US Army - Ron Paul supporter cut off from CNN

reply to post by andreoutlaw


You are entitiled to your opinion but I do not agree with it. I do not see a conspiricy here. Its either dumb luck or someone realized what he was doing was illegal and cut the feed.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by andreoutlaw

 

You are entitiled to your opinion but I do not agree with it. I do not see a conspiricy here. Its either dumb luck or someone realized what he was doing was illegal and cut the feed.

Eh, I'm not really talking about this post. I can't even watch youtube in my country, and I view the whole Ron Paul situation as a gigantic media psyop to convince people that politics are real anyway, rather than some type of media conspiracy to "hide the truth of Ron Paul".

I was just commenting there on the general nature of the military as a concept. The idea of masses of men being forced to renounce their personhood in service of the alleged "defense" of a corporate construct is very disturbing.

Originaly posted by FREAKJIVE

I just found some new information. I cannot back the source, as I don't know much about it. Also, I don't know what the implications of him being in "reserve" status vs. "active duty".

U.S. Army Reserve Major Angel Wallace confirmed that Cpl. Thorsen is not on active duty:


He is not active, he has been confirmed in reserve status as of this afternoon. We got that information, he was not in an active status as of yesterday when he did those interviews. He was in a reserve status all along and the last time he’s been on orders was back in October so he was in his traditional reserve status. There is a potential violation. It depends on your MOS because some MOS’s have a larger ability for upward promotion so on that you’d have to draw your own conclusion. He was with the National Guard prior to joining the national reserve. He works with an engineer unit. We have him in a currently combat engineer position, it would be groundwork level. We’re trying to give the command their time necessary to figure out how they want to manage the issue, giving them the time to have dialogue.







the policy that has been discussed.


Source

Originally posted by andreoutlaw

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by andreoutlaw

 

You are entitiled to your opinion but I do not agree with it. I do not see a conspiricy here. Its either dumb luck or someone realized what he was doing was illegal and cut the feed.

I was just commenting there on the general nature of the military as a concept. The idea of masses of men being forced to renounce their personhood in service of the alleged "defense" of a corporate construct is very disturbing.

military people are just like anyone else but you have to understand when put on the uniform you're representing the entire military. It would be like someone that works for Coca-Cola Company going out and buying Pepsi products while they are you wearing their work uniform. Not exactly like that but he just wouldn't do that.

What a soldier puts on the uniform represents the unit it represents the branch of military and represents the entire military and he is expected to act in accordance. By standing up there in front of the cameras and making his speech he gives the impression that he is speaking for the entire military. That is why it is against regulations. If he was there in civilian clothes or even wearing an Army hat (not regulation) something that signified that he was military that would've been perfectly okay.

Do you understand what I am trying to say. He has every right to say what he wants to say but when his wearing a military uniform he is representing United States military at that time. There are people that do not support Ron Paul in our military just like there are plenty that do, it isn't right for him to make that representation for all the armed services. And from what I've just read he wasn't even on active status at the time so he had no business wearing his uniform. He was using his uniform as a tool for Ron Paul's campaign. I don't want to see the guy get into too much trouble but he does deserve to be punished. I am sure he knew he was doing wrong.


Furthermore he is not being forced your denounce or renounce anything he can have any opinion that he wants. He can vote for whoever he wants or show up to any political rally that he wants and support any candidate that he wants. When he is doing those things as a citizen then he needs to show up as a citizen and not as a representative of the United States military. If a news team or Ron Paul wants him to speak on how he feels about the campaign or on Ron Paul's policies he can say that he is a soldier and state how he feels. There are no regulations against that. The only thing he did wrong which is a fairly big deal is that he wore his uniform.

The Major is disgusted by the recruits collective gullibility, and amused by Ron Paul's. Go ahead and hitch your wagon to CPL Jesse Thorsen Congressman Paul, it will expose your lack of judgment faster than a speeding Klukker newsletter.

Let's see what a couple of counties in Florida think of the rock star dirt bag:

Hillsborough County is not enamored with Jesse Thorsen as of 6-17-2006

Lee County is no fan of Jesse Thorsen as of 8-25-2006

Charge 1
STATUTE: BURG3000
CHARGE: BURGLARY OF A DWELLING
NOTES: HLD/36 VOP LEE CO
Charge 2
STATUTE: THEF2101
CHARGE: GRAND THEFT FIREARM
NOTES: HLD/36 VOP
Charge 3
STATUTE: BURG9000
CHARGE: POSSESSION OF BURGLARY TOOLS
NOTES: HLD/36 VOP

Yes recruits, keep on hailing your new "Joe the Plumber," except his name is "Jesse the Felon."

The Major is never much for prognostication, but the Major is reasonably confident that "Jesse the Felon" will be soon be able to appear at Ron Paul functions dressed in any attire he cares to wear. Jesse will not be able to claim he is a member of the United States military.

Dismissed.

reply to post by Major Discrepancy


I really don't care what the man's past is he obviously has done something with his life. So what he screwed up somewhere in the past posting what you just posted their is pretty low. The military does and does not take felons. I am guessing he pulled up his juvenile record or something but it does not have any business in this thread. The man is still a soldier that served to tours and I believe it was 10 years. He has my respect. Dredging up someone's past like you just did is just low. The soldier screwed up by wearing a uniform to a political rally and that is his only crime at the moment.

Some people I wonder what's wrong with them.

I also noticed you didn't say anywhere in they're convicted.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Looks like he was convicted to the Major.

Dismissed.

TextTextAll the proof anyone needs to know that mainstream media lies to you, and doesn't want ron paul to win.

reply to post by Major Discrepancy


Was wondering how this guy could be in the Army for a decade and only be a corporal. Seems like this was a red flag from the get go.

None the less, he knows more about the Afghan and Iraq campaigns, and US kowtowing to Israel than does anyone in the Obama administration.

reply to post by openyourmind1262


Don't believe enlisted personnel take an oath to uphold the constitution. It is officers, who do. Enlisted personnel are supposed to follow the USMJC, which the good corporal did not.

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
There's a conspiracy everywhere, people! This is proof!

Actually, this is proof that most people will try to take coincidence and make it blatant whatever.

And even if they did blatantly cut him off, who cares? Not like what he had to say was going to blow the top off of some huge unknown situation. He wasn't going to say anything ground breaking or what people don't already know.

Oh, by the way, while you're reading this, there's a man in a black suit standing right behind you. LOOK NOW!

You're right, this guy saying his two cents' worth wasn't going to change the world; however, the fact is such opinions are never allowed on mainstream news media, and so the conspiracy theorists have a point.

What the CTs here don't seem to savvy is that this particular incident is more complicated because this guy was wearing a US military uniform and might be active duty, in which case he isn't allowed to make statements advocating political causes or candidates.

If the folk here crying "foul!" want to be productive then contact the various news media they watch/read/listen to and demand some time given to Ron Paul and other non-establishment candidates (Buddy Roemer, for example) as well as provide air time to persons with anti-war/anti-imperialism and pro-civil-liberties views. Organize boycotts of sponsors of these "news" programs. But backing up some 10-year corporal, who was not within his rights, is not the way to go.

reply to post by daaskapital


I watch a lot of the cable news channels, and I've never seen anyone get cut off like that before. Usually it's a sudden cut to black or a fizzle out, of sorts. That's the first time I've seen the screen freeze, as the frames were moving.

Honestly, there is usually a delay, even with live TV. I've noticed sometimes the delay is longer than others. I find it fascinating that I can have a rather instant phone call with people in a foreign country and yet someone in Washington has to wait about 4 or 5 seconds for the response from someone in New York. I know a certain amount of delay is used to "buffer" the networks/cable news stations against FCC fines for unintended comments (vulgarity, etc.). But, I feel like this should be the program in its entirety, not just the feed for the person being interviewed, so I don't see that as the excuse for a lag with the interviewee.

The only purpose to kill switches and longer lags is that they give the channel/producers/(advertisers) control over content. So, fair and balanced journalism doesn't seem likely. I feel the longer lags turn rational, intelligent experts into babbling idiots with choppy commentary and seemingly rude interruptions as one question gets answered as the interviewer repeats it.

...and for this to cut out on the words Israel and Iran is just an amazing coincidence.

Originally posted by Selfsecurity
Sorry only got to page 5. It has been a couple years since I served, but isnt it against UCMJ to publicly support a candidates campaign for President in uniform? If its been brought up, again I apologize

edit on 4-1-2012 by Selfsecurity because: spelling

edit on 4-1-2012 by Selfsecurity because: (no reason given)

Yes, it's been brought up, but you wouldn't know it from plethora of conspiracy jackanapes obliviously chiming in with their conspiracy POV, not taking into consideration other relevant aspects of this case. But heck, why read through the whole thread to see if any light is shed on the topic, when instead one can just read the OP and then pipe in with an ignorant concurrence that adds nothing to the discussion? That's purdee much the bread n' butter of most posters in any forum here at ATS.

But thank you, @Selfsecurity, for trying to add some pertinent information to the discussion. Bet just about no one will address your point, however. People just want to use this incident to corroborate their belief systems. Don't want the facts of the matter to get in the way, goodness gracious.

Originally posted by andreoutlaw
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Yeah. But the concept itself is still sick. The idea of a collectivized military managed by a corporate state. It is not helpful to anyone, anywhere.

Yeah, wow, imagine: rules curtailing/circumscribing one's freedoms -- in the military of all places! Oh the humanity. Something should be done about this; there should be Congressional hearings, I tell you.

Why have only a copule of pro-conspiracy theorist posters responded to any of the posts in this thread, which point out that this guy was in the wrong, being that he is apparently active duty and wearing uniform?

I agree that the corporate/Establishment media don't like to broadcast ideas outside of what is accepted thought; however, this particular guy had no right to do so, being an active duty soldier in uniform, thus it's a poor case to hang one's conspiracy corroboration hat on.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by openyourmind1262

 

Don't believe enlisted personnel take an oath to uphold the constitution. It is officers, who do. Enlisted personnel are supposed to follow the USMJC, which the good corporal did not.

Both reservists and active do.

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

In the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
reply to post by BRAVO949

 

I would agree 100% with your accessment. Especially the last one. Why is it NO ONE can say anything bad about Israel? Answer: Because they controll the media, all the media. Hell it would'nt surprise me if we found out they own this website.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!! You win the prize! Of course they own this website. I have said before that ATS only exists to tap a huge, previously untapped market of conspiracy nuts. See the ads all over the place? The blatant propaganda from the obvious Three-letter groups and Mossad agents is just a bonus.

reply to post by SirTFiedSkeptic


You'll note that even the people allegedly objectively can't seem to manage to do so.

this is further proof that Communists News Network and the entire MSM know that Ron Paul is the only 'good' candidate

I think thid Ron Paul is the real deal.

His policies for th most part seem to be inline with the revolution amercians, hell people world wide want.

There is no way this is an agenda, the man is really good at pluking the heart strings and really knows the laymans score. Go Ron Paul from the Outback.

reply to post by kaptabs316


Ron Paul has been a politician longer than I have been alive and all he has ever accomplished with that is getting himself rich. I see no accomplishments for the people anywhere. I see he makes a nice sum after each failed run for president as well.
Career politician who has done nothing but enrich himself the entire time. He is the real deal alright, just like the rest of them.