CBS show 60 minutes gets caught in sensationalist, biased and faulty reporting…

reply to post by illuminnaughty


Absolutely Iluminnaughty !

But more to the point, I know as a fact that 60 Minutes journalists Diane Sawyer(ABC News) and Katie Couric are both Council on Foreign Relations members....

So there's the source of their influential journalistic programming and marching orders.

You can find the member roster here ....and look up a number our well known MSM Television Journalists" such as Brian Williams who hosts NBC nightly news.

Katherine A. Couric
www.cfr.org...

Diane Sawyer
www.cfr.org...

Brian D. Williams (NBC)
www.cfr.org...

reply to post by GhostLancer


You tell how we are supposed to change or help evolve the government in a legal sense when 95% of them are corrupt or just don't care. When our rights are slowly being taken away even more than they already were.

I have been overseas in Iraq and honestly after being over there I have lost a lot of respect for Americans in general. This is because all I ever hear is what can do you for me or I want this. We have become a greedy society that does not care about their neighbors or community thanks to all this innovation. People expect the government to handle all their problems, what happened to personal responsibility?

These sovereign people are doing exactly what we all should since it's fine for oh GE. We should all be sovereign people living in say New York or the likes and not citizen slaves as we are today. So you go ahead and keep feeding money to the politicians who are just going to throw it away on "social" programs or reconstruction all the while filling their pockets and ensuring they are protected from the laws they make.

You guys sound like abunch of far far right wingers, and you guys sound like you hold far far right wing ideals.. Which does not do good at going against the 60 minutes point of view, it almost helps them really.

Also you seem to be bringing less facts to the table, all i have seen here is "no its not!" and then insults...

::edit to add:: A simple google picture search kinda says alot also, still not good for the sovereign citizens side.

reply to post by User8911


That's a little silly...

You seem a bit too paranoid. i highly doubt a radio station would send subliminal messages. But that's just the logical person speaking in me.

FACT CHECK:

It is worth noting in the spirit of "Denying Ignorance" that the article linked in opening post was written by a FORMER writer of Wall Street Journal:

online.wsj.com...

Jeff Opdyke RESIGNED in March 20th of this year. Further the letter DID NOT appear in WSJ which might be misconstrued by vague nature of thread author.

I may be new at this but have fond appreciation of facts and site motto.

Respectfully, MD.

“Sovereign Citizens,” You guys should stop in a few cop forums and read or watch what they think of a “Sovereign Citizen,” THEY DONT LIKE THEM

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
You guys sound like abunch of far far right wingers, and you guys sound like you hold far far right wing ideals.. Which does not do good at going against the 60 minutes point of view, it almost helps them really.

Also you seem to be bringing less facts to the table, all i have seen here is "no its not!" and then insults...

::edit to add:: A simple google picture search kinda says alot also, still not good for the sovereign citizens side.

edit on 19-5-2011 by ShogunAssassins because: (no reason given)

I'm with you. Who in their right mind expects to live in America and not pay taxes or expect to pay their fair share? Perhaps if:

- they don't have kids in public school system
- they don't drive on roads or highways or utilize govt subsidized mass transit
- don't expect to have fire dept show up at their burning house
- don't expect to receive police services for theft, assault or other crimes
- etc.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. I was thankful to watch the 60 Minutes segment in question when it aired to learn more about groups that support these antiquated notions be they violent or not. What sheer lunacy.

Perhaps more ironic is how the thread author chastised 60 Minutes for factual journalistic integrity and then purports to mislead readers by inferring the letter excerpt was written by current WSJ reporter or appeared in that publication. As I pointed out in my last post, it did not.

Geez as a noob I am already wondering about how this site. I suppose I expected a higher standard of ethics.

reply to post by MaskedDebater


I'm fine with paying my fair share, but when it is going to service a debt burden owed to a private bank FOR PRINTING OUR CURRENCY, when our founding documents say that the government has the right to coin our currency, well, then you can see where some people might take issue to that.

Originally posted by MaskedDebater

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
You guys sound like abunch of far far right wingers, and you guys sound like you hold far far right wing ideals.. Which does not do good at going against the 60 minutes point of view, it almost helps them really.

Also you seem to be bringing less facts to the table, all i have seen here is "no its not!" and then insults...

::edit to add:: A simple google picture search kinda says alot also, still not good for the sovereign citizens side.

edit on 19-5-2011 by ShogunAssassins because: (no reason given)

I'm with you. Who in their right mind expects to live in America and not pay taxes or expect to pay their fair share? Perhaps if:

- they don't have kids in public school system
- they don't drive on roads or highways or utilize govt subsidized mass transit
- don't expect to have fire dept show up at their burning house
- don't expect to receive police services for theft, assault or other crimes
- etc.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. I was thankful to watch the 60 Minutes segment in question when it aired to learn more about groups that support these antiquated notions be they violent or not. What sheer lunacy.

Perhaps more ironic is how the thread author chastised 60 Minutes for factual journalistic integrity and then purports to mislead readers by inferring the letter excerpt was written by current WSJ reporter or appeared in that publication. As I pointed out in my last post, it did not.

Geez as a noob I am already wondering about how this site. I suppose I expected a higher standard of ethics.

I hope you welcome a response. I mean no disrespect, but disagreement seems to be in the air on the matter of the principles some have been discussing here. It appears to me from your comments that you believe that simply discussing this issue is somehow justifies a generalization you apply, in my humble opinion, incorrectly.

Who in their right mind expects to live in America and not pay taxes or expect to pay their fair share?

I recognize this is a patently rhetorical question. And I can offer an answer with which I think some may agree:

Not one person in this ongoing dialog has stated that they expect not to pay taxes. What I have seen is a notional desire expressed to no longer have to pretend that what we pay are taxes as they were intended to be used and applied. In fact, a great portion of these taxes cannot be, by any means other than disingenuous and circuitous logic, defined as anything other than a tax on the fruits of our labor which some consider socio-economically equivalent to vassalage.

- they don't have kids in public school system
- they don't drive on roads or highways or utilize govt subsidized mass transit
- don't expect to have fire dept show up at their burning house
- don't expect to receive police services for theft, assault or other crimes
- etc.

The public school system is paid for by the states individually. State taxes are not being debated here, but I thought you might like to know its not part of the equation. While the Federal government does occasionally offer subsidies and programs, these are what many conservatives call "pork" since they are not equally applied or available to all schools. But... such subsidies and financial support as the Federal government offers is all "BORROWED" from the federal reserve, and no part of your federal income tax money goes there.

Aside from Interstates, the same applies to roads or highways.

Same for Fire Departments (I think)

Same for First responders in general....

There is no such thing as a free lunch

Tell that to the the board of the Federal Reserve Bank.

...these antiquated notions...

Yes. These notions are very old, and at the time they were adopted, they were referred to as "self-evident." But if you'd like to discuss the actual subject of personal sovereignty, I'm all for it. You see, some seem to think it has something to do with money, they are incorrect.

Insofar as money is affected, it's about the idea that if you are expected to give someone some of your wealth, it is reasonable to receive equal value in return. Yet as the system functions now, we will never get ANYTHING in return for our federal income tax because we are paying off a ballooning debt we - the citizens paying the bill - did not incur - as will our children - and their children... all under the auspices of a business venture known as the Federal Reserve Bank. A form of government was intentionally designed to resist this situation, but the political machinery in place does not abide by that principle. Citizens should be able to challenge this situation and have it remedied by their authority, but there is no redress. This fact seems to compel some citizens to action that the government and it's supporting appendages classify as...

sheer lunacy.

Perhaps more ironic is how the thread author chastised 60 Minutes for factual journalistic integrity and then purports to mislead readers by inferring the letter excerpt was written by current WSJ reporter or appeared in that publication. As I pointed out in my last post, it did not.

As for the presentation of the OP, I confess, I am more concerned with the substance of the debate. Having glossed over the OP I strongly doubt any reason to invoke irony, and pursuing it is beside the point to which I am referring in this response. What you refer to as factual journalistic integrity is debatable. In what way is this so exemplary, as to merit that somewhat grandiose description? I confess to some degree of bias when reviewing for profit media productions; they tend to disappoint me often, but perhaps I am too harsh.

Geez as a noob I am already wondering about how this site. I suppose I expected a higher standard of ethics.

I have to say I'm impressed. And the idea of noob isn't a notion that I include in my estimation of people. I can see that you are well informed and capable of great dialog. I am hoping it happens.

By the way, ethics is a strong thing to say people don't have. I can only urge you to re-assess that jab. Passions get the best of us sometimes, I would like to hear what you have to say, but you don't need to attack.

Be well.

Originally posted by Maxmars

The public school system is paid for by the states individually. State taxes are not being debated here, but I thought you might like to know its not part of the equation. While the Federal government does occasionally offer subsidies and programs, these are what many conservatives call "pork" since they are not equally applied or available to all schools. But... such subsidies and financial support as the Federal government offers is all "BORROWED" from the federal reserve, and no part of your federal income tax money goes there.

Thanks for the benefit of your reply. While I could easily go tit for tat on your epistle, I'll just offer but one CLEAR EXAMPLE of your debatable response regarding FEDERAL FUNDING of Education as it relates to former administration's policy of No Child Left Behind:

Since enactment, Congress increased federal funding of education from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. Funding tied to NCLB received a 40.4% increase from $17.4 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion. The funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion.[6]
During his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama announced that NCLB will be replaced. [7]

en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry for the Wiki quote but the point is FEDERAL FUNDING DOES go towards Public Education at state/local level.

Respectfully MD

ADDING ADDITIONAL CONTENT TO ORIGINAL POST:

The U.S. Constitution leaves the responsibility for public K-12 education with the states.
The responsibility for K-12 education rests with the states under the Constitution. There is also a compelling national interest in the quality of the nation's public schools. Therefore, the federal government, through the legislative process, provides assistance to the states and schools in an effort to supplement, not supplant, state support. The primary source of federal K-12 support began in 1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

In fairness, although this DOES SUPPORT your claim it also lends credence to Federal funding aspect. However here are more examples of Federal funding from same source:

Total taxpayer investment in K-12 education in the United States for the 2004-05 school year is estimated to be $536 billion.

Most federal funds are sent directly to states and local school districts for their use in schools.

K-12 education is funded at the federal level through a variety of laws and programs.

Link to above citations:
www2.ed.gov...

I am merely striving to illustrate Federal Funding does, in fact, go towards local schools. Hence shirking one's federal taxes do DIRECTLY take advantage of this fact if no Federal taxes are paid by individuals and they have children enrolled in Public School System.

The debate over education funding is a smokescreen to hide the spending of more money to give jobs to unqualified people....to "get on the public teat" and draw a check the rest of their lives....just another federal boondoggle....

reply to post by MaskedDebater


As I have already mentioned... The post was made hastily, so mistakes can be made. Time was running out on me during my lunch break. So now that that's cleared up, we can continue to discuss the thread topic.

reply to post by ShogunAssassins



If you believe that the following are far right sites, take a look again...

www.sovereignsociety.com...


sovereignlife.com...


www.sovereignman.com...

Originally posted by TheBandit795
reply to post by MaskedDebater

 

As I have already mentioned... The post was made hastily, so mistakes can be made. Time was running out on me during my lunch break. So now that that's cleared up, we can continue to discuss the thread topic.

Odd then that you are seeking leniency for presenting misleading and nonfactual information due to haste yet quick to criticize the TOPIC of this discussion, 60 Minutes for same.

Is there some sort of double standard for tolerance of accuracy on this site I'm not yet privy to as a new member?

Respectfully, MD.

reply to post by MaskedDebater


Odd, it's seems you are making a virtual non-issue be the main issue here . Had I done this in my free time I would've taken much more time researching him, and would've found out that he has quit, and I would have posted the word "former" in there.

You're grasping at straws here.

reply to post by TheBandit795

Originally posted by TheBandit795
You're grasping at straws here.

Fair enough then although I prefer the term striving for factual clarity. I'm still learning the ropes here but thought we were meant to engage in spirited debate and pose dissenting viewpoints. I suppose this story was just meant to stir the pot and receive high fives from like thinkers.

It is apparent to me that the similarity of names "Sovereign Citizen" and Sovereign Society" is the primary source of ambiguity. While I hold 60 Minutes to a high standard I also think ATS should meet same criteria as so many here are vocal opponents of Main Stream Media. But I suppose my time here will tell.

Where I come from they have a name for those whose intent is to obtain a free ride off of the American system by tax avoidance, working under the table, burdening our school system and expecting free medical services....they're called illegal aliens. I suppose some feel it is a birthright to do same. So enjoy your thread and best of luck in shirking the responsibility that so many of us grudgingly endure.

It is my stated purpose as a member here to fact check everything I come across and expose discrepancies. That is how I roll.

Good day....MD

Originally posted by MaskedDebater
reply to post by TheBandit795

 

Originally posted by TheBandit795
You're grasping at straws here.

...

It is apparent to me that the similarity of names "Sovereign Citizen" and Sovereign Society" is the primary source of ambiguity. While I hold 60 Minutes to a high standard I also think ATS should meet same criteria as so many here are vocal opponents of Main Stream Media. But I suppose my time here will tell.

You are free to pursue whatever standard you please. However please recognize that ATS is a community for dialog, those participating here have sought out and engaged in the discussion. 60-minutes is not a dialog, but a presentation, which no one can interrupt during it's broadcast to millions to correct misconceptions and misdirections.

We rely on each other for facts, data, and even own personal insight on matters. 60-Minutes relies on you listening and accepting their product as .... journalistically and factually beyond reproach. Here we try to reach our goals cooperatively - as best we can - whereas the media production is a "this is how it is" pronouncement by those people whom we are told deserve our adulation and respect.

Here we openly recognize that being in error is not a sin, some seem to constantly remind us that to consider the talking heads as being "in error" IS a sin. I reserve further comment in that regard, as it will likely be distasteful to those who find media-produced celebrities worthy of special esteem.

I still get the sense that you are in confrontation mode. That's discouraging. It means it's still a matter of attack and defend for you; if that is your preferred mode of discussion then, the choice is yours, but like kind responses should not be surprising.

reply to post by Maxmars

Originally posted by Maxmars
I still get the sense that you are in confrontation mode. That's discouraging. It means it's still a matter of attack and defend for you; if that is your preferred mode of discussion then, the choice is yours, but like kind responses should not be surprising.

Apologies then. It was my understanding that in the course of "Denying Ignorance" a few toes might get stepped on. I'm new here and will strive to abide. It was not my intent to be stern or gruff in pursuit of truth.

However, I stand by discovery that there was a glaring factual misrepresentation in the original post. The crux of the thread author's beef was a purported letter written by a reporter for WSJ. Odd in and of itself if we are going to question MSM at all. I merely pointed out that the letter which was touted was, in fact, NOT written by a current reporter for WSJ nor did it appear in that publication as one might be lead to believe.

Regardless, I hereby acquiesce as a welcomed guest in this forum and will strive to temper my zest for exposing what I consider to be mischaracterization of facts. Thanks for the gentle coddling as I get my ATS sea legs. Do you have ant Dry Cleaning that needs picked up? LOL

MD

reply to post by MaskedDebater


"Now serving number 8"......

Seriously though, thanks for sticking with us on this; many members in the past have demonstrated some entrenched reticence to respect differing opinions. Sadly, the more entrenched such differences are, the more some are compelled to engage in name-calling and such; which usually ends up killing the very search for factual analysis we all would prefer to pursue.

I saw a few clips from that 60 minutes segment on you tube and it infuriated me. This is pure government propaganda using a few crazy people to demonize sovereigns. When in reality 99% of people who follow the path of sovereignty are doing so because they DON'T want to resort to violence in an effort to reclaim their God given rights. I feel like everyone who says sovereigns are "crooks" or just don't want to "pay their fair share of tax" is obviously completely ignorant on what the founding principles of our country are. For example indirect taxes such as sales tax, gas tax, etc.. are legitimate and even a sovereign has to pay these. But It is the income tax that essentially constitutes slavery and is unlawful according to the constitution, which apparently many people have never read because if they did they would have noticed this little line in there; "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid,". I take leave to say that nobody should criticize unless they have done a thorough amount of research on both sides of the argument.(notice the quote in the signature, that sums it up nicely)