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.

 

Should "Truthers" be allowed to hold political office?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Was travelling to Chicago on Friday and tuned in one of the FOX channels on my Sirius radio. John Gibson was doing his show and the topic was that of Van Jones and his eventual departure from the Obama Administration. However, what really struck me was the tone with which Gibson and other in the studio attacked Van Jones because he was a "truther" and had signed several petitions asking for an inquiry into 9/11.

Gibson then went on to say that he believed that no "truther" should have any place in any adminsitration and that they shouldn't be allowed to have a voice in politics. He then went on to say that any "truther" out there in politics right now should step down and then called out Ron Paul to do so.

Now, I was pretty angry at this point. We should have freedom of speech and the right to our opinions. How is what Gibson says any different then the blatant censorship shown by some of the communist nations regarding the treatment of its citizens?

So, what do you folks believe. Should "truthers" be permitted to hold political office or should "truthers" be looked at as some vile attempt to defile the fact that we were attacked and that people died.




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 



Gibson then went on to say that he believed that no "truther" should have any place in any adminsitration and that they shouldn't be allowed to have a voice in politics. He then went on to say that any "truther" out there in politics right now should step down and then called out Ron Paul to do so.


Have you missed the weeks on end of MSM "journalists" questioning every Republican guest to see if they are birthers?



The problem with truthers is that they aren't at all interested in truth. They are interested in confirming they're anti-US government bias and tendencies to apologize for terrorists.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
If we allow known Communists and socialists to hold office as well as Christian Fundamentalists why the heck is a "birther" or a "truther" any different? We have freedom of speech do we not as well as redress of grievances. Oh Forgive me I forgot the Constitution is just a piece of toilet paper....



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
What happened to Van Jones should concern everyone. My goodness, half of all of us on ATS would be ineligible to serve our country by those standards.

Big deal, so he signed a petition asking for further investigation into 9/11. OMG!



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wimbly
 


Truthers aren't showing up with guns or threatening to kill the President.

But they do have a right to their opinion. As do you, though yours seems mostly one-sided.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Wimbly
 

Originally posted by Wimbly
Have you missed the weeks on end of MSM "journalists" questioning every Republican guest to see if they are birthers?

The problem with truthers is that they aren't at all interested in truth. They are interested in confirming they're anti-US government bias and tendencies to apologize for terrorists.

All I can say is, How dare you sir???

First, there simply is no comparison between birthers and truthers, and any attempt to draw such a comparison is inherently false-on-its-face. I'll illustrate my point: There are those that question the truth/thoroughness/accuracy of the Warren Report. There are those that believe we had prior knowledge to Pearl Harbor. We have done false flag operations in the past, and that is an indisputable fact. Yet those who wish to look further into the JFK investigation, or want to know what really happened on that day that still lives in infamy, or desire that we not cover up the truth of our sometimes ugly past, all of those people, are not considered loons.

Instead, in America, no one expects you to buy in to the official story without doing some critical thinking and forming your own opinions on those issues. For f*cksake, there's a museum in the book depository building in Dallas, and it does not draw conclusions, and even points out that there are still those that believe many important questions remain unanswered. No one would suggest that anyone who visits that museum is unfit for elected office in America!!?

The problem I see is that the truth movement is not part of the left/right dichotomy and should not be made to be so. I can believe that there are many unanswered questions from 9/11 and not be rabid liberal. It has nothing to do with my political affiliation, as I've stated elsewhere on this site many times, I am a Republican.

On the other hand, what are birthers? They are politically motivated and, with due respect to all on this site, generally, ignorant. I'm sorry, but it is a fact. The birth issue is silly when there are press releases from Hawaii, pictures of his mother 9 months pregnant in Hawaii, and a certificate of live birth - which has been thoroughly checked and confirmed by the State of Hawaii. And finally - most importantly - there's the test of logic - Occam's Razor - Is it more likely that someone planted those materials in news papers approximately 50 years ago, so that a Kenyan "Manchurian" candidate could take over America with Socialism years later, or . . . that a group of far right neo-cons thought it would be a good idea to wrangle people's fears over this man with the weird name, Ginsing Hitler Bee-pollen - ugh, I mean Barrack Hussein Obama, in order to discredit him??? Now, tell me, honestly,, which is more likely???

-Peace
*edit to add "Reply to" tag

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I dont have an issue with the Petions on 9-11 (although I think that the whole truthers thing is hokie). It is the "other" inflammatory remarks that were made that I have issue with. Such as the attack on Republicans earlier this year and this man's beliefs. I can understand the usual banter that Reps and Dems have-but lately this has been out of control.

I think that those issues and the poor choices in picking these "Czars" doesn't speak well of the President. Maybe the Staff Vetting process is broken or someone else is making these choices behind closed doors. I am curious about the Questionarie? I was under the impression that everyone had to fill that out as part of their National Security Clearance?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Let them try to run for office, most will find that voters won't touch them with a 10 foot pole if they can muster up the money to run. I believe someone mentioned that under such circumstance where birthers and truthers couldn't run for office that most of ATS would be disqualified as well, and honestly that would be a good thing because after seeing some of the ideas that people float here with no backing research or supporting evidence I don't think I would want such people making decisions that directly affect my life.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 



Truthers aren't showing up with guns or threatening to kill the President.

But they do have a right to their opinion. As do you, though yours seems mostly one-sided.


Who is showing up with guns and threatening to kill the president? I remember lots of democrats/liberals threatening Bush, but not I cant think of anyone who has threatened Obama.


What happened to Van Jones should concern everyone. My goodness, half of all of us on ATS would be ineligible to serve our country by those standards.

Big deal, so he signed a petition asking for further investigation into 9/11. OMG!


Hes a communist who wants to change the country in an image he agrees with. Communism goes against the Constitution. He has no business working in our government.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
So, let me simply this. If one believes that there is more to the official story of what happened on 9/11 and would like to know the truth, they are anit-government and a threat to our republic and therefore should be barred from all political discourse?

Would our forefathers have thought the same way?

When did the term "truther" take on a negative connotation? If "truther" imples an individual who is anti-government and apologizes for the actions of terrorists, then what term should be given to those who honestly seek the truth of the events on that fateful day?

Are we as citizens to blindly accept whatever is put in front of us? Are we not allowed to challenge those in positions of power? Is it not our right? But, does this challenge come with a price that our voices should not be heard via political offices? Has the two-party system done away with the ability of Americans to ask the hard questions and still have respect in the eyes of voters?

I can't believe that from now on in order to be elected to any political office, one must accept without question the events that transpired on 9/11 as told to us by the MSM, the WH and the 9/11 Commission Report.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
Hes a communist who wants to change the country in an image he agrees with. Communism goes against the Constitution. He has no business working in our government.


I agere with this as this ideaology is in direct opposition to the principles and ideas with which this country was founded on. But, this is an entirely different argument than someone being dismissed from holding political office out of hand because of their view on the events of 9/11.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 



But, this is an entirely different argument than someone being dismissed from holding political office out of hand because of their view on the events of 9/11.


That was just the straw that broke the camel's back. You cant wag your finger about conspiracy theorist for weeks and then allow a 9/11, communist truther to be in your administration.

Some of the posts in here are amazingly hypocritical. Hard to beleive how people fools themselves.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Wimbly
 


Can you clarify this statement?


You cant wag your finger about conspiracy theorist for weeks and then allow a 9/11, communist truther to be in your administration.


Who's 'we' and who was wagging their finger.

And am I to believe from your remark that people that don't accept the party line on what happened on 9/11 are communists? You seem to lump those things together.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Leave it to FOX! Those whacky guys!
Plain and simple, freedom of speech. It doesn't matter WHAT an officeholder thinks, if he's legally quallified to hold office and duly elected, then he holds office. It's a ridiculous question. Freedom of speech is absolute ( except for shouting fire, etc.), if a "truther" were elected, I guess we could assume his constituents would share his beliefs. We have everyone from far far right to socialists holding office, that's good for the country. Since when do we have some standard of beliefs that must be met to hold office?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Wimbly
 


My original statement:



Truthers aren't showing up with guns or threatening to kill the President.



Notice the "or". Not "and".

Sorry if you've missed the headlines but people are showing up at town halls with guns. Any reasonable person would conclude that there is an implied threat there.

Additionally, Obama is receiving a record number of death threats compared to other Presidents.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 




The problem with truthers is that they aren't at all interested in truth. They are interested in confirming they're anti-US government bias and tendencies to apologize for terrorists.


Once again a 'debunker' COMPLETELY misses the point on describing us 'truthers'. Typical. That's the only way you guys can continue to try and fight with us. You try to belittle (typical political move), misdirect (typical political move), twist our statements around to YOUR meaning (typical political move) and on and on and on.

Truth? Yes, we are VERY interested in the truth. Why? Because we have a FEAR for our government. It has shown in the past over and over that it is very willing to LIE to us. That it is willing to sacrifice some of our own to further their agenda and to justify the means to an end. They have done tests on innocents without their knowledge that led to either extreme health issues or even death.

Yet you want us to simply swallow the bowl of puke that they have provided us for what took place nearly 8 years ago? Without question? Without doing what our forefathers established this nation on?

No, we are not "interested in confirming they're anti-US government bias and tendencies to apologize for terrorists." What we are doing is no longer eating the garbage they feed us to control the masses 'for our own good' because they obviously know what is best for us.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


The problem is that these people are showing up with weapons WITH PERMITS! Are you honestly saying that we should NOT be allowed to hold arms? Because if that is what you are pushing for then we all might as well get on our knees and give praise to the new dictatorship that would ensue in this nation. There is a very REAL reason that amendment was written. The easiest way to control the people is to take away any means for them to defend themselves against a corrupt government.

As for the threats to the president. That is always happening. It is NEVER right. I don't care WHAT he is perceived as doing. It is NEVER right.

So, to reiterate, these people have all the rights in this nation to show up to these town halls with their guns. It's their right as long as they are doing it legally. It is being blown completely out of proportion by the left because they want to make it appear that the right are gun toting loons. Well, that's not the case. Also, have you had a chance to see some of the hired thugs being brought in to bully the people who disagree with the health plan? It's both sides playing the game of division. And its working.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
van jones is praticly a card carrying commie and him being a 'truther' is a cover up so the sleepwalkers won't know the real truth behind this freaking 'czar' selection (this cazr SNIP needs to stop)

and of course truthers should be in office; we need some truth in d.c.


[edit on 9-9-2009 by AmericanDaughter]

[Mod edit Please review - do not evade the automatic censors

[edit on 9/9/2009 by yeahright]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


If you will re-read my posts you'll plainly see I never said anything of the sort. Besides, I'm sure everyone realizes that gun rights are an entirely different thread.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Thread Notice:

Please let's stay on topic, Everyone. The topic for discussion is whether or not 'Truthers' should be allowed to hold political office. Not gun carriers at protests or the 'birther' movement.

Thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join