CNN going after the soldier who supported Ron Paul, page 4

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:28 AM

link

Originally posted by CousinMarylin

Originally posted by filosophia
Support the troops, they give us the freedom they themselves are not allowed to enjoy! Anyone else see something really wrong with this, they are telling a soldier they are not allowed to wear their uniform in public? Terrorists hate us for our freedoms.

I did not read anything like that supplied in this thread or on my own.
Can you please link me to something that says he is being told he cannot wear his uniform in public?

I wouldn't say that... I would say that his freedom of speech is being directly threatened. Your expression can be described as what you say, what you wear, your ability to protest, your works of art, your vote, or any combination of these things.

CousinMarylin

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:29 AM

link

Originally posted by Irish614
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I just totally forgot, Paul asked him up there because when the soldier was talking on CNN the feed cut out and they had to cut away. He was letting him finish what he had to say.

So after CNN just cut away in an attempt to SAVE HIS ASS FOR HIM, Ron Paul encourages him to violate the code of conduct more as a revenge move against CNN who was trying to help him and when CNN reports on it as follow up, you attack CNN and even admit using inflammatory language just to do it?

How many of you think this got anyone not already supporting Ron Paul pause and made them reconsider?
How many of you think this makes you seem confused and angry?

edit on 6-1-2012 by CousinMarylin because: (no reason given)

Shark_Feeder

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:33 AM

link

Originally posted by CousinMarylin

Originally posted by sd211212
reply to post by Irish614

UHOH the war slave made a mistake and forgot that he is owned by the slave masters. I really hope this gets big attention and more "men" that serve this country come out in full uniform. This insanity has to stop!!

Since when are you a free individual in the military? I am guessing you have never been nor know anyone who has. Actually signing your ass away to the government is exactly how it starts and no one is trying to keep that secret. Joining the US military does actually mean you are giving up some freedoms. That is what comes with the CHOICE to join. That would be why instead of joining and then whining about what it is like, some just do not join.

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are considered "unalienable".

For the record.

in·al·ien·a·ble - not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated : inalienable rights.

And to further clarify...

re·pu·di·ate, verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.

1. to reject as having no authority or binding force: to repudiate a claim.
2. to cast off or disown: to repudiate a son.
3. to reject with disapproval or condemnation: to repudiate a new doctrine.
4. to reject with denial: to repudiate a charge as untrue.
5. to refuse to acknowledge and pay (a debt), as a state, municipality, etc.

In other words even if someone signs a contract with the US military their rights are not forgotten, or denied...only trampled upon temporarily.

edit on 6-1-2012 by Shark_Feeder because: (no reason given)

CousinMarylin

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:35 AM

link

Originally posted by ugie1028
I dont know why people are reacting to this negatively. he didn't hurt anyone... he may have broken a military law... but i dont see why this upsets people.

what am i missing here?

I for one am not upset about it. But do yourself a favor and pretend this was about Bush or Obama. Yeah, you know what that would look like. So the question is what is so special about Ron Paul? Well it is all being laid out before us right here.
Why is he not responsible for the things he wrote in his newsletter?
He doesnt know who wrote for him under his name from his hometown, just cant remember.
Why should a clear violation be overlooked and Paul not blamed for knowing better?
Cuz he prolly forgot, shucks.

Seeing that Ron Paul is a hero because of what he does not know, forgot, did not think about, neglected to address, yadda yadda is kind of entertaining. Not upsetting though.

Shark_Feeder

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:37 AM

link

reply to post by CousinMarylin

Btw just noticed you just signed up for ATS yesterday... no introduction, and immediately start smearing RP...hmmm.

CousinMarylin

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:38 AM

link

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by ugie1028

People really shouldnt be focused on the soldier and his uniform, you are right. They should be concerned over the fact that they are being fed BS daily by political trolls such as CNN.

I am very concerned about the prospect of an America where a military gets to get on television, radio, etc. and "suggest" who we should vote for. That does indeed frighten me.

I saw someone ask what the difference is when we have pundits doing it every single night. I do not give Keith Olberman's opinion the same weight I do someone willing to die for our country and cannot imagine why anyone would.

We already know what this looks like from other countries we continuously point out are our enemies.

CousinMarylin

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:43 AM

link

Originally posted by maddog99

How does it make RP look bad?

Because Ron Paul invited him up there to speak and made all this happen when anyone that should have known better should have been Ron Paul.

DrMattMaddix

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:44 AM

link

Two Words... All together now...

S.e.l.e.c.t.i.v.e
e.n.f.o.r.c.e.m.e.n.t !!!

It's the way America works.

edit on 1·6·12 by DrMattMaddix because: (no reason given)

CousinMarylin

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:46 AM

link

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by ZombieJesus

Yeah well the 1st Amendment supersedes a DoD internal Administrative memo. I could see if he was actively on a mission, but it is self apparent he was on leave. And the 1st Amendment doesn't leave any wiggle room what so ever.

The first amendment does not guarantee anyone airtime, television equipment, and sponsor.
You know I am not allowed to say anything I like in my work uniform? I can get fired for it and it is perfectly legal. The reason for that is because uniforms come off. Yep, they do. You can just change your clothes. The only reason I wear a uniform and this gentleman wears a uniform is because we MADE A DEAL. He broke his half of the deal. Wow, what integrity. Not a free speech issue even a little here. No matter what I am wearing, I have no right to a television camera and airtime. Those are things you need to go out and achieve, they are not rights.

CousinMarylin

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:49 AM

link

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
Am I the only person who doesn't give two frags about military law?

I was always taught that the constitution is the supreme law of this country, above any and all... and the 1st enumerated right of this land is freedom of speech.

No time during this speech did this soldier imply that he represented the military, or any organization within...ohh wait bullet sponges don't get an opinion of thier own.

Of course the encumbant will waste NO opportunity to be filmed amongst uniformed troops during an election... without asking for those soldiers' permission, or opinions on the matter.
edit on 6-1-2012 by Shark_Feeder because: (no reason given)

What does any of this have to do with the 1st amendment?
Please help me understand why I do not understand what an entire generation of people seem to think it means anymore.

CousinMarylin

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:50 AM

link

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
I wouldn't say that... I would say that his freedom of speech is being directly threatened. Your expression can be described as what you say, what you wear, your ability to protest, your works of art, your vote, or any combination of these things.

Yes it sure can. Ron Paul never pulled me on stage before tv cameras. Is he violating my free speech?

CousinMarylin

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:51 AM

link

reply to post by Shark_Feeder

You should probably talk to a lawyer some time over coffee. I think you would learn a lot. This has nothing to do with free speech and a contract is a contract as long as it does not violate any of those. IT DOES NOT.

CousinMarylin

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:53 AM

link

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
reply to post by CousinMarylin

Btw just noticed you just signed up for ATS yesterday... no introduction, and immediately start smearing RP...hmmm.

BTW, I just signed up yesterday and this is the very first thread I clicked on. Should I be jumping around more while this discussion is still moving?

Hey, I also noticed I have not smeared Paul at all anywhere in this thread.
Before you try, I am also not defending CNN on much because I never watch the channel.
Do not put words in my mouth.

I find this all highly entertaining and interesting. Are you trying to tell me I am not allowed to "start" here?

ETA: See how you accusing people of lies is so dangerous. This is the first thread I clicked on when I sat down and have been in it since. Looks to me though like I have been elsewhere and posted other stuff before I got up. So you are reading my posts in this thread and then pointing out nothing more than that I am posting in this thread?

Are you angry? Are there a lot of angry people here? I am not angry nor am I looking for a fight. I can discuss things quite calmly and without smearing anyone or lying about anyone. I would like to think that can be reciprocated.

edit on 6-1-2012 by CousinMarylin because: (no reason given)

Shark_Feeder

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:55 AM

link

Originally posted by CousinMarylin
The first amendment does not guarantee anyone airtime, television equipment, and sponsor.

It does however give them the right to speak freely if someone wants to point a camera at them, and it would violate that right if an agent of the government effectively leaped up and screamed "shut your mouth, or we'll drag you before a judge!"

You know I am not allowed to say anything I like in my work uniform? I can get fired for it and it is perfectly legal.

There is a big difference between being fired, and tried in a criminal court.

The only reason I wear a uniform and this gentleman wears a uniform is because we MADE A DEAL. He broke his half of the deal.

This is no private contract between individuals. The military is a branch of the US government, and thus bound by the Constitution. Also we are not a discussing a civil suit, if tried this would be a criminal trial for expressing his 1st amendment rights... Very much against the binding document of the US Government.

edit on 6-1-2012 by Shark_Feeder because: (no reason given)

CousinMarylin

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:01 AM

link

reply to post by Shark_Feeder

You continue to fail to explain how this is a 1st amendment issue and everything else you say only even starts to work if you make that case first. I will probably not ask a 3rd time but just move on.

Shark_Feeder

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:03 AM

link

Originally posted by CousinMarylin
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

You continue to fail to explain how this is a 1st amendment issue and everything else you say only even starts to work if you make that case first. I will probably not ask a 3rd time but just move on.

How is this man being threatened with a criminal charge for speaking his mind, not a 1st amendment issue? Perhaps you would like to define that oh so important right to us?

CousinMarylin

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:03 AM

link

reply to post by Shark_Feeder

Do you, ANY OF YOU even get the irony here? Had he not re-enlisted he would no longer be able to vote but you are worried about his "right" to speak on television in uniform.

Anyone catching that at all?

CousinMarylin

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:04 AM

link

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

How is this man being threatened with a criminal charge for speaking his mind, not a 1st amendment issue? Perhaps you would like to define that oh so important right to us?

Why are you making things up?

This man is NOT being threatened with criminal charges for speaking his mind. If he actually were, you would have a point.

Shark_Feeder

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:13 AM

link

Originally posted by CousinMarylin

Why are you making things up?

This man is NOT being threatened with criminal charges for speaking his mind. If he actually were, you would have a point.

Now I understand your accusation(

) From the USMC, the punishment for Failure to obey an Order or Regulation.

Maximum punishment: (1) Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.
.

Benevolent Heretic posted this on page 1 of this thread...and in the OP of this thread.

The link goes on to say how Thorsen is going to be reprimanded for taking part in a political rally while in uniform.

This is a branch of our Government punishing a soldier for praticing his 1st amendment rights, and having a look at the possible punishment it could be considered pretty darn threatening in my book....but it's really late, so I am going to sleep.

edit on 6-1-2012 by Shark_Feeder because: (no reason given)

SyphonX

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link

Originally posted by CousinMarylin

Originally posted by Irish614
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I just totally forgot, Paul asked him up there because when the soldier was talking on CNN the feed cut out and they had to cut away. He was letting him finish what he had to say.

So after CNN just cut away in an attempt to SAVE HIS ASS FOR HIM, Ron Paul encourages him to violate the code of conduct more as a revenge move against CNN who was trying to help him and when CNN reports on it as follow up, you attack CNN and even admit using inflammatory language just to do it?

How many of you think this got anyone not already supporting Ron Paul pause and made them reconsider?
How many of you think this makes you seem confused and angry?

edit on 6-1-2012 by CousinMarylin because: (no reason given)

Let's just stop the bullcrap right here and now. CNN did not "try to save the soldier from himself" by cutting him off the air. They cut him off the air because he started taking a decidedly 'anti-aggressive' stance against Iran, to say the least. Also, he was about to go into Israel, and this is where they cut him off. Red Flag #2. They full-out expected him to engage in a "Defend my country against our enemies." charade. Nope.

They don't want a soldier on air talking about how the handling of the US military SUCKS, and how it is being mislead, abused and misdirected into dangerous territory,period. They do not give a damn about him, nor his conduct.

The interviewer approached him to talk about the stupid tattoo, the "9/11 Never Forget" tattoo, because they thought he'd be an "easy sheep" to regurgitate more asinine 911 propaganda. "Oh yur, Nevar Furget, dem terrorists I love my country, dur hurr...." Nope. Surprise, he's an intelligent well-spoken and honorable individual. Crap, what do we do now.

Then, the interviewer asked him about Ron Paul. So clearly they had no qualms about getting him to talk about a candidate on Live television. No, the issue was, they didn't want him espousing his concerns with the current fear-and-terror paradigm on national television. This is the only reason networks like CNN exist, they are 100% propaganda platforms. They get their directives directly from their billionaire handlers and they puke up whatever the White House tells them to. *Insert finger, vomit.* The main directive right now being, "Get people to hate Iran and love Israel." At all costs.
edit on 6-1-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)