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.

 

Anderson Cooper "Attacks" Conspiracy Theorists

page: 14
40
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Woah woah.. NO. It is not the same, if people are offended by a simple idea they can get over it. They have no reason to be offended. It is not in any way shape or form the same as comitting a lewd act. I get your point, it's just not a good one.

Second, another big NO, the university does NOT have the same rights as a person. Are you even hearing yourself? You are saying the University should have the same rights as this man. He is not slandering the University, he just works there, he can speak his mind and have his own thoughts. People are not their jobs.




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by vkey08
 
Yes I got that PM as did everyone else (Thanks for mini-modding).
As long as there is an apparent lack of evidence to support this having happened, I will continue to point out this simple fact. Others will too.


Pointing out the fact is not the same as going off the deep end with unverifiable and spurious data....as some have here on ATS. Big difference and your take isn't in question by most.


While the Media and Government milks this story politically for all its worth day after day, I don't think asking a few questions is insensitive...


True, but, you think someone from ATS or any other place asking a father if they are an actor, of if they faked it, or any other question is valid; all on the notion that because you think the Government and/or MSM have an agenda and you are a "truth warrior" seeking to bring to light what they left in darkness?


Because what I believe may have happened differs from what Lt. Vance said happened, you may be offended.
Just know that is not my intention... In varying ways, we are ALL victims of Sandy Hook.



Not buying into the story and flat out conjuring stories (not saying you did, just in general response) of what happened, using bits and pieces of information that came out that day is sick.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Superhans
 


Apparently you are a little slow today. You cannot equate the redscare with a small local event like this. It doesn't make any sense. However it can be equated to small controversies like teaching the bible as lit and etc. Of course teaching the bible as lit is more common today than ever, you just assumed I didn't think that because you were in a rush to try to put me down (which you failed miserably at because you didn't read). Bible as lit controversy was just a random example that made more sense than your example of McCarthyism which was a widespread phenomenon. We are talking about a small incident being blown out of proportion.

A professor could pretty much guess what NOT to say to avoid being labeled a communist so your argument is weak. We are talking about a professor that talked about a random event he had opinions on not something that he could have known would bring the country down on his head. If they are attacking people for speaking their minds on local random/ non political topics then that doesn't create a clear cut taboo subject. It forces professors to have reservations about speaking their mind on anything. That means they can't speak openly because they don't know what topic might have them on the chopping block. It limits speech a little more than the no brainer of not talking about communism. Maybe it's just you that wouldn't be aware if you were talking about communism, but most intelligent people, I assume, could avoid it.

Do you really not see the difference? Why not just apologize and admit you should have thought it out a little better instead of leaping before you looked in an attempt to make someone look foolish and ending up only making yourself look dumb.
edit on 13-1-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I don't understand why so many people think that the professor should lose his job? I understand you think he was saying ridiculous things. But, unless he was teaching it in his class, then why should he be fired? If he was teaching it in his class, then there will be grounds for termination, but since so far it seems he was saying it on a personal blog, his job should not be threatened. What if any of you were to post something on ATS that caused you to lose your job? Would you then complain about your first amendment rights?

Anderson Cooper was in the wrong here. And I think the professor made a smart move by not appearing on Cooper's show. He would have been belittled and berated and there would have been no plus side for him. Cooper would have shouted at him about being insensitive, and there would have been nothing he could say to show otherwise.

Maybe Anderson Cooper should look into what Journalism is, and actually trying to find the facts of the story, and using that to set this professor strait.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Here take a look at this thread the girl lost her job over a picture on Facebook and her employer was completely justified. It is the same thing as what he did. The university is completely within their legal rights to terminate his employment. Did you even check his blog he states he is a professor at that university therefore he is representing them as an employee whether or not he is doing so on his time or not.

He may have had an argument against being fired if he was remaining anonymous but he did not.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

He acted like an idiot and he may pay the price by losing his job. Cause and effect they may add it to their curriculum next semester.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I'd just like to say "thank you" to Alex Jones and his puppet masters for this. who ever is in control now is awesome at their job. I mean seriously they have made more headway in the last 6 months than in the last 13 years.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 
Blame the media, not me. Hey, those people made the choice to enter the national spotlight and be interviewed. I haven't claimed anyone was an actor - Many others have though.

Well, now CNN pointed the crazy ridiculous theory out...
Now I wonder how many people will stop and ask themselves, "How do I know this actually happened?"



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


He doesn't deserve to lose his job and it is a violation of his rights and anyone that supports giving him the boot is putting their own tiny nail in the first amendments coffin. Fact.

Sure you may think what he was saying was crazy, maybe most people do, but if you fire him, what will some other professor later on down the road withhold speaking out on out of fear he might lose his job? What if it's something important?

It's really a poor attitude to have and it's as unAmerican as it comes.

As for the woman, it's not really relevant. Probably she shouldn't have been fired either, but we are talking about a professor that was stating an opinion and had NO intention whatsoever of offending anyone.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


You claim it is a violation of his rights. Can you provide evidence to back up that statement? What constitutional right guarantees his job no matter what he says? The 1st amendment guarantees the right to free speech not a job.


The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Can you point out where it mentions the right to work?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Being fired does impede his right to free speech and should be illegal, even if it's not. the point I am making is that if he sees repercussions based on this then you are effectively controlling free speech. It will be a deterant for people in the future to speak out. If he loses his job, he should be able to sue and win. I bet if you looked you could find plenty of examples of people suing jobs for violating their right to free speech than people fired for saying something outside of work.

Have you actually read his blog or are you just going on Anderson Coopers outrage?

I am not a hundred percent, but I believe this is it:
Here
It also has new posts about Anderson cooper.

Also it is worth noting that instead of using his forum to debunk this professor Cooper just attacks him. Instead of being an actual journalist he just complains. For example, Nancy Lanza's sister in law said Nancy keeps 3 guns. Why would she know the exact amount of guns she kept? Was she fed that information or did she actually know? If she actually knew, then why were six guns found on the scene of the massacre (yes six guns were found - 2 pistols, the AR, a shotgun, a repeating rifle, and an enfield) and why would Lanza have brought six guns that's a lot for one person to bring.

And what happened to the two other people taken into custody? You really prefer seeing people lose their jobs and the media flame them rather than answer their questions? It's the media's fault people have so many questions. If they don't address them then of course theories are going to start popping up.

You don't think there are some strange things? You don't want to see them addressed? You don't think it's weird that questioning these anomalies are met with such outrage and deflection?
edit on 13-1-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Im a little slow today??? You are really just trying to twist words to make it sound like a different conversation took place.


If he gets fired you are seeing just another symptom of America going down the drain. 50 years ago no one would have thought twice about someone having theoretical discussions about events. Back then free thinking was a good thing. Now ignorant people over react and feign disgust over idiotic things, they only stop watching reality t.v. long enough to have an ignorant (sometimes phony) emotional response to using your brain.


And I was saying that back then censorship was even worse back then (which it was). If you spoke out of line you could be seen as a "communist" and if not brought in front of a committee you could be ostracized in the community. And if you had a lover with the opposite skin color or the same sex as you forget it...


Then you went on to say


I meant like, even back then scholars demanded a little more respect. They could talk about the bible as literature when it was less acceptable and could kick around controversial ideas.

Back then bible as literature was less acceptable?? "back then" they hadn't even fully got prayer out of school
en.wikipedia.org...

You just trying to do some screwed up appeal to tradition and got called on it, you don't have to be mad. I bet you don't even lift.


edit on 13-1-2013 by Superhans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 



Originally posted by dave_welch
I don't understand why so many people think that the professor should lose his job?


because our 1st Amendment has been revoked. Didn't you get the news? Thanks to the internet anything, anyone thinks is public. His students might have had access to his online journal therefore..... its a hate crime.(haters all up in the koolaid, dont even know the flavor)


I saw a thread earlier where a guy had his gun ownership revoked for making threats on youtube.

Never underestimate who is watching what you say..
edit on 13-1-2013 by 1/2 Nephilim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


The thing is your interpretation of what should be legal is not the case. The laws were written so one person’s rights do not impede on another’s and in this case it is well within the university’s right to hire or fire for just about any reason and especially for his actions that bring a negative light on the university. Think about this for a second he has the legal right to talk bad about the university as well in a public forum what you are proposing would mean the university would have to keep him as an employee which is not the case. The first amendment protects citizens from the government it was not written to impose upon businesses or organizations.

It changed from earlier he now has a link to the Anderson Cooper piece done on him. Nail in coffin as far as I am concerned. Now the link below is of the right to work laws which apply to Florida. Can you please point out where they would not be within their legal right to fire him?


en.wikipedia.org...

The only thing that may be protecting him from termination may be a contract he has with the university although there is probably a clause that covers things like this which would be cause for early termination.

Also keep in mind that people who have seen the show done on him may be considering that university for themselves or their children which will directly influence their decision on whether or not they wish to send their kids or attend themselves. For this reason alone I can see why a university would not want this person as an employee because he sheds a negative light on their reputation.

Actions carry consequences even if they are legal. People lose their jobs every day for things they say or do outside of work the first amendment does not apply here.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by theAnswer1111
 


I would edit and remove that post before a mod does it for you. The sandy hook shooting can only be talked about in the approved formats. You can't go saying the victims of this horrible tragedy were in on it, its disgusting.
Please just keep it to the typical canned conspiracies
*there was a 2nd shooter
* Lanza was a patsy
You know, things like that.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Superhans
 


Exactly you made my point. They hadn't completely gotten prayer out of school so naturally there were controveries over bible as lit. It was just a small example you are trying to make it the centerpiece. Back when bible as lit was just popping up it was no different than this most recent instance except that professors were respected and wouldn't have been fired.

The point you are trying to make is non sense. You are trying to say there was more censorship and talking about communism, and racism. What I am saying is that, and you may not believe this, people back then respected intellectual conversation and questioning the official story.

No matter what you believe it was different back then, people didn't reject thoughts like they do now. They were more analytical. Having these discussions wasn't treated like a sin. People could have them as naturally as if they believed in them even though it was complete opposite of their belief. They did this without freaking out and rejecting the idea of it.

You are the one trying to twist my point. Just go on and don't bother responding to me if you can't grasp what I am getting at. You are wrong, I know what I am talking about or I wouldn't have brought it up.

Professors were respected and the masses didn't try to lynch people for having these kinds of discussions. We aren't talking a bout anything on the scale of integration or the red scare, we are talking about the discussion of an event.

I didn't get called on anything, you just thought you were smarter than you are and got in over your head. I let you go on for a minute and was polite and then I called you on your non sense.
edit on 13-1-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Wrong, because the univserity is not "a people."

I am done talking about it though. It's sickening to me that people would be so ignorant as to try to fire a professor over discussing another scenario for an event. It's just a witch hunt.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


I hear you. I don't watch much TV outside of documentaries and such. I do watch some tv though and have seen CSI on occasion (I was not the person with the remote control), and actually found it very amusing. Saddest thing ever as far as that show (& others like it) to me, was back when Caylee Anthony was murdered and the comments I read about CSI in relation to that court case. I think that is when I realized just how much people have seemed to stop using their common sense and critical thinking skills.

But yes you are right, it does take time for these things and I didn't really word my comment very well, didn't say near close to what I even meant really. Though I am skeptical of editing and such.. and in the time it takes for the public to actually see anything I know that we may or may not be seeing the truth. I should do a better job of articulating my meaning, but I never take as much time as I should typing out my comments because of chronic pain and still never finished with my voice recognition program. Anyway, I hope you understand that though I am aware that these things take time, I also think that if there were a conspiracy, time is on their side.

Oh, and even though this case (SH) is still under investigation, it seems to me that news programs or journalists rather, use to do a lot more investigating, and in doing so.. shared with the public. In many years now all they seem to do is put forth a lot of conflicting information for a few days before moving on to the next hot topic. Meanwhile the viewers are always left with nothing but questions.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Superhans
 


Exactly you made my point. They hadn't completely gotten prayer out of school so naturally there were controveries over bible as lit. It was just a small example you are trying to make it the centerpiece. Back when bible as lit was just popping up it was no different than this most recent instance except that professors were respected and wouldn't have been fired.

The point you are trying to make is non sense. You are trying to say there was more censorship and talking about communism, and racism. What I am saying is that, and you may not believe this, people back then respected intellectual conversation and questioning the official story.

No matter what you believe it was different back then, people didn't reject thoughts like they do now. They were more analytical. Having these discussions wasn't treated like a sin. People could have them as naturally as if they believed in them even though it was complete opposite of their belief. They did this without freaking out and rejecting the idea of it.

You are the one trying to twist my point. Just go on and don't bother responding to me if you can't grasp what I am getting at. You are wrong, I know what I am talking about or I wouldn't have brought it up.

Professors were respected and the masses didn't try to lynch people for having these kinds of discussions. We aren't talking a bout anything on the scale of integration or the red scare, we are talking about the discussion of an event.

I didn't get called on anything, you just thought you were smarter than you are and got in over your head. I let you go on for a minute and was polite and then I called you on your non sense.
edit on 13-1-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


I have to disagree with you on this. 50 years ago if someone said the US knew pearl harbor was going to happen and did nothing they may wind up in jail and in most cases they would get their teeth knocked in. You couldn’t own a phone it was against the law to own gold interracial couples were taboo and in some places illegal. We have more freedom now than we did then. You state intellectual conversation however that is really left up to interpretation. The whole point of the SH theories is that they are nowhere near intellectual they are pure garbage of course some people will disagree on that which brings us back to 50 years ago getting punched in the mouth or going to jail.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Superhans
 


Exactly you made my point. They hadn't completely gotten prayer out of school so naturally there were controveries over bible as lit. It was just a small example you are trying to make it the centerpiece. Back when bible as lit was just popping up it was no different than this most recent instance except that professors were respected and wouldn't have been fired.

The point you are trying to make is non sense. You are trying to say there was more censorship and talking about communism, and racism. What I am saying is that, and you may not believe this, people back then respected intellectual conversation and questioning the official story.

No matter what you believe it was different back then, people didn't reject thoughts like they do now. They were more analytical. Having these discussions wasn't treated like a sin. People could have them as naturally as if they believed in them even though it was complete opposite of their belief. They did this without freaking out and rejecting the idea of it.

You are the one trying to twist my point. Just go on and don't bother responding to me if you can't grasp what I am getting at. You are wrong, I know what I am talking about or I wouldn't have brought it up.

Professors were respected and the masses didn't try to lynch people for having these kinds of discussions. We aren't talking a bout anything on the scale of integration or the red scare, we are talking about the discussion of an event.

I didn't get called on anything, you just thought you were smarter than you are and got in over your head. I let you go on for a minute and was polite and then I called you on your non sense.
edit on 13-1-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


Please post something to back up your claims of
1. ""They hadn't completely gotten prayer out of school so naturally there were controveries over bible as lit. "
2."people back then respected intellectual conversation and questioning the official story"

Do it now, or don't bother responding.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join