thoughts of others.





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join