So, I know I am late to the party, but Sarah Palin has finally silenced all the assumptions, and guessing games, and announced she is not running for the Republican nomination for 2012. I am one to say that I am sighing in relief. She has seemingly work out her welcome with most conservatives that I know, and was only clinging to parts of the Tea Party movement for relevance, as well as Fox News. Also, her confidant, Michelle Bachmann, is slipping pretty far in the polls, which again, causes me to breathe a sigh of relief. Her latest sign of intellect was when she was trying to tear apart Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan she basically said "Well, if you flip 9-9-9 upside down, what do you get? That's right, 6-6-6." Stupid, stupid, STUPID.
Speaking of Herman Cain, he has surged as much in the polls as Bachmann has floundered. People seem to be really taking to him, and I for one, am alright with it. He is a business man who made profits with Godfather's Pizza, and frankly, to the behest of the Occupy protesters (I will talk about them in another post), a business man that is good with money and can run large corporations might be just what this country needs to get out of this funk. Obama hascertainly showed he isn't up to the task, and Bachmann and Santorum have been complete jokes.
Romney is still just hanging around, knowing that his same is Mitt Romney and for some reason or another, people like him. I really haven't heard much from him other than his opponents railing on him about RomneyCare being basically the same thing as ObamaCare. He has apparently taken the critiques like a champ and is still strong in the polls, and Ron Paul, my choice to run, is also still doing fairly well he's winning the California polls by a pretty convincing gap, and IIRC is leading in Iowa as well. My prediction is that it will be a race to the finish between Romney and Paul in the primaries, and my HOPE is that Paul wins.
So I was browsing reddit the other day, and since I have a subscription to the r/history subreddit, I stumbled upon a newly posted discussion "Was Che Evil?" This is something that, for some reason, is hotly debated. Mostly because of unknowing youth that want to look like they're rebelling against the system, so they wear his face on a t-shirt. It seems to me that Che Guevara has the majority of his support from people that seem to have no real idea what he really was about, and what atrocities he really did. When confronted of these atrocities, they normally ignore it, and move on being a mouth piece for something they really don't understand. A prime example of this is in an exchange I had with a youtube user through the old inbox. The exchange went like this:
User (responding through email because he didn't like what I said on the comments of a Che video:
"He was not perfect that is why we love him .. Your religious believes has blindend you to what human being should be like .. Want perfection .. Take some narcotics aNd look at jeases portrait"
Now, I am one that normally doesn't attack people based on their grammar, but this was just inexcusable. I have never seen anyone spell Jesus "jeases". That along the fact that he seems to completely ignore the bulk of content I sad in the comment section and just says "C'mon guy, he really wasn't that bad of a guy, he has faults, that's why we love him!"
"Who is jeases? Also, of course he isnt perfect. I dont expect people that take rights away, installs his buddy as a dictator, and executes people based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or differing ideologies would be perfect. In fact, he's a scumbag that idiots like you worship and wear a mass murderers face on a t shirt."
A little harsh, I will admit, but the whole jeases thing had to be addressed. Everything else is based on fact and research, with another jab that sure, I will admit was harsh. However, he did automatically assume I was some huge Bible thumper, for some reason or another. So he starts the assuming game. Then he replies with this:
"Your resort to a high school level conversation shows what kind of family you are from .. Learn how to discuss .. It burns you that people like him .. Instead of foul mouthing , understand what was his motives to leave behind his comfortable life and fight for justice .."
So, it would be nice to know what his motives were that make his actions just. He doesn't say them, because, guess what, HE DOESN'T KNOW. And again he thinks I don't know how to discuss things, when he completely ignores everything I said in my initial comment on the video and paints me as some religious person blinded by the book of the Lord. I pretty much cover all the grounds in my next comment, reiterating what Che did, making him more monster than Saint:
"Burns me? More like dumbfounded that so many support and love a mass murderer. Please, tell me his motives for creating forced labor camps? How about his mass killings of gays and Catholics? Wjat justice was brought? More like an irony that he helped unseat one oppressive dictator to install his buddy, another oppressive dictator.
So with you're comments you're telling me you support mass murder and revoking rights? Sounds like you're as big of an evil douche as Che."
You would think that the user would reply with another rebuttal, since they seem so passionate about the topic that they had to send me a message about it. Please, I am begging you to give me a reason making forced labor camps and mass executions just! How does this make him no different than Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin? Here's the scoop, folks, it doesn't. Only difference between the three is Che didn't have a chance to kill the amounts of people Hitler and Stalin did. But does killing thousands instead on millions excuse your actions? No, of course not. But apparently it gets your face on a t-shirt. So, in 10 or 20 years, I'll be waiting for Osama bin Laden's face on shirts to come.
Anywho, their final response, is a basic conceding of the argument, however it's in the douchiest way possible:
"There is no future in talking to you . You are right dear"
I guess there is no future in talking to me because I speak with logic, and speak with facts instead of assumptions and thinking "Hey, it must be the cool thing to do". But wait, I'm not going to take this concession laying down! I make sure I get the final jab in, and have not heard anything back since:
"Translation of what you just said: I have nothing to counter your argument about Che being a ruthless mass murderer, so I am just going to ignore you and keep being a mouth piece blowhard about how good of a guy Che is, even though he is, in fact, a ruthless mass murderer."
But hey, thanks for basically conceding this argument. You may go back to your ignorance Che t-shirt wearing day like a tool."
I feel like going into complete troll mode was justified, and I hope that it really, REALLY, pissed them off. This, my viewers, is how you own people in debates that they really have no idea what they're talking about.
So, looks like it's going to be a while until we can put the measuring sticks to these candidates. July 10th was the next scheduled debate, and it has now been postponed indefinitely, which basically means it's cancelled. Why? Apparently because Mitt Romney had on interest in participating in this one. Ummmm, ok? Why does Mitt have to be the deal breaker here? Herman Cain will still speak at the event that was hosting the debate, which is good for him, and will help him connect with the base. Mitt is still considered the primary frontrunner (though not by me) and I guess feels that he can skip over this one and not take any damage for it. Ron Paul is still my guy.
It's kind of funny. Think back to the 2008 GOP debates. What was the primary theme? Not policy, and, other than Rudy, not 9/11, but Ronald Reagan. Everyone spoke glowingly about him, and as they should. However, the former president also spoke glowingly about one person that is in these debates: Ron Paul.
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."-Ronald Reagan
SO I watched all of the first two Republican Presidential debates not too long after they aired on youtube. If I had to think of one word to describe both of them it would be : boring. Want a term? Watered down. Fact is, the GOP presidential pool is so crowded right now with all of the same types of people, there really isn't much to like, and really isn't much to put your cap on. The questions they've been asked so far have generally been softball questions, and even then the candidates kind of bobbed and weaved them like they were some prize fighter. However, I do have my likes, my dislikes. I have winners and losers.
My outright winner for the debates is easily Ron Paul. He's the one guy that seemed to answer all he was asked, he was animated, likable, and had ideological views I could get behind. I like him a lot more this time around than I did back in 2008, where he seemed kind of like the grump old man of the group. He has the ideas that the conservative base wants, and none of the evangelical baggage/tea party nuttiness that others have. Reduced power of federal government, reduced spending, eliminating the debt, etc etc. Pretty much the opposite of what we have had for the past almost 12 years. He is for getting the troops out of the ME (which I now feel is appropriate at least for Iraq, and maybe have a military adviser type role in Afghanistan ala Vietnam pre-Kennedy/LBJ). He's a very smart, well thought out, well spoken candidate.
I also thought for the most part Romney did decently. He was not part of the first debate for reasons I am not sure of. Surprisingly he didn't get a whole lot of questions in the second debate, but when he did, he did OK. Nothing special, which was the theme for the debates.
Now for some losers.
Loser numero uno to me was Rick Santorum. The guy just has absolutely zero cred with me, being a Pennsylvania resident while he was Senator here, he was highly offensive with many remarks he's made, and overall didn't do much, and was soundly beaten by Bob Casey. At the end of the first debate, all the candidates were asked "Why should the people vote for you over the president?" and basically all the others on the stage with them. Everyone talked about policies they primarily back, giving some sort of insight to what their campaign will be like. Santorum? That just isn't his bag, man. Basically in a nutshell Santorum said hes should run for president because he beat Democratic incumbents in different HoR districts. That's it. I also do not like Santorum for the "Santorum Amendment", which was unsuccessfully brought to Congress to be written into No Child Left Behind to promote Intelligent Design and question/trash evolution.
The other big loser was Michele Bachmann. The great savior of the Tea Party. She should rename herself to Michele Ali, with how much she was floating like a butterfly around questions in the second debate, but that would be insulting the good name of the Greatest of All Time. The first question she was given, she completely ignored to get a cheap cheer by announcing that she has officially filed paperwork to run for president (why else would she be there if she wasn't?). She's also big into intelligent design and trashing evolution like Santorum. She also wants to eliminate the federal minimum wage, which is completely illogical, and would give corporations all the more power over the people. With the economy in thee shape it is in, and how desperate people are with getting a job to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, they would odds are take anything at this point. Sure, eliminating the minimum wage would also eliminate unemployment, but the Soviet Union also had a 0% unemployment, they just couldn't buy anything while working themselves to death. Same thing would happen here with the atrocious wages that would be offered. She also cites Ludwig von Mises as one of her main economic influences. von Mises was also a pretty big fan of Facsim, and believe it had saved European civilization. Not that you would ever find that out from Bachmann with how much dodging she does.
So those are my winners and losers. And pretty much everyone else has not shown me anything to get excited over, or to face palm about. Although Gary Johnson had a few funny moments, and seems pretty likeable.
- Tags:bachmann, debate, gary, gop, johnson, michele, mitt, paul, president, republican, rick, romney, ron, santorum
I am going to start posting on here after I watch every debate. I will make a nice decently sized post to make up for the first two debates, which were not that special regardless. I do have a favorite out of the debates, and I have definitive losers as well. I will post more about it either later tonight or tomorrow.
Greetings to the very few people that actually read this blog.
It has been a long, long, time since I posted here. Hopefully this time it will actually stick for me to posting on a more regular basis about 9/11, politics, and a bunch of random things that pop into my head.
But for today I would just like to draw your attentions to a new video posted by 9/11 debunker and youtube extraordinaire RKOwens. His new three part video (which I am waiting for part three to still be uploaded) is titled 9/11 Tuth Movement: R.I.P. It's him at the 9/11 anniversary in 2008 at least attempting to debate with truthers (most notably so far, Jason Bermas), before they just try to ignore his logic by calling him a disinfo agent. Here is the link to part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-iE-hrdgZg&feature=feedlik
Sibel Edmonds is the supposed be all and end all 9/11 whistle blower that proves without a shadow of a doubt that AT LEAST there was a cover up on that day. She was employed by the F.B.I. six months after September 11 as a Turkish translator for documents. She's basically a translation clerk. She believes that translators and counter-terrorist groups within the F.B.I. were purposely told to slow down in their work, and that she uncovered a number of transactions between the U.S. Turkish embassy, and the ISI(Pakistan's spy agency). For someone who claims to have a number of gag orders from different courts about this issue, she sure blabs a lot, and not being sent to jail for it.
Then, she gets into some more devious matters in her letter to the 9/11 Commission.
"More than four months prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan, he received information that: 1) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four or five major cities; 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes; 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States; 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing 302 forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the special agent in charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to "keep quiet" regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and a report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004, stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001."
She makes four claims that she states the United States government had known about that are listed in this Chicago Tribune article she cites:
1. Attack in the US targeting 4-5 cities.
2. Attack will involve airplanes.
3. Some of the attackers already in the US.
4. Attack coming soon.
Now, what does every good little researcher do? Why we check the sources validity of course. I'm sure the Commission did the same thing. When finding the article, you see that quote mining and flat out lying has just occurred by Edmonds:
"Although the Asset has lived in the U.S. 25 years and speaks some English, the FBI has had trouble understanding him in the past. To guard against any misunderstanding, the two FBI agents assigned to interview him in April 2001 brought along an FBI translator fluent in his native language, Farsi.
The interview followed the standard FBI format. The agents posed their questions in English, which were then translated into Farsi. The Asset's replies were translated back into English as the agents took notes.
According to the law enforcement official, "there was talk about terrorists and planes," but no mention of when or where the attacks might take place.
It was the FBI agents' impression, the official said, that the target of the attacks could be "possibly here, but more probably overseas." The Asset also reported having heard a rumor that a plane would be hijacked to Afghanistan, the official said.
The FBI's translator, a former Iranian police colonel named Behrooz Sarshar, does not recall any mention of a hijacking to Afghanistan. But Sarshar, then a career FBI employee assigned to the translation section of the bureau's Washington field office, does remember the Asset saying the attacks might take place in the U.S. or Europe, and also that the terrorist-pilots were "under training.""
So let's recap boys and girls!
1. The article makes no mention that 4-5 United States cities were being targeted. Quite the contrary, as the officials state that they believe the attacks will happen most likely overseas than in America. Swing and a miss!
2. OK, she didn't lie about the planes, but planes are mentioned REALLY vaguely. Before 9/11, if I heard terrorist and plane in the same sentence, the first thing that would have popped into my head would be a bomb on the plane to blow it up. Hijacking would be the second thing I think of, but a distant second. And when they do mention a hijacking, they stated that it would be to Afghanistan.
3. There is also no mentioning of terrorists training in the United States. This could be the quote mining portion of Edmonds case, as the article states that "attacks might occur in the US or Europe". And the next sentence states that terrorists are already under training. But once again, it makes no case that it was in America. Shame on you, Sibel! Strike two.
4. The only thing for this claim that needs to be read is this portion of the article:
"According to the law enforcement official, "there was talk about terrorists and planes," but no mention of WHEN or WHERE the attacks might take place."
That's three strikes, and you're out Ms. Edmonds. I have no doubt that the commission read this article, and easily found out that she was stretching parts of the truth, and also lying to their faces through a letter. I recently visited her blog and commented, asking about why she lied to the commission in her letter. I gave all the information, was nice, and wasn't being obnoxious like a lot of Truthers act when they corner people and shout at them for being treasonous. I checked back no more than an hour ago, and the post is mysteriously gone. This is quite the irony, I'm being gagged and silenced by someone who claims to the same thing herself. Just so happens I have actual facts that show she's a liar, and she can't have that!
Charlie Sheen, as most everyone knows, is the star of the current hit sitcom (and IMO not funny at all) Two and a Half Men. What a lot of the new audience to Charlie may not know is his past drug and alcohol abuse, and woman beating. Yes, he pleaded no contest to assault on his girlfriend in the 1990s.
He has also had a string of hit movies as well as flops. Platoon, Hot Shots, Major League, Young Guns, all of which were pretty successful movies. But then he started getting his private life in the news, and started spiraling downhill.
This brings us to Charlie Sheen: nutjob. He says that the moment he saw the WTC towers fall on 9/11 that he immediately felt that something wasn't right, that he knew that the government had something to do with it. He has appeared numerous times of fellow conspiracy theorist and noted hate group funder Alex Jones' radio program. He regurgitates all the usual stuff. Free fall speed, no plane hit the Pentagon, no debris found in Shankesville, thermite, WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, etc. He was even rumored to be the narrator of Loose Change: Final Cut but backed out, probably because he wanted to stay employed instead of barking again and again about theories that have constantly been debunked.
Then came a few days ago, I'm reading the Screw Loose Change blog, the title said "Charlie Sheen's 20 Minutes with the President" I was like "You got to be kidding me." Well, technically yes. I read through this so called interview, and right at the end it had an authors note saying the whole thing was faked. Apparently, this note was not posted there at first, and all the Jarhead Jones disciples were saying how this is blowing the door open for 9/11 Truth to be mainstream, and finally get their own investigation. I read further down at more of the comments, and my oh my does hilarity ensue. After the authors note was posted, comments started flooding Jones' site saying how they felt betrayed, states that Jones' credibility is shot(like he ever actually had any credibility?), how Charlie is an idiot, etc.
This was a publicity stunt by Jones and Sheen to make 9/11 Truth more public, and it backfired horribly. It hurt their quest for being taken seriously, like some of their documentaries inserting explosion sound effects in videos to claim bombs were planted(yes, they actually did that).
In all actuality, no matter what publicity stunts the twoof movement does, it'll always backfire. Turns out, the whole fake interview was suppost to lead to a "huge" announcement that Charlie was going to appear at some Truth Movement gathering on 9/10 or 9/11 to do a speech and give his support. I wonder if he'll actually get booed?
So I remember about a month or so ago I took a poll on Facebook asking "Should be commemorate September 11th as a holiday?" I voted no, as I feel that the word holiday interprets a day of celebration. We celebrate Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, Valentine's Day, etc. There is absolutely NOTHING to celebrate on 9/11. September 11th is a day of remembrance, not a day of celebration. Members of al-Qaeda and other Islamofascist organizations would celebrate this day. So I voted no, said why, and people voted "like" on my comments, and that was the end of it.
Then comes yesterday, while working I looked at the calendar, and what do I see labeled in the bottom portion of the square for 9/11? "Patriots Day" is read. I was bamboozled. So now I'm doing some research on the day. First I found the original Patriots' Day, commemorating the anniversary of the Battles of Concord and Lexington during the Revolutionary War, but those battles happened in April, not September.
Turns out, they made ANOTHER holiday of pretty much the same name. Apparently they passed it back in 2001 immediately after the terrorist attacks to a 407-0 voting clip. September 11th is not a holiday, and it never should be considered as such. It's a day that will be remember 'til the end of time anyways, and people will always mourn the losses that we suffered that day. 9/11 will be remembered just as 12/7 will (If you don't know the relevance of that date, look it up. Because you should). Holiday and 9/11 simply just don't mix.
Yep. If anyone still actually checks in, which I have high doubts since I haven't posted on this contraption in over 2 years if I remember correctly. I will every now and again be posting on here. Hopefully I won't get drowned in work like I did before and simply forget about this.