posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:21 PM
a reply to: onequestion
Perhaps his reporters were asked to leave? Dunno.
The last time I listened in he was being very negative and non-supportive while still trying to hedge his bets. My first thought was that they didn't
go to him first and his ego got bruised. That was the tone I detected but that's all subjective.
These guys weren't following a political narrative. They wanted to bring forth real, now-happening abuses and all Jones and Oathkeepers wanted to do
was talk about Obama and possible, in-the-future, gun-grabbing scenarios. He claimed something along the lines of, "We're winning politically so this
isn't a good time to do a protest." I'm not sure which planet he was on that day....he had the opportunity to talk about real events happening to
real people and he tosses it aside to blather on and on about Obama's expected gun control moves or some "astounding" interview he's about to
I've found John B. Well's coverage a lot more balanced. At least he lets people tell their story without hysterical rants and ravings. But he can do
as he pleases since he doesn't depend on ads to finance his show.
Both Jones and Oathkeepers predicted terrible things and said that the protesters were going to end up with a bloodbath if things didn't
"de-escalate." I found that odd since there was no escalation to begin with. Instead of playing into the fed's hands, they have shown that an armed
militia group can conduct themselves without violence. They've remained steadfast and are gaining support as members of the community realize that
they've been tricked.