Fetzer on O'Reilly
- Thread starter Anti-sophist
- Start date
I disagree. Sometimes, you gotta just call a spade a spade.
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,756
No surprise the JREFers would enjoy O'Reily tonight, he employed the JREF shout down. O'Reily must have said "no evidence" 8 or 10 times. During that time, he could have showed his audience WTC7 being demolished, and the molten metal streaming out of WTC2, the twin towers being blown to kingdom come, the mushroom clouds, the phony bin laden tape, etc. I.E. the evidence.
They won't do that, of course.
David Wong makes what he thinks is a sarcastic remark
Of course news organizations run stories that are critical of government, but only to a degree. Rarely, if ever, do news organizations question the premise.
For example, when was the last time TV news did a story questioning the legitimacy of the FCC? Or explained the origin of money, how government stole it from the people, and how fractional reserve banking, (as institutionalized by the Fed) is theft?
David, you need to get aquainted with the important concept of the "limited hang out". It's very effective.
They won't do that, of course.
David Wong makes what he thinks is a sarcastic remark
Of course news organizations run stories that are critical of government, but only to a degree. Rarely, if ever, do news organizations question the premise.
For example, when was the last time TV news did a story questioning the legitimacy of the FCC? Or explained the origin of money, how government stole it from the people, and how fractional reserve banking, (as institutionalized by the Fed) is theft?
David, you need to get aquainted with the important concept of the "limited hang out". It's very effective.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Fetzer was ignorant of the sound-bite nature of TV in general and BillO in particular to think that he was going to go into a lot of detailed "evidence" on this show.
But BillO as usual lead with his "you hate America" diatribe which is a useless remark and guaranteed the rest of the segment would go downhill.
Finally, BillO's logic was also a bit lacking. Getting something in a major newspaper is evidence of the soundness of that thing? I don't think so. Either that or psychics, who are all over the MSM are real and Randi's about to lose his mil.
But BillO as usual lead with his "you hate America" diatribe which is a useless remark and guaranteed the rest of the segment would go downhill.
Finally, BillO's logic was also a bit lacking. Getting something in a major newspaper is evidence of the soundness of that thing? I don't think so. Either that or psychics, who are all over the MSM are real and Randi's about to lose his mil.
Muckar-duva
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 167
Media doesn't cover things in depth because that doesn't sell papers/commercials. Your average joe isn't interested in complex and big issues- you see, that would require people to actually take an interest in recent history, other nations' cultures, national economy and political ideologies. Much in the same way that the 9/11 CT is appealing because it doesn't require any knowledge about the history of US foreign affairs or the recent history of the middle east.
People are stupid/uninterested, and media delivers.
Last edited:
Of course they won't do that. Because those things didn't happen. And I think O'Reily rather addresses 3/4 of the Americans who have a brain, instead of 1/4 who are retards.
Prescient, in light of the later responses in this thread. But your point may cut a little too close to home to the JREers who feel heroic for this very reason.
CurtC
Illuminator
So is there any nutty crap you don't believe?
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
This should say something to you. Even nutbars like BOR realize you need evidence to support a theory.
You CTist are dumber then BOR.
That's pretty much the pinnacle of criticism. You've achieved it the old fashion way...you've earned it.
Peephole
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,584
Maybe because those are another bunch of retarded little conpiracy theories?
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
So Ward Churchill thinks the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11 now? He's crazy, but that's a misrepresentation of his views. Lumping together everyone who disagrees with you is foolish.
O'Reiley doesn't touch the WTC7 comments, or any of the lies about papers and studies. Bill responds with roughly 95% ad hom. The point about going to foreign media was admittedly well put, but the rest was pathetic. The South Park send up of 9/11 conspiracies was better researched.
Sure, we can all cheerlead when someone calls the person we disagree with a "nut." It feels good. But then we're all just like Alex Jones' fan club ridiculing Gravy.
O'Reiley doesn't touch the WTC7 comments, or any of the lies about papers and studies. Bill responds with roughly 95% ad hom. The point about going to foreign media was admittedly well put, but the rest was pathetic. The South Park send up of 9/11 conspiracies was better researched.
Sure, we can all cheerlead when someone calls the person we disagree with a "nut." It feels good. But then we're all just like Alex Jones' fan club ridiculing Gravy.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Because these things are FALSE. Dammit troothydude that's the WHOLE issue. WTC7, so-called ‘molten metal’ streaming, twin towers 'blown to kingdom come', mushroom clouds, 'phony' ben laden tape, whatever is NOT evidence. It is subjective labeling of events as suspicious when they either aren't, or are completely false (like your phony bin laden tape).
Just because you don't understand what happens, or just can't believe a building can do what it did, or fall for propaganda, doesn't mean you have a slam dunk case. And you certainly don't.
Last edited:
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
It's basically the same thing he says about Al Franken (or anyone who disagrees with him, for that matter.) There was nothing special about this. You're getting excited about the standard O'Reilly diatribe.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
I agree to a point (I'm not a big O'Reilly fan), but you probably know how difficult it is to debate 911 CTs. Every point they bring up requires a lot of explanation, but before you can even begin to show how they are wrong about one point they have changed the subject and brought up another.
What I wish O'Reilly would have done is countered Fetzer's web sites with 911myths.com and any of the other good 911 CT debunking sites. He also could have looked at the audience and warned them not to take Fetzer and his sites at face value, go to the opposing view's sites and decide for themselves.
Especially when Fetzer rattled off all the Structural engineers and other experts who he has on board, when mostly he has nobody who could be considered an expert in relevant fields, O'Reilly should have jumped all over that. To me it showed that he hasn't studied Fetzer and his 'movement' nearly enough to do much else BUT just call him nuts and (rightfully though) berate him for not having any real evidence.
In that respect I feel O'Reilly's interview was more about yelling at Fetzer than getting to the truth.
Last edited:
MarkyX
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,157
I've actually been contacted by several members of the press, including some major ones (not giving names) giving the same message: The government rarely gets involved in the media. You can count the number of times they have with one hand in the Bush Adminstration on a certain New York newspaper. Even then, they didn't "obey"
To say there is some of filtering is a myth.
Last edited:
MarkyX
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,157