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.

 

Russell Brand: Fox News is ‘fanatical, terrorist, propagandist’ and ‘more dangerous than ISIS

page: 9
82
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: tow69
a reply to: luciddream

You can say what you want

The other networks are not covering the important things going on within our government. thus keeping their viewers in the dark

Just check it out for your selves

I personally am not DEM or REP so they can all blow me

I simply want those responsible for all the crap going on to be held accountable. LAWS have been broken and if it were a civilian that lied to congress that civilian would be thrown in prison and the damn key thrown away.

Those not informed are not prepared and thus are Sheeeeeeple

The whole damn thing is going to implode

God Bless


ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

How obvious can it be that the other networks are unitary spewers of the gas out the rear of the oligarchy!

Sheesh.

Lock-step lying group-think from the other media outlets and yet Fox is the baddy?

I'm beginning to think that a huge percentage of those ragging on Fox must be agents of the oligarchy themselves.




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Wrong conclusion.

There WILL BE a one world government.

1. Disasters--engineered and natural will compel people to seek a solution at all costs.

2. fallen angel/ET enforcers with exotic technology and dramatic demonstrations will FORCE all global citizens--except for the authentic Christians and whatever others risk death to avoid it--into the one world government and one world religion--under pain of death for noncompliance.

3. A lot of global citizens as gah gah clueless as so many hereon will compliantly go along with the orders thinking that the Delusionary blather of the purported ET's (fallen angels) must be correct, true, right . . . even though it's deception from hell.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Ancient Champion

Glenn was let go because FOX didn't like the fact that quite a few times he exposed the fact that they were cherry picking information and didn't like a lot of the things he was exposing....



He got a little preachy for me. But he's had some real revelations.



Currently his charity organization Mercury One is sending trucks down to the border with supplies for the influx of children here in Texas from Mexico and South America. He's caught a lot of flak from FOX about that.



No He was let go because he was starting to act crazy. IMO. Everyone apparently needs a boogeyman to blame stuff on.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: sapien82



Wrong conclusion.



There WILL BE a one world government.



1. Disasters--engineered and natural will compel people to seek a solution at all costs.



2. fallen angel/ET enforcers with exotic technology and dramatic demonstrations will FORCE all global citizens--except for the authentic Christians and whatever others risk death to avoid it--into the one world government and one world religion--under pain of death for noncompliance.



3. A lot of global citizens as gah gah clueless as so many hereon will compliantly go along with the orders thinking that the Delusionary blather of the purported ET's (fallen angels) must be correct, true, right . . . even though it's deception from hell.





Just because you want this religious end of the world scenario to come true doesn't mean it will. Day Dreamers



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: NavyDoc




That is a self-contradictory statement.


Not at all. There are consequences for everything - even free speech. Especially free speech. Though we're free to speak - what we say has an effect. There will always be consequences

In a situation like FOX (news...she said - reluctantly) it might be a case of their chickens coming home to roost. Demographics are everything in showbiz - and their fan base is also heavily tied to the GOP - which, if you haven't noticed - is in serious...well, let's just call it disarray

How interesting is this?

Something, somewhere has changed. Whether it's a matter of journalistic (hah!) conscience or money - speech has an effect - and with that comes consequences

The rabid, foaming warmonger Brand is examining? She is fomenting war. She's free to do so. There will be consequences - and freedom of speech allows for us to call her what she is: Terrorist



He or she was not talking about negative fallout or contradiction or contrary viewpoints being "consequences."




that is morally wrong and should have consequences just the same as making threats to people does on social media or in public threats of violence against other humans





then thats wrong you should be questioned by the police


He or she wants people to be questioned by the police for making political comments and opinions she does not like--that's not supporting freedom of speech.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

No not inhibiting or stopping freedom of speech , but it should have consequences , thats what Im saying we cant out in public speak our opinions , say I wanted to kill someone and I told everyone , there should be consequences, just like a women on a news network demanding people be bombed, they are still humans regardless of their ideological beliefs . She is promoting death and violence which is morally wrong.

She has the right to say anything she wants but she also has to be able to face the consequences of her actions, you cant just go around asking for death of people whose beliefs are different from your own or those of your nation and not expect some backlash , either judicial or public outcry.

You dont see someone on al jazeera or on CNBC, or sky news, BBC , russia today asking for the bombings of anyone
why then should she be able to spout hatred on television to millions and not face the consequences of her actions , the same with the fox network , that is vile hatred, we would be quick to jump on any other network of they advocated the deaths of other humans

I will fight for anyones right to free speech , but when they start spreading hate or start speaking of things which are considered morally wrong , they are crossing the line, when they start asking for the death or harm to come to people then that is unlawful as you are inciting violence and hatred which as far as I am aware is classed as a hate crime

regardless if how they want to usher in the one world government it will never happen there will always be individuals who will not conform, its within our nature as human beings to rebel against authority , its a balance of harmony and chaos , positive and negative their has to be balance



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
And he's absolutely correct OP, as far as I can tell. I do follow the ups and downs of Fox network and yeah, they lie a lot. Then again so do the BBC, ITN, SKY and several other world wide news services. They're all in the one boat. It's a big boat but we can sink it.

I would like to think that the majority of viewers nowadays are able to see through the lies. I would certainly hope so anyway.

I like Brand, although I must admit I haven't had much of a chance to follow his YT (Trews) Musings, but that can be easily fixed in one evening.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

She specifically said that she wants them bombed , thats a threat of violence against not one person but a whole group of people , inciting violence against others is a hate crime and carries a penalty

as far as I am aware the bill of rights protects speeches of hate so long as it doesnt incite immediate unlawful action
from wikipedia it was a KKK speech which was the case study

so in this case people would take action into their own hands and would likely carry out unlawful acts against sunni muslims in america of course that being a worse case scenario

of course that would require a court case to determine whether her speech was considered hate filled enough to incite immediate unlawful action. Of course should we hear in the news soon that an American has gunned down an entire community of sunni muslims she will continue to make her hate speeches for the time being!

Still are these the kind of things we want on the news , do we want our children listening to this kind of vile hatred
No absolutely not , even grown adults dont want to listen to this idiot. Most of us are smart enough to see this bs for what it really is !



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: beezzer

No not inhibiting or stopping freedom of speech , but it should have consequences , thats what Im saying we cant out in public speak our opinions , say I wanted to kill someone and I told everyone , there should be consequences, just like a women on a news network demanding people be bombed, they are still humans regardless of their ideological beliefs . She is promoting death and violence which is morally wrong.

She has the right to say anything she wants but she also has to be able to face the consequences of her actions, you cant just go around asking for death of people whose beliefs are different from your own or those of your nation and not expect some backlash , either judicial or public outcry.

You dont see someone on al jazeera or on CNBC, or sky news, BBC , russia today asking for the bombings of anyone
why then should she be able to spout hatred on television to millions and not face the consequences of her actions , the same with the fox network , that is vile hatred, we would be quick to jump on any other network of they advocated the deaths of other humans

I will fight for anyones right to free speech , but when they start spreading hate or start speaking of things which are considered morally wrong , they are crossing the line, when they start asking for the death or harm to come to people then that is unlawful as you are inciting violence and hatred which as far as I am aware is classed as a hate crime

regardless if how they want to usher in the one world government it will never happen there will always be individuals who will not conform, its within our nature as human beings to rebel against authority , its a balance of harmony and chaos , positive and negative their has to be balance




But you contradict yourself. You say you are for freedom of speech but then in the same breath say people who say things you don't like or consider "inciteful" or "hateful" a crime. That is a self contradiction. Part of living in a free society is understanding that some speech may be unpleasant to hear. A person making a political opinion on going to war is no way he same thing as threatening to kill his neighbor. One is an actionable and real threat and the other is an opinion about politics and the world situation. You shouldn't quell free speech just because you find it unpleasant to hear.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
"Terrorists do not deserve to live and should die in a very painful way."
-beezzer


Now, am I a terrorist for saying that? Should I be punished or silenced for uttering those words?



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Ancient Champion

Crazy by whose standards? What qualifies as crazy?

You mean for saying things like "extremist are trying to push for a caliphate" like they are doing now?

Or that the republicans are playing the American people just like the democrats?

Or that "the dollar is crashing and people need to prepare for it"
Seems to also be coming to fruition

Please provide some information that fox let him go because he went crazy?

Is it craZy for him to use his charity to help those on the border?

I see your bias is showing



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: NavyDoc

She specifically said that she wants them bombed , thats a threat of violence against not one person but a whole group of people , inciting violence against others is a hate crime and carries a penalty

as far as I am aware the bill of rights protects speeches of hate so long as it doesnt incite immediate unlawful action
from wikipedia it was a KKK speech which was the case study

so in this case people would take action into their own hands and would likely carry out unlawful acts against sunni muslims in america of course that being a worse case scenario

of course that would require a court case to determine whether her speech was considered hate filled enough to incite immediate unlawful action. Of course should we hear in the news soon that an American has gunned down an entire community of sunni muslims she will continue to make her hate speeches for the time being!

Still are these the kind of things we want on the news , do we want our children listening to this kind of vile hatred
No absolutely not , even grown adults dont want to listen to this idiot. Most of us are smart enough to see this bs for what it really is !




No, it's not a crime and it's not actionable and does not carry a penalty. Having an opinion that we should have military intervention is not the same thing as walking up to you and saying I will kill you. One is a political opinion and, unless she has a fleet of bombers at her disposal is not a credible threat at all, the other is a direct threat.

In the US there is no "hate speech" laws, thank the gods. You have to provoke a specific and actionable and real threat against an individual before one can be charged with "communicating a threat." Saying "I wish the IRS building would blow up is" is not a threat. Saying "I'm going to blow up the IRS building on Tuesday" is a threat. See the difference?

What? You honestly think a pundit being a pundit is going to cause sunni Muslims to be gunned down? LOL.

I'd rather my child grew up in a world where she had FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT, not the thought police.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: BO XIAN



Fox is the last shred of a ray of hope that most masses in the population of of hearing anything remotely true.

Sorry but this is nowhere close to being true. How many of the other networks went to court so they could have the right to lie to the public? FOX has been caught using fake videos and cutting and editing peoples words so many times it isn't even funny. Of course other networks does this as well but nowhere near the level as FOX. Look what FOX does when people start speaking the truth on their network they fire them. Take Glenn Beck for example he spoke out about the Fed Reserve and they couldn't fire him fast enough.


Unlike ABC during the pinto gas tank fire when they were sued by Ford for igniting the fire when the rear end crash was filmed, or NBC falsifying labels on expired meat in a supermarket, the George Zimmerman suit against NBC for libelous reporting by changing the report on his call into 911 the day it happened.

I always thought they were all the same, if there wasn't any news they will just make some up. Slant it right slant it left and hope you don't notice while they report.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Ancient Champion



Just because you want this religious end of the world scenario to come true doesn't mean it will. Day Dreamers


Who wants trauma, chaos, death, destruction but the globalists and their demonized cohorts?

Sheesh, what cheek.

BTW, just because you disbelieve The Manual and warehouses full of evidence

is NOT any clue that the END TIMES script outlined in Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel et al

will fail to come true! LOLOL.

Sigh



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Brand looks like Jesus Christ according to the fake pictures of him coming out of old Europe.

Maybe he’s the third coming

Maybe he'll turn into Jesus like a computer program...post modern Jesus IN THE FLESH

Fox News is the Pharisees. MSNBC are the Sadducees. CNN is the devil.
MSM is Rome


edit on 26-6-2014 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I guess Im not explaining myself properly in this case whilst I disagree with what she is saying , she really shouldn't be saying it because she wants people to die anyone who wants people to die needs to get their heads examined.

On checking further on the legislation in america , its certainly not a crime to speek freely on any subject in any way shape or form, unless it is deemed to cause immediate unlwaful action.

I dont think she should be doing it or any news network should allow it, its not news its just hate filled opinion.
What I think of her opinion or foxs opinion doesnt matter really it;s their choice to say it .
When people are given this kind of opinion thrown at them, there are idiots out there who will take action, there are idiots everywhere who would react to this nonsense and take action and hurt people the same as terrorits spouting hatred on air around the world , then people take up arms to join a jihad and kill people.

I clearly worded my own opinion in such a way to contradict myself , but I am completely for freedom of speech , but there are cases where people should just shut up and keep their hateful opinions to themselves.
All im saying is that these kind of opinions do have consequences and there are gullable people , crazy people, who will do something if they get hyped up on a subject , they get mad enough to take action and go cause harm to innocent people.
If the media is allowed to spout hate like this then people will react and then demand that the government bomb them and so it may not be immediate but in the end people die

I guess its a horrible state of affairs where our media are giving ideas to the people and the government get what they want public backing to commit more acts of violence overseas for their own gains
the world is such a horrible place where we have news media asking for the deaths of others overseas just because they have a different political , religious ideology from some other nation as a result of US foreign policy and many other factors in the region where its happening

I just think its wrong , but she can keep spouting her hate filled nonsense , I wonder if she is proud of herself , she has achieved a career in the media and asks for the deaths of others she must be so proud



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer

Fails to comprehend the reason that ISIS are there in the first place. Not understanding the implications that bombing a nation as the US did caused these problems in the first place and calls for more bombings..



ISIS is there in the first place in order to set up the caliphate for the Muslim Brotherhood - and because they were having their asses handed to them in Syria, so the decided to invade a more tractable country which was part of their end goal anyway - that's where Baghdad is, which is supposed to be the capitol of the New Caliphate, or whatever it is they decide to call it.

They're not there because the US bombed Iraq, they are there because the US killed Saddam Hussein, so he ain't around to put the brakes on it any more.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

So I'm supposed to believe a book that was written by a man who heard voices in his head? No thanks, But if you want to live in the dark ages go ahead.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982
I personally find the whole hatred of ANY news organization laughable. Fox News on one side, MSNBC on the other. People of like mind will always find their way to each other, and it's a lot better than the alternative, which would be a North Korea / China style of government "news". Is That what you people want? No other opinion but the one the government approves?



Are you kidding me, the only alternative to bias agenda driven new networks is north korean propaganda?

There is this thing called journalistic integrity, and a big part of that integrity is letting people think for themselves. Journalists don't tell you what to think, they just tell you what happened. I know we forgot that, but it's the better alternative to everything you just laid out.

It's laughable that you say "Is That what you people want? No other opinion but the one the government approves? " while defending news networks that speak for political parties.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Ancient Champion



Crazy by whose standards? What qualifies as crazy?



You mean for saying things like "extremist are trying to push for a caliphate" like they are doing now?



Or that the republicans are playing the American people just like the democrats?



Or that "the dollar is crashing and people need to prepare for it"

Seems to also be coming to fruition



Please provide some information that fox let him go because he went crazy?



Is it craZy for him to use his charity to help those on the border?



I see your bias is showing





They've been trying to create a Caliphate for a while now but the media is only picking it up now because of the gains they made in Iraq.

The right & left have been at each others throat since this country was founded, A child could have figured that out.

Don't know if you noticed but the dollar has been crashing for awhile now.

His charity has zero to do with what we are talking about.

Like i said before he acted crazy, Going from one minute of ranting & raving to crying.

I see your bias is showing.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join