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.

 

CNN Opinion Piece calls OathKeepers "HATRIOTS"

page: 2
66
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John P. Avlon.


Yeah, the opinions that are paid for by CNN to this staff or freelance writer. I love the way CNN can just say this, "extracting" themselves from the responsibility, but is that really true?

He stated his opinion of OathKeepers as HATRIOTS. And I stated mine back to him. Fine, freedom of speech. Is that all it is, just freedom of speech? Then why is it advertisers pull their advertising from stations when they don't agree with mere "opinions" from writers or talk show hosts? Why do they make the station pay the price?

BECAUSE THE FRICKEN STATION SHOULD PAY THE PRICE for hosting such nonsense.

[edit on Tue Mar 30th 2010 by TrueAmerican]




posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


lol, don't yell at me I agree with you.


That's why I never watch any of these networks and barely go to msn websites.

For every 1% of news there's 99% of opinion to fill airtime and webspace, and to wag the dog. And for whereas that seems to be welcome by most, I like to make my own opinions, rather than having them spoon fed to me.

As far as the so called oathkeepers, given their selective application of the "enemy of the state" tag, and cherry picking which elements of the constitution they wish to champion, I suspect that their motives are not as simple or virtuous as protecting the constitution. Seems to me this is precisely the sort of press they wish to generate for their own PR reasons and to feign teh indignity.

[edit on 30 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   


Guess what? He was elected according to the mandates of the Constitution.

The HCR bill was passed and signed into law according to the mandates of the Constitution.

If the Oath Keepers are objecting to the Constitutional system just because people they don't like are in power, then they are a domestic enemy of the Constitution. As long as they are only verbally engaged, fine. If they ever should decide to take up arms (which is laughable with these types), they should be dealt with accordingly.



Well for one, there is still a number of people that believe he is not a natural born U.S. citizen therefore in violation of the constitution.I don't necessarily agree with this one Second, the bill was passed within the bounds of the constitution, but that doesn't make it constitutional. So far there are 16 states suing the Federal Government about the constitutionality of the bill. Specifically the federal mandate under threat of penalty to purchase "adequate health insurance".

Another argument they are going for is questioning the constitutionality of federal mandates to be upheld by the states without adequate funding. Or in other words; the states believe they shouldn't be responsible for billions of dollars of costs that the healthcare reform bill will pass onto them. There were 37 states considering similar lawsuits if the bill was passed just before the house reconciliation vote. I am disappointed to see so few actually follow through.

Adding to that, Constitutionalism is actually a political philosophy based on certain principles like: Popular Sovereignty, Rule of Law, Limited Government, etc. (These ones in particular I feel are being violated by the federal government right now.) It is possible to have a constitution and still not be a constitutional government.

Anyways, just realize that these people firmly believe that the federal government is infringing on their natural rights (Most often aligned with John Locke's "Life, Liberty, Property") and are clearly prepared to defend them with their lives. I know I am, but I still have faith enough in our Democratic Republic to fight verbally for my rights so I don't have to fight physically.

Edit: is in Italics.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Dienekes]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


They don't say they are tea baggers, the sign said tea bag them before they tea bag you. Tea bagging is when someone passes out at a party and some one else hangs thier scrotum across thier eye balls, for a fun filled photo-op.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I am not going to blindly support any milita group, no matter what they claim to defend. They can claim that they will support the constitution, from foreign and domestic enemies; I am sure their membership will grow due to that claim. However, I don't trust a mob with guns anymore than I do the government controlled military. What guarantee do I have that they are going to protect the constitution when I feel like it needs to be protected?

In my opinion, there is nothing separating these groups from the mentality of a cult. They have a cause which unites them and a leader who preaches a message. There is not one thing which regulates what these groups are going to do. Some people may feel comfort knowing that they can be lead by an organization other than the government; I just see another group which is going to attempt to inflict their will upon me.

I have said this before and I will say it again; everyday certain groups are starting to look like those I was fighting overseas.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
All these "patriots" and "constitutionalists" would rather be satisfied with a bimbo as VP and a dinosaur as president.

That right there shows you the intelligence of these baffoons.




[edit on 30-3-2010 by GorehoundLarry]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OverSword
Tea bagging is when someone passes out at a party and some one else hangs thier scrotum across thier eye balls, for a fun filled photo-op.


*spits coffee*

Partial definition aside ...

All these derogatory nomenclatures from all sides are simple marketing tools to obfuscate ... I'm going on the assumption that anyone with reasoning skills exceeding that of a pummel horse can see through them.


[edit on 30 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
All these "patriots" and "constitutionalists" would rather be satisfied with a bimbo as VP and a dinosaur as president.

That right there shows you the intelligence of these baffoons.




[edit on 30-3-2010 by GorehoundLarry]


Your buffoonery prose is quite telling of your own intelligence quotient.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Perhaps the CNN publicity stunt was an off the grid offer of financial support from the CNN news network to the Oath Keepers.

"What the heck?" you ask?

Character Assassination and Public Libel, while not forms of criminal activity, ARE indeed a form of activity covered under TORT LAW, and are things liable for compensatory action under governing statutes.

I wouldn't be suprised to learn that the Oath Keepers take CNN to court - suing for 'damages'.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PACRIM
 


I see you missed the humor on that post.

That's the Palin/Republican way of spelling ^_~



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Of course he is. Just like the people he's standing up for, he's disgusted by the Constitution and what it actually says, and instead prefers an imaginary version that totally mirrors his own political views and personal opinions.

The oathkeepers are just another bunch of rubes who are pissed that the US government isn't bowing to their tiny voice in the wilderness.


Oathkeepers & teabaggers in a nutshell:

Area Man Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Constitution to Be



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by OverSword
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


They don't say they are tea baggers, the sign said tea bag them before they tea bag you. Tea bagging is when someone passes out at a party and some one else hangs thier scrotum across thier eye balls, for a fun filled photo-op.



By the rules of English, anyone who verbs is by definition a verb-er:

I drive, therefore I'm a driver.

You run - you're a runner.

You teabag - you're a teabagger.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
[

Guess what? He was elected according to the mandates of the Constitution.

The HCR bill was passed and signed into law according to the mandates of the Constitution.

If the Oath Keepers are objecting to the Constitutional system just because people they don't like are in power, then they are a domestic enemy of the Constitution. As long as they are only verbally engaged, fine. If they ever should decide to take up arms (which is laughable with these types), they should be dealt with accordingly.



dont know, isnt it against the law to require people to buy something? It is 100% against the law in Virginia, don't know about other places.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Guess what? He was elected according to the mandates of the Constitution.



Guess what? Acorn was involved in widespread election fraud. Show me that article in the Constitution that allows that. If you call me a liar, it's because you didn't hear about it on the CNNs or MSNBCs.




The HCR bill was passed and signed into law according to the mandates of the Constitution.


Does the Constitution mandate that congress ramrod through legislation that the majority of the American people OPPOSE, and made it clear that they opposed it?




If the Oath Keepers are objecting to the Constitutional system just because people they don't like are in power, then they are a domestic enemy of the Constitution. As long as they are only verbally engaged, fine. If they ever should decide to take up arms (which is laughable with these types), they should be dealt with accordingly.



Why don't you go back a couple steps and read the Declaration of Independence. According to it AND the Constitution, the government operates at the behest of the people. At least that's how it is designed. It certainly isn't that way any more, which is why there are groups like the Oath Keepers who would like to see it restored to that status.

So friend, go school yourself a little bit before you start calling people enemies of the Constitution. The government is supposed to work for the people, not the other way around, like you believe.

The reason there are militias and Oath Keepers and Tea Party members and the like, is because the government has become a domestic enemy of the people, and they are being dealt with accordingly.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
This is actually a good sign that TPTB are scared of the growing movement to restore liberty when they sick thier attack dogs in the media to try and counter it.

Yeah of course no one on thier right mind would want men and women in military and LE to uphold thier oaths to the constitution and defend liberty of necessary...Sigh!

The communist news network has never had any credibility to begin with so I wouldn't worry to much.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
These militia groups are pretty scary. I looked around my area for any groups online. The ones I found were pretty nutty looking. Most of the sites I saw had pictures of them displaying the Gadsden flag and they all wear fatigues.

While I think some Tea Party members are also militia members I don't think its fair to group the two together.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
OathKeepers is a great organization! Have you ever had the pleasure of explaining to a Law Enforcement Officer that what he is asking/demanding is in violation of your civil rights? I have! Just make sure you get his badge number and his superior's name to make an official complaint.

Now let's say you were caught in New Orleans during Katrina, or in Galveston during Ike. You were afraid of looters, rapists or murderers entering your home, and decided to arm yourself to protect you and your family. You are visited by the "nice" local police officer/sheriff's deputy or National Guard, and they "politely" order you to surrender all your weapons or be jailed. This happened to many citizens in both locations, where most were law abiding citizens. The gang-bangers were mostly hiding from the police, but if they did catch them, they were disarmed as well. Now how about getting your firearm back? No money - too bad! Got to get a lawyer to have them back from your local police department, since they want to sell them for a profit at the local police auction.

The more your local police/fire department and military personnel sign-up with OathKeepers, less chance they will follow through with orders like seizing your weapons, and placing you in an interment camp when the time comes. Instead, they will be fighting side-by-side with us, in order to defend our Constitution - not dismantle it.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkspARCS
Perhaps the CNN publicity stunt was an off the grid offer of financial support from the CNN news network to the Oath Keepers.

"What the heck?" you ask?

Character Assassination and Public Libel, while not forms of criminal activity, ARE indeed a form of activity covered under TORT LAW, and are things liable for compensatory action under governing statutes.

I wouldn't be suprised to learn that the Oath Keepers take CNN to court - suing for 'damages'.


The truth is a defense to any action for defamation. I'd love to defend that lawsuit. The discovery alone would be huge fun. "How are you financed?" List the number and type of every weapon any member possesses."
CNN is a Time-Warner company. That's 3.32 Billion in revenues to defend with.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
the video actually defends the militias. Idunno who that chick is but she actually did a good job reporting.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by DarkspARCS
Perhaps the CNN publicity stunt was an off the grid offer of financial support from the CNN news network to the Oath Keepers.

"What the heck?" you ask?

Character Assassination and Public Libel, while not forms of criminal activity, ARE indeed a form of activity covered under TORT LAW, and are things liable for compensatory action under governing statutes.

I wouldn't be suprised to learn that the Oath Keepers take CNN to court - suing for 'damages'.


The truth is a defense to any action for defamation. I'd love to defend that lawsuit. The discovery alone would be huge fun. "How are you financed?" List the number and type of every weapon any member possesses."
CNN is a Time-Warner company. That's 3.32 Billion in revenues to defend with.


AS if CNN is going to liquidate their entire company defending a lawsuit. Drooling over the potential fee, are ya?




top topics



 
66
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join