It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


911 protest on FOX NEWS- Geraldo Rivera

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:04 AM
I knew Woodstock was upstate and not close by. I just mentioned it cause it was in my original search.

I was not aware that the NYC event was no where close to FOX Studios. You may be right about why they are there. Its obviously a question worth asking. If they went with the intention of disrupting a live broadcast, it may be against some law or ordinance of some kind. Anyone familiar with NY Law or City Ordinances that could clarify?

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:16 AM

Originally posted by djohnsto77
But I do like FOX News in general.

My god why ?

For people asking how and why Alex Jones was singled out for arrest, I guarantee NYPD knew who he was. Is there any doubt the feds have a "dossier" on him ? For the record, I think most of his theories are over-sensational.

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:17 AM
There would be no other reason for them to be there save for FOX. That area is almost all business and would be relatively empty on a weekend night. If they wanted pedestrians to see them, they would have gone just a few blocks away to Times Square which would be packed with people.

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:19 AM
reply to post by djohnsto77

I have to agree with that point. There did seem to be quite a few spectators there as well though from what I was able to see when they did the long view shots

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:24 AM

Originally posted by section8citizen
Anyone familiar with NY Law or City Ordinances that could clarify?

They are attempting to or already have banned all public filming in NYC, so the filming Alex Jones was doing would be illegal. Hopefully that law will never pass[if it hasn't already] since NYC is far from private property.

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:49 AM
No filming or photography, means the only news of what's going on there will come from mass media.

[edit on 9-9-2007 by pai mei]

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:55 AM
They had the news about 20 feet from them and let it get away.

Surely any decent broadcaster would have made the most of this situation, found out what they wanted/are protesting about and done an impromptu piece on it.

What we get instead is name calling, and interruptions with non-news about some hooters girl.

I see a lot of talk about the protest possibly being illegal, that should make it even more interesting to the news company, they should cover that aspect as well.

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:56 AM
reply to post by CanadianVandal

That's ridiculously untrue! They're requiring a permit for commercial film making, not banning all of it!

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:00 AM
I do not feel there is anything illegal about the protest regardless. It is our First Amendment right. The Bill Of Rights does not dictate WHEN or WHERE people can Peacefully Assemble and protest. It is simply our right to do so.

I would think that filming would be well within your rights also. Let me take a wild guess...... Did they argue that terrorist could be filming as a way of preparing for future attacks? Hence why it should be banned?

[edit on 9/9/2007 by section8citizen]

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:35 AM
What he did in a Republic is not illegal, but we live in a fascist state.

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:44 AM

That's ridiculously untrue! They're requiring a permit for commercial film making, not banning all of it!

And that's ridiculously incomplete. What they brand as ``commercial film making`` is when you film for more than 15 minutes. Anyone with a camera with filming more than 15 minutes is arrested. And the majority of the time, they don't give a heck and arrest right away, they don't care if there's no law, they arrest you. So it's basically arresting anyone who have a camera.

In New York, there's 2 types of police, the nazis, those who arrested Alex and those who obey Bloomberg anti-constitutional laws, and the patriots, those who don't do a thing and/or support any protests because it's their CONSTITUTIONALS RIGHTS.

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:52 AM
GERALDO IS NOTHING BUT A HYPOCRITE- and i'll tell you all why.

Perhaps some of you or all of you missed it, but when this war first started, no, go back, BEFORE the war started, he was totally against Bush and then the WAR. He said so ONCE.

THEN HE CHANGED HIS TUNE. Next thing i knew he was embedded in the war, reporting, bla bla bla....Nothing like wanting real badly to keep that job and put food on the table.

He's nothing but a hypocrite. You dont change your mind overnight.
The desire for food on the table and keeping up his standard of living is overwhelming, and he lies to keep that standard.

Nothing like a lying reporter. He's a loser.

I catch things where others dont. You're welcome.

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 07:12 AM

and people always ask me why I watch Fox News, while I always talk bad about it... this is that exact reason. This particular program was so riddled with hypocrisy (and IRONY - when they mentioned that word themselves!) that my head is spinning.

I would love to see the entire show in it's entirety.

anyone else remember when Geraldo was like a Jerry Springer with less morals?

[edit on 9-9-2007 by scientist]

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 07:25 AM
i'll tell you something if this had happened in the U.K .. mr geraldo would now be unemployed and front page news of every newspaper we got.

there would be an uproar.

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 07:37 AM
lol. geraldo rivera is evil man.

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 07:58 AM

Originally posted by jedimiller
lol. geraldo rivera is evil man.
He's looking for his paycheck, by hook or by crook.
Oh yes, he's very moral. Just ask his previous wives and children.

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 08:03 AM
As if having the entire Stephen Colbert fanbase pissed off at you isn't enough, Geraldo is now hated by most of the conspiracy community... great job, that will really boost your ratings!

I don't know why he had to continously insult them just for protesting, that's clearly just asking for people to interrupt his shows in the future. I doubt they'd show it on air, but I think it's safe to assume that at least one person is going to have an outburst on his show and be taken out by security.

Does Geraldo have a news show now or wtf? I thought it was a daytime talk show...

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by jedimiller

I agree.

Saying "I think these demonstrators are all into restroom gay sex" on television is unprofessional and unethical. If I was a member of that crowd that would be very offending to me whether I was straight or gay. An opinion on the events of 9-11 has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation or sexual activities and I don't think Geraldo is going to mustache his way out of this one.

I will put in a recomendation for you to send him through time.

I can't tell if it's my fingers, keyboard or brain but I keep leaving words and letters out of things.

[edit on 9/9/2007 by Spoodily]

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 08:12 AM
So like who takes Geraldo seriously? Besides faux "news" that is.

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by dgtempe

just the notion of being enbedded with Geraldo Rivera is enough to make my skin crawl.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in