It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Judge Jeanine ON "DIRTY" HARRY, BLM LAND GRABS IN NEVADA AND TEXAS (Treasonous)

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

No, your wrong. Bundy's land isn't a target. He used your emotions against you, to fight a range war he has no rights to fight - instead of fighting for those who are truly in the right, your wasting your time with those who are wrong.

You are ignoring the honorable cause, to fight the dishonorable.
edit on 28-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: buster2010 Last time I checked the American people owned the federal government. It is called public land for a reason. SO don't be selling public land to china or anyone else for that matter, unless voted on by the public, not the federal government. Let we the people decide.



Do you know how many private companies from other countries own our interstates?

We the people didn't decide on that either but we pay the toll at the toll booths.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




So ... taking this scenario to the logical end ... we don't accept anything, anyone says, because they could be or probably are lying, and we decide what we want the "truth" to be based on our own preconceived notions and only accept evidence that reinforces those opinions?


For my part, I'm going to be reluctant to accept what anyone says without being able to verify it. I'm going to be skeptical about anyone's opinion/statements being objective. I'm going to ask if there is any ulterior motive(s) for statements that are made and whether evidence is legitimate or if it's germane to the issue. I'm going to view everything critically. In the end I may just say "I don't know" or that I'm certain about some elements, but not others. I don't see your suggested outcome as logically following from that.

However; if you, or anyone else, chooses to decide what you want the "truth" to be; based on your own preconceived notions, and only accept evidence that reinforces your opinion, that's up to you, and you're responsible for it.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Be careful not to call up a lynch mob for someone when they say something that offends you. Bundy may have said racist and ignorant comments, but this is a classic tactic to defame a person.

This is the United States of America, we are entitled to say how we feel because it is our damn right to do so. You may not agree, and nor do I, but many men and women have fought to the death to protect his right to voice his opinion.

The Chinese are buying up United States land because they are losing trust in the stability of the USD. With the inevitable collapse of the dollar, they are buying up real land for useless paper.

Wait for the day when Putin decides to team up with China, and disregard the USD as the World Reserve Currency.

Hussein, Gaddafi, and many others have tried to out the dollar, only to feel the hot lead of American Firearms. But when a superpower like China and Russia step up and bail on the USD, the other countries will follow.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasoul
Fortunately now legal experts like Jeanine Pirro are coming forward and speaking out.


Once she signed a contract with Fox News, "legal expert" no longer applied. It is simply "on-air talent" now. She's there to draw in viewers and perpetuate the propaganda.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam



For my part, I'm going to be reluctant to accept what anyone says without being able to verify it. I'm going to be skeptical about anyone's opinion/statements being objective. I'm going to ask if there is any ulterior motive(s) for statements that are made and whether evidence is legitimate or if it's germane to the issue. I'm going to view everything critically. In the end I may just say "I don't know" or that I'm certain about some elements, but not others. I don't see your suggested outcome as logically following from that.



So, without delving into mere semantics and epistomology, how do we know anything involving another's statements? How would you verify, for example, that Representative Amodei trusts the new BLM director, exactly? And I'm not talking about blind trust or wide-open gullibility, but, on the contrary, it's also illogical to assume that everyone, everywhere is simply lying all the time, PARTICULARLY, when those "lies" conveniently fold into our own biases. (And please, don't claim that you or anyone else doesn't have biases ...)

Viewing material critically says "what is the best evidence available" and then "what does the evidence say." At the worst it says "innocent until proven guilty" but for most of the posts I read here it seems more Napoleonic "guilty until proven innocent." Unless of course, we're talking about a sacred "cow."




However; if you, or anyone else, chooses to decide what you want the "truth" to be; based on your own preconceived notions, and only accept evidence that reinforces your opinion, that's up to you, and you're responsible for it.


Interesting, so you simply turn around what I stated as if it were your own novel idea? LOL ... are you really saying you have NO preconceived notions? No filters that you judge reality though? That you're totally free from human confirmation bias?

Is that what you're saying? Surely not.

edit on 11Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:30:38 -050014p112014466 by Gryphon66 because: Edited out a bunch of empty space



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrPenny

originally posted by: seasoul
Fortunately now legal experts like Jeanine Pirro are coming forward and speaking out.


Once she signed a contract with Fox News, "legal expert" no longer applied. It is simply "on-air talent" now. She's there to draw in viewers and perpetuate the propaganda.


Umm, yeah. OK.

So when the judges are on CNN aren't they still considered legal expert?

I'm sorry, but she still has a law degree, that fully gives her the right to dispense legal advice. As long as she has the degree and license, she can say what she wants about the legality, on air or not. She passed the bar, and I am sure you didn't, so therefore, she is a legal expert.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
As pointed out earlier, Ms. Pirro was a "judge" on her reality TV show for longer than she was a county judge. She was rejected by the voters of New York for AG and chose instead to retreat to the realm of imaginary law rather than the real world.

Passing the bar doesn't automatically make anyone a legal expert, and even if that did (it doesn't) their opinions are particularly suspect when they are paid by an infotainment network shamelessly shilling for a political party.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
As pointed out earlier, Ms. Pirro was a "judge" on her reality TV show for longer than she was a county judge. She was rejected by the voters of New York for AG and chose instead to retreat to the realm of imaginary law rather than the real world.

Passing the bar doesn't automatically make anyone a legal expert, and even if that did (it doesn't) their opinions are particularly suspect when they are paid by an infotainment network shamelessly shilling for a political party.


So because she's on Fox that means she doesn't know the real world?

You simply don't like the fact she is on Fox, that's why you call her a shill. Judge Judy and Marylin Milian were both on anti-Fox shows, does that mean they aren't legal experts either?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
So because she's on Fox that means she doesn't know the real world?


I'm not sure anyone on Fox is working from "the real world".



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I was referring to her stint on her own reality TV show as not being in the real world of law, actually.

No, I do not consider reality TV law to be real world law. Do you?

As to my opinion of Fox News, I've been very clear. It's merely the right wing version of MSNBC just more extreme and less cerebral.

I can't think of anyone who would say that FNC is not absolutely biased toward the right-wing/neo-conservative/Republican side of things.

Would you?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I'm sorry, but she still has a law degree, that fully gives her the right to dispense legal advice. As long as she has the degree and license, she can say what she wants about the legality, on air or not. She passed the bar, and I am sure you didn't, so therefore, she is a legal expert.


Everyone has the right to dispense legal advice. But you're right that having the education and credentials tends to add credibility to a person's opinion. When it's legal stuff, what is said from the bench and in chambers usually means something. However, people who are paid to appear on television and who are expected to entertain and keep people tuning in, automatically take a big hit to "credibility".

All of them...across the board. I'm trying to show you something here....listen up. She looks like a failure as a judge....at least to me anyway. And she's paid to appear on television and appeal to a very narrow segment of the population. It has to be very narrow...cause they're all looking down a vary slim tunnel.

If you have any ability to think critically, you know Fox New and Roger Ailes are definitely not attempting to be "journalists".



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPenny

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I'm sorry, but she still has a law degree, that fully gives her the right to dispense legal advice. As long as she has the degree and license, she can say what she wants about the legality, on air or not. She passed the bar, and I am sure you didn't, so therefore, she is a legal expert.


Everyone has the right to dispense legal advice. But you're right that having the education and credentials tends to add credibility to a person's opinion. When it's legal stuff, what is said from the bench and in chambers usually means something. However, people who are paid to appear on television and who are expected to entertain and keep people tuning in, automatically take a big hit to "credibility".

All of them...across the board. I'm trying to show you something here....listen up. She looks like a failure as a judge....at least to me anyway. And she's paid to appear on television and appeal to a very narrow segment of the population. It has to be very narrow...cause they're all looking down a vary slim tunnel.

If you have any ability to think critically, you know Fox New and Roger Ailes are definitely not attempting to be "journalists".



Can I ask a simple question..did you feel this way about Fox before the CNN propaganda against them?

Lie repeated by CNN...Tea Party is racist




Apology please.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I've felt this way ever since I watched Fox News and it's "correspondents" spout demonstrably false crap in the service of a distinct ideology.

I did not need CNN, or any other echo-chamber, to form my opinion.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPenny
I've felt this way ever since I watched Fox News and it's "correspondents" spout demonstrably false crap in the service of a distinct ideology.

I did not need CNN, or any other echo-chamber, to form my opinion.


No, you just need CNN to reinforce it.

Tell me though, did you fall for the propaganda about the charges of racism in the Tea Party and did you repeat it? Did you ever give a star to anyone who says Fox is racist because CNN said they were?

But don't you think it is kind of fair that the opposing view of radical liberalism is out there to counterbalance it? Or is it ok to only have one view expressed?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Got me all figured out, don't you?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
No one needs anything but eyes and ears to determine the bias of FNC.

To pretend anything else at this point in time is simply ludicrous.

Chances are that for about 40-47% of the American population that's perfectly fine.

For the rest of us ... not so much.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrPenny
Got me all figured out, don't you?



Well, is it fair or not?

There is no such thing as moderate journalism, it's all completely yellow with mud slinging. But the problem is, how much do you accept and how much do you repeat?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
No one needs anything but eyes and ears to determine the bias of FNC.

To pretend anything else at this point in time is simply ludicrous.

Chances are that for about 40-47% of the American population that's perfectly fine.

For the rest of us ... not so much.



But you are ok with the bias on the other side.

So bias is fine as long as it is what you approve.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

But you are ok with the bias on the other side.

So bias is fine as long as it is what you approve.



Not at all. And what a silly, sniping and baseless comment to make!

We're talking about FNC and "Judge" Jeanine because that's the core of the OP above, which opens the source (FNC) to critique.

Nothing has been posted from MSNBC, or Daily Kos, or Democratic Underground ... to name a few well-known "water carriers" for the Democratic/liberal political side ... so why on earth would I comment on those in this thread? That would be off-topic.

However, since you chose to make silly accusations, I find the left-wing lies as obnoxious as the right-wing lies.

I like as much fact as I can find.

What about you? Is it FNC "right or wrong" in your book?
edit on 15Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:23:53 -050014p032014466 by Gryphon66 because: Added proper quotes.




top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join