Reminding Alex Jones sympathizers about first amendment rights

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mully
He wants to take away an American right. Who is he to say something like that? He's not American. He's a lobsterback.

Lots of us want to stop the results of Sharia law in other countries. Do we not have the right to articulate those beliefs? Why doesn't he?




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Hmmm...I'm an Alex Jones "sympathizer".

Piers Morgan is an obnoxious twit with a habit of being condescending and snippy.

However, I disagreed with the petition to have Mr. Morgan deported. He can say whatever he wants, same as Mr. Jones. In the case of him saying certain things on national TV, I as a viewer have a right to express my displeasure to CNN.

I also have the option to NOT watch Piers Morgan on television, and I choose to exercise that right.

I did think the petiton to deport Mr. Snippy-Britches was kind of silly, and I did not support it. Piers can stand in Times Square butt nekkid while he steps on the flag and burns the a copy of constitution for all I care. He's just a ratings whore. I won't be watching him.

People like him tend to dry up and blow away as soon as enough people get tired of his attitude and realize his only talent is to provoke negative responses.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacevic

Originally posted by Mully
He wants to take away an American right. Who is he to say something like that? He's not American. He's a lobsterback.

Lots of us want to stop the results of Sharia law in other countries. Do we not have the right to articulate those beliefs? Why doesn't he?


Because he's a puppet for the banks that want to take over this country. Once they disarm us, it's all over. We don't need that disinformation in the media.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
What we need and what we have the right to do are often not the same.
I am fully supportive of our second amendment rights, BTW.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


Bingo give that man/lady a pint

(Not saying you are a man lady just don't know your sex
)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacevic
What we need and what we have the right to do are often not the same.
I am fully supportive of our second amendment rights, BTW.


Sure you are. You just want them to misinform us some more. I only listen to Alex Jones because he's the embodiment of truth and righteousness.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Mully
 
You didn't answer my first question - Lots of us want to stop the results of Sharia law in other countries. Do we not have the right to articulate those beliefs?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacevic
reply to post by Mully
 
You didn't answer my first question - Lots of us want to stop the results of Sharia law in other countries. Do we not have the right to articulate those beliefs?



Yes, but that's because of how oppressed the women are under Sharia law. Just like how oppressed us Americans are by this scum bags statements. Once we're disarmed it's over.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


Bingo give that man/lady a pint

(Not saying you are a man lady just don't know your sex
)


LOL, thank you....and I am a female. I don't drink (cannot tolerate it), but if you buy me some chocolate I'll be your new best friend.

Seriously, as a first generation American, I can remember my parents voicing their opinions, and being told to "go back where you came from", as if not being born here somehow made them exempt from First Amendment rights (although they were naturalized citizens by that time).

So, I don't care where somebody comes from, if they want to blow hot air and be a windbag, it is their right as a thinking person. I don't have to agree with them, and I don't have to listen, but I will not advocate for their silence.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mully
He wants to take away an American right. Who is he to say something like that? He's not American. He's a lobsterback.


Originally posted by peacevic

Originally posted by Mully
He wants to take away an American right. Who is he to say something like that? He's not American. He's a lobsterback.

Lots of us want to stop the results of Sharia law in other countries. Do we not have the right to articulate those beliefs? Why doesn't he?



Originally posted by Mully

Originally posted by peacevic
reply to post by Mully
 
You didn't answer my first question - Lots of us want to stop the results of Sharia law in other countries. Do we not have the right to articulate those beliefs?


Yes, but that's because of how oppressed the women are under Sharia law. Just like how oppressed us Americans are by this scum bags statements. Once we're disarmed it's over.


If we have the right to say something about another country's laws, I'm missing why he doesn't have the right to say something about ours?

It seems to me you are blurring the line between being right and having a right...



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacevic

Originally posted by Mully
He wants to take away an American right. Who is he to say something like that? He's not American. He's a lobsterback.


Originally posted by peacevic

Originally posted by Mully
He wants to take away an American right. Who is he to say something like that? He's not American. He's a lobsterback.

Lots of us want to stop the results of Sharia law in other countries. Do we not have the right to articulate those beliefs? Why doesn't he?



Originally posted by Mully

Originally posted by peacevic
reply to post by Mully
 
You didn't answer my first question - Lots of us want to stop the results of Sharia law in other countries. Do we not have the right to articulate those beliefs?


Yes, but that's because of how oppressed the women are under Sharia law. Just like how oppressed us Americans are by this scum bags statements. Once we're disarmed it's over.


If we have the right to say something about another country's laws, I'm missing why he doesn't have the right to say something about ours?

It seems to me you are blurring the line between being right and having a right...



When you know the truth, you have more of a right than that weasel.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
In the aftermath of Alex Jones' disastrous interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, many of his sore sympathizers have made it more so apparent that they want him deported out of the country. There was a petition made where 100,000 folks signed demanding Piers be departed, 100,000 individuals whom can't handle an exercise of rights when it doesn't include them only. "He's not a citizen" they shout! "He's anti-american" they shout, as if these reasons justify silencing him. So what does the first amendment actually say?


AMENDMENT I

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.

www.law.cornell.edu...


The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the
rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that
they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither
the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges
any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."


Cole, D. (2003). Are foreign nationals entitled to the same Constitutional rights as citizens? George Town Law. pp370
scholarship.law.georgetown.edu...

In the first amendment regarding freedom of speech, it says nothing about citizens, it mentions people, this extends to American residents and those whom are legally residing in the country.

Even if Piers did not share the same first amendment rights with American citizens, the fact many are crying to have him deported because they disagreed with him shows a complete lack of respect to the rights we are afforded in this country, it also shows a loser mentality. People can't deal with what he says, so they want him taken away, and they want everybody to only listen to what they have to say and what rights they have.

There is a segment of the population in this country that are becoming increasingly tyrannical in their line of thinking, it's becoming evidently clear what kind of American the kind of people who sympathize with Alex Jones envision

When a democratic election does not go your way? Secede from the Union. Take your toys and leave because it didn't go your way.

When somebody says something you don't like on their air? Silence them, deport them, kick them out of the country.

When rulings like Lawrence v Texas, Brown v Board of education and Loving v Virginia reinforce rights afforded to individual Americans, cry foul and an injustice to states rights, completely ignore the rights of the individual.

Maybe it's time people also start looking into the mirror when they talk about tyranny, control, fascism.
edit on 13-1-2013 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)


This is a dumb thread. The first amendment prohibits the government from limiting free speech, it doesn't apply to citizens.

We're exercising our first amendment rights to protest the garbage Morgan is spewing, and let CNN know we're not interested.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I dont think he should be deported literally.

But his bosses should know when to replace their workers who make their companys look like complete fools.

And those who support their trash of which discussing stripping away other peoples rights because one doesnt see the need to even protect themselves-Are arrogant.

I dont know how much more clear I can be.

I dont think hes qualified for the seat hes in- then again it is a liberal station- most of them are sheep anyways.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Personally I have never valued anyone opinions more than my own, not Jones,not Morgan, not political pundits, or politicians.

The second amendment was brought up in the "debate" between Morgan and Jones wasn't it?

A most salient point of its bloody murder putting restrictions on free speech and its just fine to put restrictions on the second.

Obviously Morgan shouldn't be deported unless he and jones both want to "self deport" themselves"



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baguul
The is a BIG difference in allowing free speech and treason.


Yes, 9-11 was treason.

Free speech is the ability to talk about it.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacevic

Originally posted by Mully
He wants to take away an American right. Who is he to say something like that? He's not American. He's a lobsterback.


Originally posted by peacevic

Originally posted by Mully
He wants to take away an American right. Who is he to say something like that? He's not American. He's a lobsterback.

Lots of us want to stop the results of Sharia law in other countries. Do we not have the right to articulate those beliefs? Why doesn't he?



Originally posted by Mully

Originally posted by peacevic
reply to post by Mully
 
You didn't answer my first question - Lots of us want to stop the results of Sharia law in other countries. Do we not have the right to articulate those beliefs?


Yes, but that's because of how oppressed the women are under Sharia law. Just like how oppressed us Americans are by this scum bags statements. Once we're disarmed it's over.


If we have the right to say something about another country's laws, I'm missing why he doesn't have the right to say something about ours?

It seems to me you are blurring the line between being right and having a right...



I agree. Though I enjoy the news and antics of AJ, I find him hypocritical in this regard and don't think his attack on the 1st and on P.M. and regarding 'others'. bodes well with his own spoken ideas.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
What I don't get is that PM isn't even a citizen yet and is still going through the immigration system therefore it is only rational that he is and should be protected under the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. Butbut, I don't believe that he has the right to incite nor cause disruption to a constitution that allows him these rights. As natural born citizens or those who have completed and have been sworn in know ....those rights (and privilleges) are there for a reason.

Honestly, who is he to arrive her on his mission under the guise of his job as an 'entertainer' to even be able to rile up political discourse of this calibre?? Has he not heard of the term 'When in Rome....."?

Unless he has paid a lot of money (illegally) to immigration to speed up his process...I believe that during this waiting period one can impede their status if they break the conditions.

He is guilty (for one) of Agitprop: en.wikipedia.org... or Agitation:
Methods of Deploying Agitation Propaganda

[edit] Agent of Influence

An agent of influence is an agent of some stature who uses his or her position to influence public opinion or decision making to produce results beneficial to the country whose intelligence service operates the agent.[20] They can be used to place the various forms of agitation propaganda mediums in places of influence such as government agencies, the media, and other avenues by which popular opinion is formed or born from.

[edit] Media Exploitation and Control

The control of media has become a common practice in states seeking to sustain undemocratic rule over its citizens. Mass media forms the opinions of entire societies, as such, without the mass media there can be no modern propaganda.[21] In order to become successful tools of agitation propaganda, the media must be under central control, disseminating the party line, and they must be diversified in their products.[22]

[edit] Forgeries

Is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive. Forgeries are used to stimulate opinions in the target based on false information. During the Cold War era, the [U.S.S.R.]’s intelligence service, the [KGB], was able to convince many leaders of the Third World, that the CIA was targeting them by forging U.S. Government documents.[23]

"Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War that the best way to achieve this was by establishing a moral influence over the populace that would place them in harmony with the will of the political leadership.[8] This moral influence is a political phenomenon that creates a willingness among the population to put the their needs second to that of the needs of the government, even to the extreme of laying down their lives.[9] To achieve this moral influence, governments typically use agitation propaganda, which demonizes the enemy and places the individual in a state of extreme hatred towards the barbarity of his enemy.

Agitation propaganda is also used in times of war against the enemy to weaken their war making capabilities. Sun Tzu theorized that if a general is choleric his authority can easily be upset. His character is not firm. If the enemy general is obstinate and prone to anger, insult and enrage him, so that he will be irritated and confused, and without a plan will recklessly advance against you." (sound familiar in what Piers Morgan did to Alex Jones to evoke emotion from both AJ but the viewers).

Under the Domestic Terrorist list of Patriot Act (since Piers wants to enjoy having the same rights and protection of others) and Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]

"President Andrew Jackson said the “Constitution, which was established for the benefit of our own, not of a foreign people: if in the latter, then, like other citizens or people resident within the limits of the States, they are subject to their jurisdiction and control.”

see also: en.wikipedia.org...



if you don't like it Piers, GO HOME. GO home to become the town crier against violence in your own country...instead of * disturbing in someone else's. Like the saying goes...clearn your own backyard!!

*also, I have no doubt that without the second amendment in place and entact the next to go would BE the First Amendment.
edit on 14-1-2013 by dianashay because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


In my opinion, if an authority treats non-citizens any differently than the average citizen, than it is immoral. Just because someone is from across the pond does not mean their right to speak is any less valid.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 





In my opinion, if an authority treats non-citizens any different than average citizens, it is immoral. Just because someone is from across the pond does not mean their right to speak is any less valid.


Sure makes a good arguement but if NDAA threatens to lock up certain American citizens who were born under the flag and the Constitution for uttering comments or processing propoganda that is anti-constitutional (in their DHS opinion) then who is one residing here as a guest, perhaps on a temporary work visa and who has full access to the most heavily viewed media outlet in the world let along the US to use (sorry, MISUSE) that platform for consitutional debate. One can also view the video that he and his guests mockingly concur to kill (uttering a threat) to an American citizen--which is also illegal under not only the immigration act but they are libel and promoting a fear based bias which incites violence.

Also PM, is is no average non-citizen. That would be the day that a Mexican man would have the primetime slot on CNN and if were to snub the constitution and claim it needs revision after being within the US borders for a year and some there would be an uproar and ruckus.

How is he getting away with this?? Whyyy is he getting away with this? If this happened 20 years ago he would be off the air within 4 minutes of broadcast.

Where is Paul Revere when we need him??


edit on 14-1-2013 by dianashay because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by dianashay
 


If I were you I would retract that 20 year statement.

Anyway I don’t like either AJ or PM and I pro-gun but that comment was not a threat. AJ is just being oversensitive about it or maybe it is his followers but the reason no one’s doing anything is that the majority of people know it wasn’t a threat.





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join