Sunday, January 6, 2008

John Gibson: The biggest DICKHEAD on planet Earth

The Neo-con idiot equates ALL Ron Paul supporters as 9/11 truthers. Resorts to the only tactics that official story defenders have: Name-calling, ad hominem attacks, assuming, censorship and refusing to debate

by Larry Simons
January 5, 2008

FOX News’ John Gibson is just about the biggest dickhead on Earth. As much as I condemn Bill O' Reilly or Sean Hannity, they don’t come anywhere close to being as childish and just plain STUPID as John Gibson, as evidenced in this latest segment of his radio show.

Listen to the audio on this YouTube clip:

I don’t even know where to begin! There’s so many different angles in which I could approach how much of an ASSHOLE John Gibson is. First, let me clarify one thing that some may see as a contradiction on my part. Above, I say that one method the official story defenders use is name-calling, and here I have called John Gibson a dickhead and an asshole. Naturally, people reading this might say I'm being hypocritical. Here is why it’s not a contradiction.

Above, I say, “John Gibson resorts to “tactics”… name-calling”. I didn’t say name-calling was necessarily wrong. I’m condemning the practice as a tactic that people use to defend themselves. If I said that Jesus is the Son of God and another disagreed, I would expect a debate. If the person who disagreed said, “You believe that? You’re a dickhead!” then what’s happening here is that the person is not defending their stance of rejecting Jesus as the Son of God, so they simply respond with calling names.

When I call someone as asshole or whatever the name, I tell you why they are an asshole by providing video clips or simply posting their quotes. I am not saying that John Gibson is a dickhead because he doesn’t believe that 9-11 was an inside job. I condemn him for his lack of debating skills and his refusal to address the issue rather than just being in attack mode 24/7.

Again, keep in mind, I’m not even against name-calling per se. I’m against people using it as a debating technique. If you’re going to call someone a name, back it up and provide evidence. People like John Gibson defend their stance on 9-11 by saying we are “kooks” and “nuts” and we should be “rejected”. Of course, he’s not interested in providing the reason for saying this, because if he provided reasons he would have to begin a debate and it would require him to know facts and details about 9-11…which of course, he does not.

First of all, Gibson begins this clip by playing protesters chanting, “9-11 was an inside job”. He then says, “Those are people at a Ron Paul event, standing behind him (Ron Paul) chanting ‘9-11 was an inside job’”. First of all, I have never heard of ANY Ron Paul event, especially one where Ron Paul was directly in front of a group of people, where people have chanted “9-11 was an inside job”. This is a total LIE by John Gibson to attempt to paint all Ron Paul supporters as “kooky people who believe in this conspiracy crap”. Did he ever play this clip on his TV show? Wouldn’t this video have been all over FOX News to crush Ron Paul? If someone has a video of it, I’d love to see it. If I see a clip like this, I'll apologize for saying John Gibson lied about this and I will condemn the video.

There have been people in this country who have held up signs with Ron Paul’s name on it with the phrase “9/11 was an inside job” on it as well. I am totally against this. This harms Ron Paul’s campaign. Why? Because I don’t believe it? No, because it is the wrong forum, time and place to announce to the world your personal stance on issues that you may hold to be true. I am equally against people using religion to endorse a candidate. I would be just as against someone holding up a Mike Huckabee sign with something about Jesus on it.

Here is an example of people who are hurting Ron Paul’s campaign:

This video is from someone on YouTube that clarifies what I’m saying perfectly:

Endorse your candidate for what he (or she) will do for this country first and foremost. Don't put your personal views in the mouths of the candidates you support. Although the truth of 9-11 is a very political and important issue, it is also an issue that many do not accept as a cover-up. Remember, there ARE people who support Ron Paul who do NOT believe 9-11 was an inside job. Be respectful of these people. You not only hurt Ron Paul by equating him with conspiracy "nuts" but you equate fellow supporters with it too. Let's not be accused of exploiting 9-11 like Giuliani does. Let's be better than that.

There are many uninformed people out there that just don't understand how we could possibly love our country and at the same time say our government knew about 9-11, or worse yet..caused it. They don't understand what Black Ops are capable of, and those who DO understand it have to deny it and call us "nuts" in order to say it doesn't exist. They don't understand that we are trying to expose criminal activity in order to prevent it. For these people, it's easier to deny there is corruption within our own government because most likely, the ones who deny it are the ones involved in it. It reminds me of the ending of "L.A. Confidential" where the police department didn't know how they were going to cover-up their own corruption to the media. They eventually found the solution: Made heroes of them by announcing that the bad cop who was killed by the good cops was actually killed in the line of duty.

We believe that government corruption would be eliminated if we had a President who followed the Constitution. 9-11 is just one symptom of the overflowing corruption of our own government. Even if you ruled out that the government was involved in 9-11, then your only option is to accept that we were very incompetent and outsmarted that day. So, one has a big choice to make: Either we were involved in it or we were very weak and stupid. Regardless of the choice one picks---America still loses. Yet, only the "conspiracy" people are ridiculed and called "America-haters", while the ones who have accepted that our country was weak and incompetent that day are the REAL patriots. It's simply unbelievable.

It's quite scary either way. Either we have a government that kills its own people to gain support for pre-emptive wars, or we have a government that can't protect us from a man in a cave destroying our most cherished structures. Either way, how does America win? We have decided that the ONLY way we can win is to follow the CONSTITUTION. THIS is why we NEED Ron Paul.

I’m quite sure that John Gibson knows deep down that all Ron Paul supporters aren’t 9-11 truthers. This is a clear attack on Ron Paul. He’s not attacking truthers as much as he’s attacking Ron Paul.

Gibson then says, “Ron Paul cozies up with people like Alex Jones” as a way to imply that Ron Paul is in agreement with 9-11 truthers. I have never known Ron Paul to say "no" to anyone that asks him for an interview. He may have scheduling conflicts at times, but I have never known him to flat out refuse an interview. So, Gibson wants his sheep to believe that since Ron Paul doesn’t refuse interviews with Alex Jones, then he feels 9-11 is an inside job. Ron Paul has done interviews with Bill O’ Reilly and Glenn Beck too. Does this make Ron Paul a Neo-con warmongerer?

Then Gibson says FOX excluded Ron Paul from their forum because there was only so much room in the bus they are having it in. LIE. FOX News is scared of Ron Paul because of his non-intervention foreign policies and his stances on tackling big government by dismantling unconstitutional agencies such as the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Then Gibson attempts to defend FOX by saying, “They left Duncan Hunter out too”. They left him out because he really has no chance. Total spin once again.

If I'm wrong and FOX has no fear of Ron Paul, why would they miss the chance of allowing this "nut" that has 'no chance' in the forum so he can embarrass himself and be an easy laughing stock to the other candidates? The answer is simple: Ron Paul will make the other candidates look like the complete morons, flip-floppers and warmongering Constitution-haters they are---------THAT'S why!

Gibson calls Ron Paul a “fringe” candidate and a "crank". I can’t tell you how it fills my heart with joy hearing a Neo-con being AGAINST the person I support. It tells me I’m on the right side. But, just for fun, let me show you how Ron Paul is NOT “fringe”. He raises more money than any other candidate (at least in the last 2 quarters, if not total). He has received the most donations from active military personnel. He wins in nearly every online poll and TV poll after any televised debate. He is the most viewed candidate on YouTube and is the most popular candidate among college voters. He has the most meet-up groups in the nation and has won the most straw polls. Fringe?

Gibson then asks a caller if he believed Osama bin Laden when he took credit for 9-11. This is hilarious to me since on several occasions bin Laden DENIED involvement in 9-11, and the most startling evidence that bin Laden was most likely NOT involved in 9-11 doesn’t even come from HIM, but from the FBI’s own website! On Osama bin Laden’s FBI profile, it does not even mention 9-11 among his crimes. Why? Because the FBI has even admitted they don’t have any evidence linking bin Laden to 9-11. So, when Gibson tries to nail a caller for not thinking bin Laden was involved in 9-11, he can also nail the FBI for not believing it!

Gibson then asks another caller, “…are you saying that no other candidate except Ron Paul supports the Constitution?” The caller says, “Ron Paul addresses ALL the issues”, which is correct, he does. Other candidates support SOME things in the Constitution, but Ron Paul tackles every issue. If other candidates addressed all the issues, they would all want our troops home, as Ron Paul does. Ron Paul consistently votes “no” on any bill or policy that violates the Constitution; something ALL other candidates cannot claim.

Then Gibson goes completely in left field by saying to the caller, “Would you characterize the troops as 9-11 truthers?” First of all, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Where did this question come from? How would the caller know this even if the answer was ‘yes’?

One issue that John Gibson doesn’t care to address is the fact that there are very outspoken people that are against Bush’s foreign policies and reject that 9-11 was an inside job that support Ron Paul. Bill Maher is one of them. How does John Gibson explain people like Bill Maher? Maher threw 9-11 truthers out of his studio audience a few months ago, and he has even said “Ron Paul is my hero”. Explain that John! Of course, you can’t. Ron Paul himself has even said he doesn’t believe 9-11 was an inside job, but of course, Gibson leaves out this insignificant fact.

When that same caller hangs up, Gibson and his co-host start mentioning that they have the caller’s email address, last name, phone number and that he is a 9-11 truther. How do they know all this personal information? I saw a comment on YouTube from a person who said they tried to call into John Gibson’s radio show and the very first question they asked him was , “Are you a 9-11 truther?” He lied and said “no”, and they patched him through. So, when Gibson says that the caller lied about being a 9-11 truther, what he doesn’t tell you is that he HAD to, or the screener wouldn’t have let him on the show! Fair and balanced huh?

Gibson says to another caller, “If you’re a 9-11 truther, you love Ron Paul; if you’re not, you shouldn’t get near him”. What in the hell is this supposed to mean? People involved in the 9-11 truth movement are, for the most part, good people. Some are more passionate about it than others. Some, I admit, don’t use common sense and don’t know when the time and place is to announce that they are involved in it. But, this lack of common sense doesn’t have to do with their beliefs, it has to do with their individual personalities. The truth is the truth no matter who speaks it or how unpopular it is.

I know people who are 9-11 truthers who support Edwards and Kucinich and not Ron Paul. I know Ron Paul supporters who are not 9-11 truthers. For John Gibson to make a statement like that just shows he is either completely stupid, unprofessional, uneducated or bought-off. My money goes on all of the above.

To John Gibson, you can’t ask questions or doubt the media. You can’t question the government. You can’t dissent wars. You can’t protest. In other words, you can’t be an AMERICAN and exercise your First Amendment rights. You have to shut the hell up and accept whatever is being spoon fed to you. If you question your leaders or dissent, you have committed treason and should be “REJECTED”, and I’m sure Gibson would gladly support people being sent off to camps and stripped of any rights.


No comments: