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.

 

Hate Network: CNN Targets Jefferson Memorial In Confederate Flag Frenzy

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I said I see a growing trend I did not declare whitewashing of history has happened. And two things happen to a growing trend they either fizzle out or continue to grow.

I do not approve of banning anything . It's The same concept as book burning, you May not be of the same mind as me. But to me personal rights take precedence over anything .

Neither side should have to suffer any oppression .
edit on 24-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Heaven forbid that you would actually acknowledge the anchor's statement and question in her own words:
(from the OP source)


“Jefferson owned slaves….and there’s a monument to him in the capital of the United States, no one ever asks for that to come down – is it equal?”


How is that not initiating a serious discussion on the comparison by the anchor?



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: introvert

Heaven forbid that you would actually acknowledge the anchor's statement and question in her own words:
(from the OP source)


“Jefferson owned slaves….and there’s a monument to him in the capital of the United States, no one ever asks for that to come down – is it equal?”


How is that not initiating a serious discussion on the comparison by the anchor?


The entire premise that "Jefferson owned slaves" was brought up by another person on another show/interview and the two anchors were addressing that idea. She even said that. The one anchor immediately stated that there was a big difference between Jefferson, the flag issue and dismissed it.

That being the case, the "Hate Network: CNN Targets Jefferson Memorial In Confederate Flag Frenzy" headline is completely false and the piece was made to do exactly what it is doing in this thread. That is to create outrage amongst those that would rather fall for sensationalist garbage than look at a story within its entire context.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: introvert

Heaven forbid that you would actually acknowledge the anchor's statement and question in her own words:
(from the OP source)


“Jefferson owned slaves….and there’s a monument to him in the capital of the United States, no one ever asks for that to come down – is it equal?”


How is that not initiating a serious discussion on the comparison by the anchor?
And the man being asked answered it under 30 seconds, and the discussion moved on.

Let me see if I can make you understand this. "It. Was. A. Blurb."

A harmless soundbite with a harmless HYPOTHETICAL question.

What part of hypothetical do you not understand? Or do you insist on continuing this "THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS GUYS" narrative because it supports your anti-liberal agenda?



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun



Or do you insist on continuing this "THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS GUYS" narrative because it supports your anti-liberal agenda?


Bingo.

You understand what's going on here.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: introvert

Heaven forbid that you would actually acknowledge the anchor's statement and question in her own words:
(from the OP source)


“Jefferson owned slaves….and there’s a monument to him in the capital of the United States, no one ever asks for that to come down – is it equal?”


How is that not initiating a serious discussion on the comparison by the anchor?
And the man being asked answered it under 30 seconds, and the discussion moved on.

Let me see if I can make you understand this. "It. Was. A. Blurb."

A harmless soundbite with a harmless HYPOTHETICAL question.

What part of hypothetical do you not understand? Or do you insist on continuing this "THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS GUYS" narrative because it supports your anti-liberal agenda?


Got it. Within the confines of primetime network newscasts, anchor's Blurbs and sound bites are "harmless".



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: introvert

Heaven forbid that you would actually acknowledge the anchor's statement and question in her own words:
(from the OP source)


“Jefferson owned slaves….and there’s a monument to him in the capital of the United States, no one ever asks for that to come down – is it equal?”


How is that not initiating a serious discussion on the comparison by the anchor?
And the man being asked answered it under 30 seconds, and the discussion moved on.

Let me see if I can make you understand this. "It. Was. A. Blurb."

A harmless soundbite with a harmless HYPOTHETICAL question.

What part of hypothetical do you not understand? Or do you insist on continuing this "THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS GUYS" narrative because it supports your anti-liberal agenda?


Got it. Within the confines of primetime network newscasts, anchor's Blurbs and sound bites are "harmless".
Okay, let's pull your thread and see where it takes us. Lets use your thought process and apply it to the OTHER side.

Rick Perry called the shooting in Charleston an "accident".

I guess that means he wants to exonerate Roof. I mean, it was just terrible, awful accident!



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Apples to oranges, my friend.

Politicians babbling their idiocy are one thing. Primetime network news anchors 'blurbing' soundbites on newscasts are quite another...just ask Brian Williams.


...if you can still find him.
edit on 24-6-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Looks like George Washington is next on the chopping block.



Texas Liberals Sign Petition to Remove ‘Racist’ George Washington Statue





Liberals at the University of Texas signed a petition to remove a statue of George Washington and memorials to other founding fathers in another illustration of the politically correct insanity that has emerged in the wake of the Charleston massacre.

Students at the University have started an actual petition to remove statues of Robert E. Lee, the commander of the Confederate army, and Albert Sidney Johnston, a Confederate general who died during the Civil War, remarking, “It is impossible to reach the full potential of an inclusive and progressive learning institution while putting an idol of our darkest days on a pedestal.”

Black Lives Matter protesters also vandalized the statues earlier this week.

Given the fact that America’s Commander-in-Chief during the revolutionary war against the British and first President George Washington owned slaves his entire life and only emancipated them after his death, would UT students also support a move to wipe Washington from the pages of history?

The answer is yes, many of them would.

Several also agreed that demolishing the statues would be a fantastic way of controlling the future by re-writing history, a line lifted straight out of George Orwell’s 1984.

“It’s so bad it’s like as if you’re having a statue of maybe Hitler or someone like that,” said one trendy as he signed the petition.

Others were convinced to sign after being told that eradicating the statues was part of shifting the country towards socialism.

Another student agreed to sign the petition immediately after hearing the words “racist statues,” while another man said the statues represented “treason”.





www.dcclothesline.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Not even close to Apple and Oranges

You made the point. The "blurb" is not harmless and despite context, it showed what the anchor's absolute feelings were. therefore, we MUST apply your logic to Perry. He thinks it was an accident, by his "blurb," hence, he must want exoneration. Apples to apples in this case



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join