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.

 

An innocent mistake I’m sure

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

I think the moral of this story is that who you vote for has nothing to do with what the media does or doesn’t do.

Can’t wait to vote against Republicans!!!!




posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft


Pathetic, these media organizations should have their broadcast licenses revoked when such sloppy journalism is exposed for what it is


Yeah, no. We definitely don't need government censors censoring the news media, particularly domestic. In fact, I'm sure you'd agree that it's a problem that a few corporate executives can deplatform anyone on a whim?



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Sublimecraft


Pathetic, these media organizations should have their broadcast licenses revoked when such sloppy journalism is exposed for what it is


Yeah, no. We definitely don't need government censors censoring the news media, particularly domestic. In fact, I'm sure you'd agree that it's a problem that a few corporate executives can deplatform anyone on a whim?


In boot camp, if one minion #s up, the whole platoon suffers - the US military uses this method because its the best way to ensure a standard is maintained across a collective group of individuals - self policing from within its own ranks.

"A chain is only as strong as its weakest link"



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull


There's nothing at all wrong with acknowledging Lee's talents as a general, and as a leader.


There's nothing innately wrong with acknowledging the sophistication of a terrorist organization either. That doesn't mean you get in front of a bunch of Americans and talk about how great the 9/11 pilots' aims were. Point being, context matters.

In this context, it seems like he was actually making a point about how Grant was a raging alcoholic but he was still good at his job. Was this something about Kavanaugh?

Anyway, shame on NBC. People should call this stuff out.

What's absurd is seeing the same people, who habitually link to all kinds of garbage from sketchy sources and zealously support a uniquely dishonest president, concern trolling about accuracy in the media or dishonesty in general.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

That is exactly Trumps playbook! To a T



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


What's absurd is seeing the same people, who habitually link to all kinds of garbage from sketchy sources and zealously support a uniquely dishonest president, concern trolling about accuracy in the media or dishonesty in general.


Quoted for epic irony and God-Level hilarity.

Thanks for the giggle sweety.




posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SofaKing

A perfect example of what I said in this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: rickymouse

Exactly.

I don't care if people are offended by my opinion on Lee. He was a gentleman, and a warrior. His actions after the surrender show that for all to see who can be bothered to look.

Some, perhaps even most, of his officers wanted to conduct a guerrilla war, he admonished them to not do that, that the war was over, and that the healing should begin.

That Grant was equally magnanimous in victory, made the aftermath much easier than it might other wise have been. Not that there weren't issues, of course, there were...but it could have been so much worse.

Magnanimity in victory, as well as defeat, as demonstrated by those two fine officer and gentlemen is a lesson some could learn these days...not just in Washington DC, either.


Of course Grant was magnanimous with the victory.. he got to keep his slaves.


U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn’t free his slaves earlier, Grant stated “Good help is so hard to come by these days.”


The civil war had nothing really to do with slaves... it had everything to do with the 10th Amendment, which really got in the way of the Northern banksters.




posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Trump tweeted a "Thank You" about an hour ago to NBC for correcting their error.

He included NBC's tweeted CORRECTION along with the full original clip.

If President Trump didn't tweet, we wouldn't know half the crap that is done to our president by the media on a daily basis.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

That must have been an insightful response because it's got 5 stars already but I have no idea what argument you're making in favor of government censorship.

When I think about society, I rarely ask myself, "What would the military do?" Because the military is a totalitarian regime and people who live under it are told where to live, assigned jobs and have their speech controlled.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, Robert E Lee was an incredible soldier too. Just because he was not on the winning side does not mean he was a bad general. Why do people get their tits in a bundle over stuff like this? I suppose I will get my a$$ chewed out for saying a common phrase in day's of old now.


From what I have read on what Trump has said, you're sort of right.

It's like people who say Rommel was a good general, sure he was on the Nazi's side, but you can still admire from a military point of view that he was good at what he did, and had some redeeming values in him.

But he did give Lee a little bit of a 'front stage' almost hero status to be honest, like Achilles, or Genghis Khan.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari




The civil war had nothing really to do with slaves... it had everything to do with the 10th Amendment, which really got in the way of the Northern banksters.


No, no, no, no... please, just no.

The entire war was literally (signed and in description in the declaration of secession from the southern states) that they were leaving for the main purpose of upholding the institution of slavery, as a means of political and economic power, under the guise of states rights. Which of course they were entitled too, but for the reasons, were immoral and ethically wrong, and was a ploy to rip apart the union instead of strengthening it, all because Lincoln and the republicans won the election.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: SofaKing

Of course they did. And I am sure there will be naysayers saying he really meant Lee while speaking in Ohio where Grant was from.


www.ohiohistorycentral.org...

Ulysses Simpson Grant was a U.S. military leader and the eighteenth President of the United States. He was born Hiram Ulysses Grant on April 27, 1822, in Point Pleasant, Ohio



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: SofaKing
In fact there was nothing wrong with calling Robert E. Lee a great general. Politics has nothing to do with it. Greatness in a general is about military skills, and Lee was putting up a hard fight using inferior resources.
Like Rommel. One can praise Rommel, as a military leader, without being committed to the politics of Hitler.

However, even I know that general Grant came from Ohio. It should not have taken much journalistic genius to guess that a politician speech-making in Ohio would be praising the "native son".


Exactly, as one piece I read about it noted, Trump praised Lee for being the military genius he was (he is widely known as one of the best generals in history) and then after building him up went on to note that Grant was better.

Now, I'm not sure that we can overall call Grant a better military general, but Grant did indeed win the war.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: SofaKing

Took two days for them to actually watch the tape they initially reported on. Mmkay.




mobile.twitter.com...


I was there in the crowd...15 ft. away from Trump when he said it.
I knew NBC was lying, the moment I read it.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Trump tweeted a "Thank You" about an hour ago to NBC for correcting their error.

He included NBC's tweeted CORRECTION along with the full original clip.

If President Trump didn't tweet, we wouldn't know half the crap that is done to our president by the media on a daily basis.

That is why they hate him being able to communicate directly with the people.
No networks
No handlers
It is truly a brave new world



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Sublimecraft

That must have been an insightful response because it's got 5 stars already but I have no idea what argument you're making in favor of government censorship.

When I think about society, I rarely ask myself, "What would the military do?" Because the military is a totalitarian regime and people who live under it are told where to live, assigned jobs and have their speech controlled.


The media, just like the military, have assigned to them by government special rights and privileges not afforded to average Joe because government acknowledges the importance of media and the associated dissemination of information and propaganda upon the public.

So, the media is held to a higher account so when one of their soldiers fails, lies, cheats, steals, leaks, they should be taken to task with significant repercussions for any involvement in knowingly distorting facts.

Revoke the broadcast license for NBC, let the employees sort it out as to why it happened and to come to a resolution as to how to ensure it doesn't happen again. Then all employees seek employment elsewhere (since NBC can't media without a license).

^^That's called 'consequential effect resultant from actions'



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Conservatives are an odd bunch. So many defend the Confederacy and its symbolism at every opportunity. That part at least makes a certain sense because maintaining slavery and later the oppression of slaves and their descendants (Jim Crow, segregation, etc) were conservative causes.

What really boggles the mind is how the same folks are also all, "Lincoln was a Republican! The Democrats created the KKK!"

And then a half hour later they're in some other thread to trying to figure out a defense for a neo-Nazi plowing over a bunch of protesters at a Charlottesville rally for various flavors of racists.

No sooner have they finished white knighting neo-Nazis then they're in some thread talking about how Nazism is really a left-wing ideology.

a reply to: Lumenari


The civil war had nothing really to do with slaves


So, are you prepared to defend this particularly absurd revisionist talking point or is it more of the usual?

The Confederate states were quite clear about why they seceded. They literally wrote Declarations of Causes:

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Georgia's first paragraph:


The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.


And here's how Mississippi's starts:


In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.


Next up, South Carolina. Again, right up front:


The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.


And with Texas? Well damn, here it is again — and right up front:


The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?


Virginia. First paragraph:


The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.


Should we continue with your deprogramming?



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

But in the end if they stayed in the union and demanded slavery there would have been no war.



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft


The media, just like the military, have assigned to them by government special rights and privileges not afforded to average Joe because government acknowledges the importance of media and the associated dissemination of information and propaganda upon the public.


No.

The "special right" to which you refer is the freedom of the press, which is literally the right to be free of government censorship. So right off the bat, you've got a self-contradictory premise: that the right to be free of government censorship is itself justification for government censorship.

Furthermore, the freedom of the press extends right down to the level of the individual (the "average Joe" as you put it). A lone independent journalist is afforded the same constitutional protection as NBC.

You seem to be be suggesting that having a broadcast license is some sort of special designation by the government that entitles its holder to special First Amendment protections which is not even remotely close to being the case.

The only rights granted to a broadcast license holder by that license is the right to use a particular segment of the RF spectrum for broadcasting in a given geographical area.

As for the military. The military's "special right" is basically to operate a totalitarian regime that greatly restricts the rights of those in the military.




top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join