Thursday, October 30, 2008
by Larry Simons
October 30, 2008
On Wednesday’s Rachel Maddow Show, Rachel’s guest was Republican Congressman Ron Paul, who was on to talk about the direction and future of the Republican party. During the last few minutes of the interview, Ron Paul dished out some ‘not so nice’ hardcore facts about the similarities between McCain and Obama, which had to be unbearable for Maddow to hear. Some of the Congressman's highlights were:
“But our message is very attractive to young people. They like the idea of self reliance and individual liberty. They like to get out of these wars. They love the idea of talking about monetary policy which neither McCain or Obama will dare talk about. Why do we have a federal reserve?”
“You know, bringing us down overseas in a war like they did to the Soviets, bankrupting this country. So we have fallen into a terrible trap. And right now, we`re expanding it. And unfortunately, the two major candidates aren`t even talking about Syria and Pakistan and the things that are important because they essentially both agree with that viewpoint.”
“They both say, "Send more troops to Afghanistan." And quite frankly, I am not expecting the troops, regardless of whether Obama wins, that they`ll be home in 16 months. That is just pure political talk. Both candidates support the same foreign policy, same monetary policy. Neither one talks about, you know, balancing the budget so the young people want to hear something different. They love the message of individual liberty. They love the idea of defending the constitution, you know, that old fashioned idea. And that`s what has energized our campaign. Actually, it`s given me a lot of energy as well.”
I'm guessing it will be quite a while until Ron Paul is invited back.
watch the video
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
by Larry Simons
October 29, 2008
It was reported here at Real Truth Online on October 28 [the day after Billo’s appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman] that Billo told Letterman he didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is when he said this:
"The Bush Doctrine? Remember that, when Charlie Gibson went, 'what's the Bush doctrine'? You got the nose with glasses on and all that. I'm sitting at home going 'what Bush Doctrine'? Is that the doctrine where I go to Crawford Texas five times a year? What Bush Doctrine is that? I don't know what that is. That was just ridiculous. It's all gotcha gotcha gotcha."
It was a classic moment to sit and watch Billo embarrass himself once again by joining VP candidate Sarah Palin in the “I don’t know what the Bush Doctrine is” club. But, a part of me was thinking, “this is too good to be true, that Billo would just admit being so stupid”, so, I had my doubts that he really didn’t know, but I had video of him saying it, so my story wasn’t false.
As I browsed the net today, I stumbled upon some sites that said that Billo really lied when he said he didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is [in order to protect Sarah Palin]. They were saying it was Billo’s way of becoming the village idiot along with Palin in order to exempt her from being the lone person in the national spotlight to not know something as basic as the Bush Doctrine, so I decided to check it out.
One of my favorite sites, Crooks and Liars, reported that Billo was really lying about not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is because previously, on several occasions, Billo has mentioned it (both times in 2004) here and here (although in both examples Billo really doesn’t mention what the Bush Doctrine IS). So, I decided to research deeper and looked for any clip or story where Billo is actually referencing the Bush Doctrine and saying what it actually is.
Here is where it gets interesting. Turns out, I didn’t have to research long at all. In Billo’s Talking Points Memo on September 12, 2008, Billo says this:
"Governor Palin's debut with ABC News was a mixed bag. She seemed tense - who wouldn't be - and she booted a few questions. But she also made some good points. The governor's best moment was when she expressed her support for Ukraine and Georgia. Her weakest answer concerned the 'Bush Doctrine.' When I heard that question from Charlie Gibson, I thought the 'Bush Doctrine' was the president's belief that encouraging democracy is the ultimate solution to marginalizing terrorism. But Gibson put forth that the 'Bush Doctrine' is the use of military action to prevent anticipated attacks. The record shows there is no precise definition of the 'Bush Doctrine,' so if I were asked about the doctrine I would have been confused, too. Overall, I thought Charlie did his job, but there was a 'gotcha' element to the interview. All in all, Sarah Palin did not injure herself in the interview; she lives to chat another day."
What has happened here is that originally we thought Billo was just an idiot for not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is. Then, when it was discovered that Billo had mentioned the Bush Doctrine before (but never defining it, or defining it incorrectly) we thought he had lied in order to not make Sarah Palin look all that idiotic.
Now, in light of the above quote from 9-12-08 [which, obviously, was made after the Gibson-Palin interview], we see the real picture here: Billo lied to David Letterman when he said, “I'm sitting at home going 'what Bush Doctrine'? Is that the doctrine where I go to Crawford Texas five times a year? What Bush Doctrine is that? I don't know what that is”. It IS a lie because O’ Reilly is CLEARLY stating that he DOES NOT KNOW what the Bush Doctrine is as if he has never even heard the term in his life. The quote from September 12, 2008, as well as the references he made in 2004, CLEARLY state that Billo has heard of the term AND has used the term before.
We know for a FACT that yes, he obviously was protecting Sarah Palin because of the fact that on September 12, 2008, in the above quote from his Talking Points Memo, Billo [even if he really didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was prior to September 12, 2008] says this, “But Gibson put forth that the 'Bush Doctrine' is the use of military action to prevent anticipated attacks.” If he didn’t know prior to the Gibson interview, he knew AT THE TIME of the interview by acknowledging Gibson’s explanation of the Bush Doctrine. So, one has to wonder, if Billo was going to lie anyway (which we already know he did by stating he didn’t “know what that [Bush Doctrine] is”), then why didn’t he lie in his favor and say he DID know what the Bush Doctrine was since he acknowledged Gibson’s CORRECT definition of it 45 days earlier??? The answer is simple: He was protecting Sarah Palin.
Of course, the idiot part comes in when Billo says in his Sept. 12, 2008 Talking Points memo, “When I heard that question from Charlie Gibson, I thought the 'Bush Doctrine' was the president's belief that encouraging democracy is the ultimate solution to marginalizing terrorism.”
What makes this story more bizarre by the minute is the fact that [also thanks to Crooks and Liars] in August of 2004 during an interview with political analyst Pat Buchanan, Billo said this, "Wow. McCain and Giuliani are going to basically refute what you believe tonight. They're going to come out and say the Iraq war was worth it, that the Bush strategy, they call it the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes against threatening people in an age of nuclear terrorism, has to happen. What do you think about that?"
So, in two other instances in the SAME year, 2004, [mentioned above] Billo uses the term "Bush Doctrine" without really defining it, but during the Buchanan interview he not only mentions it but seems to state the correct definition by using the words "preemptive strikes", but on Sept. 12, 2008, he has forgotten what the Bush Doctrine is all over again? THEN, 45 days later, during his Letterman interview, he lies and acts like he has never even heard of the Bush Doctrine and says Charles Gibson was unfair when in his Talking Points Memo from Sept. 12, 2008, he makes reference to Gibson stating the CORRECT definition? My God, Billo is even more mentally unstable than even I thought!
So, I wasn’t wrong in my original story, either is Crooks and Liars in their 2 stories. We just didn’t have the complete picture. The story really can’t get any better than this! Everyone who thought this story was only about idiocy, or only about a lie, or only about protecting Sarah Palin. Rejoice! It turns out; Billo is actually guilty of all 3!
Oh, and Billo, by the way, when you said, "The record shows there is no precise definition of the Bush Doctrine", you are incorrect again! See here, and here.
October 29, 2008
“Zeitgeist: Addendum” (Released October 2, 2008)
Part I criticizes the practice of the fractional-reserve banking system and tries to convey, in a simplified manner, how the Federal Reserve creates money, and what each dollar bill represents -- that is, debt. The film goes on to present a case for how "the Fed" loans this newly created "debt money" to the U.S. Treasury in exchange for bonds. According to the film, the money received from the Fed ends up as deposits in commercial banks, which through the fractional-reserve system is multiplied and loaned to customers. The film claims that such a system is "absurd" because the interest that must be paid for the bonds can only create a perpetual cycle of debt -- since the Federal Reserve Note (i.e., the dollar bill) was created according to the "principal" value of the bond, and not the interest.
Part II is a documentary style interview with John Perkins, in which he describes his role as a self-described Economic Hitman (EHM). He claims he helped CIA and the ruling political/corporate elites who have worked to undermine legitimate foreign regimes that put the interests of their populations before those of transnational corporations.
Part III describes the Venus Project, a proposal created by Jacque Fresco. The film promotes the Venus Project as a sustainable solution for mankind on Earth. Its main goal is to produce a "resource-based economy" using modern technology.
Part IV states that everything wrong with the world is "fundamentally the result of a collective ignorance of two of the most basic insights humans can have about reality -- the 'emergent' and 'symbiotic' aspects of natural law."
The film then suggests actions for "social transformation," such as boycotts of large banks, the mainstream media, the military and energy companies; rejecting the political structure; and "creating critical mass."
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
by Larry Simons
October 28, 2008
The Sultan of Spin appeared last night on The Late Show with David Letterman. There’s never a dull moment when these two pair up. In the past, Letterman has nailed Billo for his “war on Christmas” bullshit and flat out telling Billo that his show is mostly “crap”.
Last night was no exception as Letterman jumped to the topic of Sarah Palin. Billo brought up Palin’s interview last month with Charles Gibson in which Gibson asked if Palin agreed with the Bush Doctrine [which is Bush’s policy of preemptive strikes on other nations even if we feel they might be a threat to us].
Billo then admitted he didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is either:
"The Bush Doctrine? Remember that, when Charlie Gibson went, 'what's the Bush doctrine'? You got the nose with glasses on and all that. I'm sitting at home going 'what Bush Doctrine'? Is that the doctrine where I go to Crawford Texas five times a year? What Bush Doctrine is that? I don't know what that is. That was just ridiculous. It's all gotcha gotcha gotcha."
Well, first of all, Charles Gibson did not say, “What’s the Bush Doctrine?”, as if he was asking her what it was. He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”. He, like any sane, reasonable human being, assumed that she, being in an executive position and the VP nominee, already knew what the Bush policy [that she agreed with] was called! You’d think Billo wouldn’t paraphrase anyone and would strive to get actual quotes correct since it is Billo himself who continually condemns newspapers, news outlets and guests on his show for taking him “out of context”. Shame on Gibson for asking someone who would be a heartbeat away from being President of the United States if she knew the title of our foreign policy.
What I find unbelievable is that Billo himself has been advocating and defending Bush’s foreign policies now for the past 6 years, and he claims he doesn’t even know what it was called? It bothers me more that Sarah Palin doesn’t know because, unlike Billo, she is very close to having the second most important job in the nation, wheras Billo is just a corporate controlled media blowhard whose job it is to continually spew talking points and lie over and over to his idiotic fans.
Billo calls this “gotcha” journalism---to ask serious, important questions. I guess asking Palin if she knew what the duties of the Vice President are, this would be “gotcha” journalism too! Oh, wait---she doesn’t know that either!
watch and laugh
Monday, October 27, 2008
Some of McCain's relatives support Obama
by Elgin Jones
South Florida Times
October 18, 2008
In the rural Teoc community of Carroll County, Miss., where the ancestors of Sen. John McCain owned enslaved Africans on a plantation, black, white and mixed-race family members unite every two years for their Coming Home Reunion, on the land where the plantation operated.
Some of McCain’s black family members say they are not sure exactly where they fall on the family tree, but they do know this: They are either descendants of the McCain family slaves, or of children the McCains fathered with their slaves.
White and black members of the McCain family have met on the plantation several times over the last 15 years, but one invited guest has been conspicuously absent: Sen. John Sidney McCain.
“Why he hasn’t come is anybody’s guess,” said Charles McCain Jr., 60, a distant cousin of John McCain who is black. “I think the best I can come up with, is that he doesn’t have time, or he has just distanced himself, or it doesn’t mean that much to him.”
Other relatives are not as generous.
Lillie McCain, 56, another distant cousin of John McCain who is black, said the Republican presidential nominee is trying to hide his past, and refuses to accept the family’s history.
“After hearing him in 2000 claim his family never owned slaves, I sent him an email,” she recalled. “I told him no matter how much he denies it, it will not make it untrue, and he should accept this and embrace it.”
She said the senator never responded to her email.
Although Charles is uncertain who will get his vote for president, several of John McCain’s black and white relatives are supporting his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama.
“I am absolutely supporting Obama, and it’s not because he’s black. It’s because he is the best person at this time in our history,” said Lillie McCain, a professor of psychology at Mott Community College in Flint, Michigan.
“We simply need to look at the economy, and McCain’s campaign does not take us there,” said Joyce McCain, Lillie’s sister, a retired engineering manager with General Motors who lives in Grand Blanc, Michigan. “He is my cousin, but we are in dire times right now and people are hurting. Sen. Obama is clearly the best choice to be president.’’
Charles McCain and his wife, Theresa, who still live in Teoc, started the reunions over a decade ago. Charles is the deacon of Mitchell Springs Baptist Church, the only black house of worship in the area.
When Theresa McCain started the family reunions in the late 1980s or early ‘90s (neither he nor his wife is sure of the exact starting date), only black family members attended. But as word spread about the gatherings, white members of the McCain family got involved. Today, the reunion has expanded to the point where it is becoming a community event.
The reunion’s website, teocfamilyreunion.ning.com, has pictures, postings and other information about the family gatherings. While Sen. McCain’s brother, Joe, and many of his other white relatives attend the reunions, family members say Sen. McCain has never acknowledged them, or even responded to their invitations.
“Well, a lot of the people who had moved away and were living up north, would send money to help us maintain the church,” said Theresa McCain, 62. “Myself and others began inviting them back home for picnics, just to show our appreciation.”
The McCain campaign did not respond to repeated questions about John McCain’s black relatives, or about his relatives of both races who support Obama. Pablo Carrillo, a media liaison with the McCain campaign, said the senator was aware of his African-American relatives, but asked the reporter to put his questions into writing, and that someone would get back to him.
After the reporter sent questions in writing, and made repeated follow-up phone calls, neither Sen. McCain nor anyone else from the campaign responded.
Based on information obtained by the South Florida Times, the senator has numerous black and mixed-raced relatives who were born on, or in, the area of the McCain plantation. The mixed races in the family can be traced back to the rural Teoc community of Carroll County, Miss., where his family owned slaves.
Sen. John McCain’s great, great grandfather, William Alexander McCain (1812-1863), fought for the Confederacy and owned a 2,000-acre plantation named Waverly in Teoc. The family dealt in the slave trade, and, according to official records, held at least 52 slaves on the family’s plantation. The enslaved Africans were likely used as servants, for labor, and for breeding more slaves.
William McCain’s son, and Sen. John McCain’s great grandfather, John Sidney McCain (1851-1934), eventually assumed the duty of running the family’s plantation.
W.A. “Bill” McCain IV, a white McCain cousin, and his wife Edwina, are the current owners of the land. Both told the South Florida Times that they attend the reunions. They also said the McCain campaign had asked them not to speak to the media about the reunions, or about why the senator has never acknowledged the family gatherings.
In addition to distancing himself from his black family members, John McCain has taken several positions on issues that have put him at odds with members of the larger black community.
While running for the Republican Party nomination in 2000, he sided with protesters who were calling for the rebel battle flag to be removed from the South Carolina statehouse, only to alter that position later.
"Some view it as a symbol of slavery. Others view it as a symbol of heritage,” John McCain said of the flag. "Personally, I see the battle flag as a symbol of heritage. I have ancestors who have fought for the Confederacy, none of whom owned slaves. I believe they fought honorably.’’
Novelist Elizabeth Spencer, another white cousin of John McCain, noted the slaves the family owned in the family’s memoirs, Landscapes of the Heart. Sen. McCain has acknowledged reading the book, but claims to have only glossed over entries about their slaves.
“That’s crazy,” said Spencer, who also attends the reunions in Teoc. “No one had to tell us, because we all knew about the slaves. I may not vote, because I don’t want anyone to think that I have an issue with John, but I don’t want to see him become president because I think Obama is entirely adequate, and it’s time for a Democrat.’’
Spencer acknowledged donating money to the Obama campaign and to what she called “Democratic causes.”
Sen. John McCain was born in 1936 at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station, a segregated military installation in the Panama Canal, where his father was stationed in the U.S. Navy. His family returned to the states shortly after his birth; where he went on to attend segregated schools in the Teoc community and elsewhere around the country.
He served in the Navy, where he was a prisoner of war during Vietnam, before being released and eventually running for Congress.
After he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982, McCain voted against the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday in 1983. When he arrived in the U.S. Senate in 1986, he joined North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms in opposing the holiday again, and voted in 1994 to cut funding to the commission that marketed it.
John McCain also aligned himself with former Arizona Gov. Evan Mecham.
Mecham was the governor in McCain’s home state of Arizona from January 1987 to April 1988, when he was impeached and removed from office for campaign finance violations. As a state senator and governor, Mecham publicly used racial slurs against black people and other minorities. He was also a member of the John Birch Society, which opposes civil rights legislation. In 1986, Mecham campaigned for governor on a promise to rescind the state’s recognition of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, which he did in 1987.
Earlier this year, during the 40th anniversary recognition of King’s assassination, McCain, by this time a presidential candidate, said he was wrong for opposing the national King holiday.
Politics in America has long been steeped in the dynamics of the country’s myriad cultures, diverse ethnicities, and varying religious beliefs. Several of Sen. McCain’s black relatives say Obama’s candidacy represents progress.
“He is denying his black and white relatives in Teoc,” said Joyce McCain, 54. “I think he may not want the country to know his family’s full history, but times have changed and we need to move on, and that’s why I’m supporting Obama.”
watch the video
by Larry Simons
It appears that CNN is the only media outlet that has reported it. I wonder what this will mean to the plethora of racists who are not voting for Obama strictly because of race…and yes, there are many (religious and non-religious, left and right).
The hilarious thing is, many of the black McCains are voting for Obama!
Here is CNN’s report
Sunday, October 26, 2008
by Tim Dickinson
Rolling Stone Magazine
October 16, 2008
At Fort McNair, an army base located along the Potomac River in the nation's capital, a chance reunion takes place one day between two former POWs. It's the spring of 1974, and Navy commander John Sidney McCain III has returned home from the experience in Hanoi that, according to legend, transformed him from a callow and reckless youth into a serious man of patriotism and purpose. Walking along the grounds at Fort McNair, McCain runs into John Dramesi, an Air Force lieutenant colonel who was also imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam.
McCain is studying at the National War College, a prestigious graduate program he had to pull strings with the Secretary of the Navy to get into. Dramesi is enrolled, on his own merit, at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in the building next door.
There's a distance between the two men that belies their shared experience in North Vietnam — call it an honor gap. Like many American POWs, McCain broke down under torture and offered a "confession" to his North Vietnamese captors. Dramesi, in contrast, attempted two daring escapes. For the second he was brutalized for a month with daily torture sessions that nearly killed him. His partner in the escape, Lt. Col. Ed Atterberry, didn't survive the mistreatment. But Dramesi never said a disloyal word, and for his heroism was awarded two Air Force Crosses, one of the service's highest distinctions. McCain would later hail him as "one of the toughest guys I've ever met."
On the grounds between the two brick colleges, the chitchat between the scion of four-star admirals and the son of a prizefighter turns to their academic travels; both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for young officers to network with military and political leaders in a distant corner of the globe.
"I'm going to the Middle East," Dramesi says. "Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran."
"Why are you going to the Middle East?" McCain asks, dismissively.
"It's a place we're probably going to have some problems," Dramesi says.
"Why? Where are you going to, John?"
"Oh, I'm going to Rio."
"What the hell are you going to Rio for?"
McCain, a married father of three, shrugs.
"I got a better chance of getting laid."
Dramesi, who went on to serve as chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander of a wing of the Strategic Air Command, was not surprised. "McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man," Dramesi says today. "But he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."
This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.
In its broad strokes, McCain's life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.
In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.
Here is Tim Dickinson's "5 Myth's about John McCain"
Saturday, October 25, 2008
It was within this unlikely triangle of landmarks – exactly 41 years ago this Sunday – that John McCain crash-landed and, say his captors, began his run for the United States presidency.
For even if the cold, barely conscious US Navy officer did not know it at the time, says Le Van Lua and the other Vietnamese whose lives entwined with Mr McCain’s that day, this little spot of Hanoi is undoubtedly where pilot turned politician. If fury had prevailed, it is a transformation that might never have happened, says Mr Lua, 61, a factory worker who was the first on the scene after the crash and swam out to retrieve the battered, politically valuable prize.
He mimes clutching Mr McCain’s hair in one hand and a kitchen knife in the other: "I didn’t care about the politics, I just saw a man who had killed so many Vietnamese that I longed to kill him. He was injured badly and at the time I was desperate to finish him off. We only stopped because we were told he was more valuable alive. Now I’m glad I did stop: that day was truly the turning point in his life."
Mr Lua’s account of that day – along with Vietnamese accounts of the five and a half years that Mr McCain spent as a prisoner of war – differ significantly from the presidential candidate’s own record. Mr Lua speaks of quickly getting Mr McCain to the safety of a police station (now the aerobics studio) before any harm was done. Mr McCain writes of mob attacks on his shoulder, ankle and groin with rifle-butt and bayonet.
Where the accounts differ most starkly is in the period of Mr McCain’s long incarceration as a PoW – first at the prison known as the Hanoi Hilton, then at The Plantation.
Tran Trong Duyet, the former prison director who now surrounds himself with caged birds in a house in Hai Phong, first met Mr McCain a year after he had been shot down. He recalls a defiant rule-breaker, the patriotic son of an admiral and a fervent believer in the war. What he does not recall, however, is a victim of torture or violence.
"I never tortured or mistreated the PoWs and nor did my staff," says Mr Duyet in contradiction of Mr McCain’s account and those of other prisoners. "The Americans were dropping bombs on military and civilian targets – so it’s not as if they had important information we needed to extract." Mr Duyet says that he sympathises with Mr McCain and other PoWs for claiming that they were tortured. "It’s up to the Americans to decide whether or not he counts as a hero. He was very brave, very manly, he dared to argue with me and he was very intelligent. But all the talk of being tortured is for the sake of votes."
The McCain campaign refused to comment on the claims yesterday. Mr McCain did eventually sign a confession to his supposed crimes against the Vietnamese people and holds that it was only extracted after weeks of pain inflicted by his tormentors. In a more recent interview Mr McCain explained the signing of the confession as his failure.
Full article here
The deceased John McCain of 2000 rises to bite the John McCain of 2008 in the ass
by Larry Simons
October 25, 2008
In desperate attempts by the McCain-Palin campaign (in these last 10 days until the election) to score points, McCain has now resorted to attacking Obama for his tax cut plans (to increase taxes on those making higher than $250,000 a year), despite the fact that when McCain ran for President in 2000, McCain believed in “redistributing the wealth” as well, adding to his 10-mile list of flip-flops he’s made in just the last two years.
Here is the transcript from a town hall meeting on October 12, 2000 from MSNBC’s Hardball in which socialist John McCain was FOR redistributing the wealth:
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. Since I've been studying politics, I've had this question that I've never fully understand. Why is it that someone like my father, who goes to school for 13 years, gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor? Why is that -- why does he have to pay higher taxes than everybody else, just because he makes more money? Why -- how is that fair?
MATTHEWS: You mean...
MCCAIN: I think your question -- questioning the fundamentals of a progressive tax system where people who make more money pay more in taxes than a flat, across-the-board percentage. I think it's to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more. We have over the years, beginning with John F. Kennedy, reduced some of those marginal tax rates to make them less onerous.
But I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay -- all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they -- you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view...
MATTHEWS: How many -- how many people here believe that the people who made the highest level of incomes in this country should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?
Miss, do you want to follow up? Miss, do you want to follow up, do you want to follow up, do you want to follow up? Go ahead.
MCCAIN: Do you want to follow up? Please...
MATTHEWS: Go ahead, please, go ahead.
MCCAIN: ... you were dissatisfied with Chris's comment, I could tell.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I still don't see how the -- how that's fair. Isn't the definition of slavery basically where you work and all your money goes? I'm not saying this is slavery, I'm saying that isn't the defin -- are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff, when you have -- you have some people paying 60 percent overall in a year of their money to taxes. That's their money, not the government's. How is that fair? I haven't understood it.
MCCAIN: Could I point out, one of the fundamentals of a town hall meeting is, we respect the views of others, and let them speak. So, look, here's what I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. But at the same time, that shouldn't be totally out of proportion. There's some countries such as Sweden where it doesn't pay anything to work more than six months a year. That's probably the extreme.
But I think the debate in this country is more about tax cuts rather than anything else. And frankly, I think the first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans with children that need to educate their children, and they're the ones that I would support tax cuts for first.
Jon Stewart does an excellent segment on this
watch the video
last clip is from the 10/12/2000 town hall meeting
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Chris Matthews destroys shit-for-brains McCain advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer over Sarah “what’s a VP do?” Palin
Finally, Hardball lives up to its name
by Larry Simons
October 22, 2008
I don’t know what made Chris Matthews so pissed tonight on Hardball. I have no clue if it was because he hasn’t gotten any in a while or he is finally getting sick of the abundance of stupidity emanating from the McCain camp, but whatever it is, I really don’t care….this is the Chris Matthews I’ve wanted to see for a long, long time!
I’ve never really liked Chris Matthews much. To me, he's just another controlled media stooge like all the rest of them. He never seems to have the nads to take a side or a stance on anything. But tonight, my goodness, did he make up for months and months of mediocrity by annihilating McCain campaign advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer over the issue of Sarah Palin having no clue whatsoever what the duties of the Vice President are.
Matthews actually appeared pissed off, and rightfully so, because the overwhelming stupidity coming from McCain, Palin and now his advisors has to be confronted and exposed, and I was loving every minute of this. This was one of Chris Matthews’ finest moments on television and while I watched this, only one thought went through my mind: If he was like this every single day on his show, he’d be one of my favorite political commentators.
See if you can notice Pfotenhauer purposely and constantly changing the subject and giving those “god I hope this segment ends quick” laughs of hers as Matthews does an excellent job at staying on the subject and not letting Pfotenhauer take his eye off the ball.
My message to Chris Matthews: Do this every single day on your show and I’ll watch you every single day.
Here’s an excerpt:
MATTHEWS: We talked about the superficial, now let's talk the reality here. And I want to talk about this: the role of the Vice President. I want to give you a shot at it, Nancy, you're a pro. You're not somebody in from out of town. You know how politics works. What is the role of the Vice President under the Constitution? Simply put, you know it or you don't. Either a person understands the role of the Vice President or they don't. What—as you understand it from the Constitution – as a professional, is the role of a Vice President. It's very important you know this answer. We're filling the part in two weeks.
PFOTENHAUER: That's right. That's right. Well, I mean, obviously the role of the Vice President is to support the President, but to also to preside when necessary over the US Senate. And I think that this is also a tempest in a teapot…
MATTHEWS: No, that's not the role of the Vice President. I gave you a shot, Nancy, I want you to try again. What is the Constitutional role of the Vice President? In the Constitution? What's written in the Constitution? You're…look, you're all strict constructionists…
PFOTENHAUER: I'm not a Constitutional scholar but I do know …
MATTHEWS: Have you ever read it?
So, according to Pfotenhauer, you have to be a Constitutional scholar in order to know the 2 main roles of the Vice President.
Here’s the video
Jeff Foxworthy, you may need to do a Vice President’s edition of “Are you smarter than a 5th grader?”
by Larry Simons
October 22, 2008
Sarah Palin is asked for the 4th time since July of this year “What does the Vice President do?”, and STILL after FOUR chances to get it right, she is still completely clueless on what she will be doing in the event McCain becomes President in two weeks.
A reporter read a question from a 3rd grader, Brandon Garcia, and it just happens to be a question she has been asked 3 times prior (still without giving a CORRECT response). Here’s her answer:
“Ahh, that’s something Piper would ask me as a second grader also. That’s a great question Brandon. A Vice President has a really great job because not only are they there to support the President’s agenda, they’re like the team member, the teammate to that President, but also they’re in charge of the United States Senate. So, if they want to, they can really get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom and it’s a great job and I look forward to having that job.”
OK, Sarah, I’m going to make this REEEEAAAALLLLLY easy for you, so that even YOU can follow along:
Your job will consist of TWO primary roles according to the United States Constitution (you’ve heard of that, right?)
1. Presides over the Senate. The VP presides over it, NOT in charge of it. The VP is there to cast a tie-breaking vote. His power is limited in this role, but his vote can determine legislation. So, the VP is in charge of NOTHING. (Article 1, Section 3, “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”)
2. Assumes the role of President of the United States in the event the President becomes unable to fulfill his duties as President, whether it be sickness or death.
watch the clip and be terrified…very terrified
Blogger Andy Ostroy puts it brilliantly when he says:
How on Earth can you possibly run for the second highest job in the world and not even know what the hell its responsibilities are? How does the McCain camp let her out on the street with this moronic revisionist nonsense? She wouldn't know a U.S. Constitution if it smacked her in her fraudulent smart-girl glasses. As MSNBC's Chris Matthews said Tuesday night, "She wasn't talking to third-graders, she was talking like a third-grader!"
Palin seems to be utterly clueless as to what her job would be. And it's no surprise. She's consistently made embarrassing, Constitutionally-inaccurate statements on the role of the office. It began earlier this year when she told CNBC's Larry Kudlow that, "As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration."
She dug her ignorance hole even deeper when, during the vice presidential debate with Sen. Joe Biden, she told moderator Gwen Ifill that she believes Dick Cheney was right about the vice president being more that just a member of the executive branch, and that vp's have "much flexibility" in the job:
"Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation."
Last time I checked, Article I Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says the job of the vice president is twofold: to take over the job of president in the event the president is unable to serve; and to serve as president of the Senate, with responsibilities strictly limited to serving as the tie-breaker. The job offers no legislative powers, Grandma. There is no "flexibility." There are no "policy changes" to be made. You are not "in charge" of anything. You simply sit in a chair looking bored out of your wits, like every other vice president in U.S. history--including Darth Vader--and quietly observe as 100 Senators do their job. Unless there's a tie, you are window-dressing. Period. Not that I give a shit, but you should really stop humiliating yourself like this. And, your stupidity is shaving points off of McCain's poll numbers faster than Karl Rove's hairline is receding. I guess, for that, we should be thankful. Just as Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey is grateful for her next skit on the wacky Wasilla Wonder.
You have an interview soon with Brian Williams. For the love of God, between now and then could you at least browse Wikipedia (here) to find out what the VP’s job is?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
And yet another example of the uneducated, hypocritical, psychotic right wing religious nuts in America
by Larry Simons
October 21, 2008
A clip taken from “Now on PBS” illustrates the complete and utter idiocy of the religious right. Senior correspondent Maria Hinojosa asks a voter named Tracy Kerlee, “What is the most important issue for you in this election?” Tracy answers, “The one who has the most faith in the Lord”. Well, not only does Tracy not answer the question (Hinojosa asked what issue is important, not who she is voting for), but she seems to be stuck on stupid. She sounds as if she just left a brainwashing session. Notice how in nearly every response she gives she is fixated on “The Lord….the Lord this…the Lord that…the Lord, the Lord, the Lord. I don’t care about reality…the Lord….”
Hinojosa then asks Tracy if she is concerned about voting against the interests of her own husband as an American worker. Tracy’s answer: (see if you notice a pattern here) “The Lord will take care of us”
Tracy is clear that she will be voting for McCain who, to her, is the obvious “Christian” candidate, despite the fact that John McCain has never really been or has even claimed to be a religious person. In fact, Obama is the one who is attributed to actually being a Christian, whereas McCain was raised Episcopalian (many Episcopalian churches ordain openly gay priests and women priests. They are also split on the abortion issue. I included this in my story for all the morons who think Episcopalians and protestants are the EXACT same thing. Many teachings are similar but they are quite different in practices and ordinances. In fact, many consider the Episcopal church just a watered down version of the Catholic church, and I know for a fact that Christians don't consider Catholics to be "Christian"). McCain cheated on his first wife in the years following his return from Vietnam when he found that his wife gained weight and was less attractive after she had nearly died in an auto accident in 1969. He began dating his [now] wife Cindy in 1977 [while still married to his first wife]. McCain has been involved directly with scandals (Keating Five) and is linked to criminals such as G. Gordon Liddy…(pssst…but he’s the “Christian”)
Why is Tracy so anti-Obama? Because of some major scandal? Because of infidelity? No, because there haven’t been any scandals or infidelity linked to Obama. Instead, Tracy is against Obama because of the biggest crime anyone could commit…….having a name that sounds like Osama!
“I can’t imagine having a President of the United States being named President Obama. I really have a problem with that, and I’m not the only one", bellows Tracy. Yeah, she’s right. She’s not the only one, but what Tracy fails to mention is that the others that do have a problem with it are other uneducated religious nutballs like her!
Hinojosa then asks, “Because that means what to you?”, in which Tracy replies, “His background….uh….a mother that was an atheist…uh….that really gets to me…um, a father that was a Muslim…that should get to everyone.” According to Maya Soetoro-Ng, Barack Obama’s half sister, she said her mother [Ann Dunham] was more agnostic than anything and said of her religious views, “Jesus, she felt, was a wonderful example. But she felt that a lot of Christians behaved in un-Christian ways.” Hmmm, could she have had people like Tracy in mind when she had this feeling?
Naturally, as is the case with most religious nuts in this country, Tracy fails to give one example of how having parents who were Muslim and atheist (despite being incorrect about this) or having the name “Obama” would make Barack Obama unable to fulfill his duties as President of the United States. Who needs proof and facts when she has the Lord on her side, right??
One comment posted on YouTube [to the video below] says it brilliantly, “A perfect example of a person who takes pride in ignorance. This is the person who would, according to her own logic, pray for her child to get better instead of taking the child to a trained medical professional, God will make it better, remember. It is hypocrisy at its finest. It is sickening. Separation of church and state was such a good idea, its too bad most Americans cannot see how their version of religious extremism is much the same as many middle eastern populations they claim to hate.” Excellent, excellent point.
watch the stupidity and be very, very frightened
The original video was pulled by YouTube [my guess is because Tracy may have been receiving death threats or receiving a lot of junk mail from weight loss programs], so I found it again on YouTube [above]
Hinojosa then asks Tracy, “And when Barack Obama and his wife Michelle say ‘we’re faith-based, we’re Christians’…”, Tracy replies, “The church they were members of? That’s not the Christianity I know. That’s not the Christianity that’s in the Bible”. Fuck you! Who are you to judge anyone else’s faith? Didn’t Jesus say a great deal about judging? I suppose that’s the Christianity you know… the Christianity that is racist, that ignores facts, that judges people, that condemns another’s faith, that places you high upon a pedestal and looks down on others. It’s people like Tracy that makes people agnostics and atheists! If I were associated with uneducated religious morons like Tracy, I’d jump off a fucking cliff. If I only needed one reason to be agnostic….people like Tracy is it!
Christians who would denounce people like Tracy and call her a fringe element are simply living in la-la-land. This is exactly my entire point. These loonies are not a fringe element. They’re EVERYWHERE. Look at the videos of the McCain-Palin supporters. It was nearly EVERY SINGLE person that said something hateful, vile and racist. This is what is very scary; people like Tracy are not the minority, they are the majority.
Hinojosa ends the interview asking Tracy, “And what do you say to your husband who is still on the fence?” Tracy replies, “I will pray for him”. Doesn't the Bible [in Ephesians 5:22-24] say "Wives submit to their husbands?" If Tracy really follows her Bible, wouldn't she be a swing voter too like her husband? But instead, she's "praying for him", ignoring her Bible and praying for her husband to submit to her!
I love when Christians use the "I'm praying for you" crapola. It is the height of arrogance to tell someone you will pray for them, implying that they have some abnormality or defect that they must shed. If God is really there and he’s just at all, he would tell her husband to pack his shit and drive as far away from his lamebrained douchebag wife as he possibly can!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
by Larry Simons
October 19, 2008
From Think Progress: On Thursday, Fox News announced that CNN’s Glenn Beck would join the network next spring, hosting the 5 p.m. daily news program. Yesterday on his radio program, Beck read a congratulatory e-mail from Fox’s Sean Hannity, welcoming him to "the Fox family":
My only question is, ‘why didn’t this happen sooner?’ One of FOX News’ first brainwashing sessions they hold for Beck will no doubt include making sure Glenn Beck never, ever says he is a libertarian again. (We here in sane-ville know Beck is really a Neocon. Calling yourself a libertarian when you’re really a Neocon doesn’t make you a libertarian anymore than calling yourself a Republican makes you one)
Saturday, October 18, 2008
October 18, 2008
The Texas Congressman joined Alex Jones on air to discuss the economic crisis and the moves to create a one world financial system.
Here’s Ron Paul, associating with those truthers again, something my uninformed "Christian" buddy David H. Willis claims "never" happens. He is disproven once again.
October 17, 2008
Hundreds of concerned parents participated in demonstrations outside the New Jersey Statehouse yesterday in protest of the State’s decision to mandate flu vaccinations for young children.
Protesters also turned out to support a bill that would allow for conscientious objections to forced vaccinations, arguing that medication should be the choice of the parent not the government.
New Jersey’s health department has indicated that it is strongly opposed to such legislation, stating "Broad exemptions to mandatory vaccination weaken the entire compliance and enforcement structure".
New Jersey’s policy was approved last December by the state’s Public Health Council and is taking effect this fall, reports the Daily Texan.
Children from 6 months to 5 years old who attend a child-care center or preschool have until Dec. 31 to receive the flu vaccine, along with a pneumococcal vaccine.
Watch a CBS short on the protests
Ralph Fucetola JD, trustee of the Natural Solutions Foundation, a non governmental educational body, insisted that there is a universal right to vaccine exemptions.
"It is so important to remember that this harm that is caused by vaccines is a foreseeable harm. The insurance industry foresees the harm, and will not insure the pharmaceutical industry against this harm. Yet we as parents as being forced to give these dangerous substances to children in exchange for alleged free public education. This is simply wrong." Fucetola said.
Watch Fucetola’s speech
Ralph Fucetola also referred to a case we reported on in Prince George’s County, Maryland, last November, where parents of more than 1600 children were told they could be put in jail for failing to get their kids vaccinated. At the time a local Fox News affiliate reported, "A new law was passed last year requiring children from 5th through to 10th grade to have the vaccine," which was a total lie.
The non-complying parents were not charged not under vaccination laws (because there aren’t any) but under truancy, neglect or child in need of supervision laws, which state that the parent is culpable after 30 days of a child’s unexplained absence from school.
The school itself triggered the truancy violation by unfairly kicking the kids out of school, and failing to inform parents about vaccine waiver forms. A state prosecutor involved in the case then admitted that there is no law that mandates any vaccine.
This trick will continue to hoodwink Americans into taking all manner of dangerous and untested vaccines, the number of which rises every year, until they realize that there is no law that forces them to take any vaccine.
More recently, large Pharmaceutical companies, unable to sell the "benefits" of vaccinations to make enough profit out of them, have increasingly turned to state legislatures and attempted to pay off Governors and other officials to curry favor and force young children to take vaccines such as the flu shot and the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
However, pharmaceutical giants have faced a fierce backlash from concerned parents and religious organizations.
We previously exposed Merck’s role in one such crony deal with Texas Governor Rick Perry which saw a resulting media campaign fool parents into thinking that the HPV vaccine had been made compulsory by law for all young girls.
Without consulting and doctors, scientists or medical experts, Perry, who has various close ties to Merck, issued an executive order requiring girls to be vaccinated against HPV. Several Texas lawmakers subsequently petitioned for a reversal of the decision without success.
Almost immediately following Perry’s announcement, newspapers and TV stations began to report that it was "the law" that parents had to have their child vaccinated. This reflects a national and international hoax that is repeatedly being perpetrated shortly before school terms begin each year.
There is no law in America, aside from those applying to medical workers, that says any citizen or their children have to take any vaccine whatsoever, no matter what any executive order, requirement, mandate or policy dictates.
As in the case of all other vaccines, Perry’s executive order merely stated that the vaccine is "recommended," yet the mass media drumbeat constantly conditions people to believe that if they don’t take their shots they will be kicked out of school, arrested and thrown in jail.
Until this is drilled home with parents we will also keep seeing relatively unchallenged moves to pass legislation to make mandatory all vaccines recommended by the CDC for all children, including infants and toddlers.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Letterman nails McCain on Sarah Palin and association with G. Gordon Liddy
by Larry Simons
October 17, 2008
On Thursday night’s Late Show with David Letterman, Senator and Presidential candidate John McCain finally appeared with Letterman after snubbing him in late September. Dave immediately pulls out his guns and questions McCain on several issues and talking points of McCain’s campaign over the past year.
Here’s a few of the issues that Letterman raised: (my response in purple)
Catching bin Laden (addressing McCain’s statements that he “KNOWS how to get bin Laden)
Letterman: You said you knew how to get Osama bin Laden….how would you get bin Laden, let’s just start there.
McCain: Obviously, first of all you don’t want to say exactly…because I know what we need to do.
(So, we are just supposed to believe you when you say you can get bin Laden? Oh, I see. You know what we need to do? Why do you have to be ELECTED in order for you to share this information? So, in other words you’re saying, “Elect me and I’ll give you the info to get bin Laden; if you don’t elect me, I won’t tell you how so one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists will still be free because YOU didn’t elect me! If he attacks again, it’s YOUR fault, Americans, for not voting for me")
Then, McCain, just minutes later says, “I think I know because of my many years of being involved in these issues…” Come on McCain, do you know, or do you think you know? Which is it?
Letterman brings up the issues surrounding McCain’s supporters and the things they yell out about Barack Obama at McCain’s rallies.
McCain says this, “You know what’s being shouted out at his rallies?”
(Not “terrorist”. Not “kill McCain”)
Then McCain says, “There’s always a few fringe people who will abuse their constitutional rights who will show up at these kinds of things, and you’ll get that fringe element”
(I’ve seen the videos, which I have posted here on earlier posts. It’s way more than a fringe element…it’s nearly every single person there yelling out something racist or obscene)
Letterman: Had you spent time with her?
McCain: A couple of times, I’d met with her. I didn’t know her real well but I knew her reputation and I didn’t know her well at all. I didn’t know her well at all. I knew her reputation as a reformer...
Letterman: ...if you are unable to fulfill your office, we get a 9/11 attack, Sarah Palin is the president who leads us through that.
McCain: Sure. She’s been the governor of a state with 24,000 employees....
Letterman: Let me just get back to my question. Well, I mean, either you’re right or you’re wrong. You know what you’re talking about or you don’t know what you’re talking about. But I’m just telling you from my perspective that I thought, Oh, oh my God. I’m sure she’s a lovely woman. I’m sure she’s done a great job in Alaska. But in terms – this country. I’m 61. I’ve never seen it in this big a mess. I’ve seen economic problems. I’ve seen war. I’ve never seen a combination of things quite like this. I’ve never seen the free fall diminishment of the impression of the United States around the country. I’ve never seen anything like this. I have a four-year-old son. I wonder what the hell, is it going to be 160 twenty years from now on his birthday? So I’m thinking, alright, this is a pretty important job.
McCain: But with all due respect, she’s had the leadership experience that’s necessary to run bureaucracies, to reform…And because she was not known inside the Georgetown cocktail circuit, doesn’t matter to me.
Letterman: Let me ask you a question. In your guts, in your stomach – you’re a smart, tough, savvy guy –...If I were to run upstairs, wake you up in the middle of the night, and say, "John, is Sarah Palin really the woman to lead us through the next four, eight years? Through the next 9/11 attack?"
McCain: Absolutely. She has inspired Americans. That’s the thing we need. We need inspiration now....But I think America is crying out for change. And she represents the kind of change that we need.
(Bullshit McCain! Fuck inspiration, we need a complete overhaul of Washington and to elect people who will not drive us deeper and deeper into what has placed us in the shithole we are currently in! The war and the economy are the two biggest issues in this campaign, and you and your ditzy librarian from Alaska are the biggest insults to the change that is needed. Plus, who has she inspired? Mindless religious nutballs?)
Letterman: No, no. I’m just getting started! Now she’s also, she’s the one, I think who says that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists. Has she in fact said that at rallies?
McCain: I don’t…yes. And he did. And refused to acknowledge the fact.
Letterman: Who did he pal around with?
McCain: William Ayers who said on 9/11 that he wished that he’d bombed more. OK? His wife was on the Top 10 of FBI’s Most Wanted.
Letterman: But this all took place…when he was active, Barack Obama was eight years old.
McCain: Eight years old. And Mr. Ayers in 2001, September 11, 2001, said, "I wished I had bombed more." It’s an unrep—
Letterman: But what is that relationship?
McCain: It’s all we need to know. Senator Clinton said, "We need to know about the relationship." First he said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. And so it’s a matter of trusting the word of someone....
Letterman: But did you not have a relationship with Gordon Liddy?
McCain: I met him, you know, I mean…
Letterman: Didn’t you attend a fund raiser at his house?
McCain: Gordon Liddy’s?...
McCain: I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt. He went to prison, he paid his debt, as people do. I’m not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy. (despite him being a convicted criminal in the Watergate scandal) And his son, who is also a good friend and supporter of mine.
Letterman: But you understand that the same case could be made of your relationship with him as being made with William Ayers.
McCain: Everything about any relationship that I’ve had I will make completely open and give a complete accounting of. Senator Obama said that he was a guy who lived in the neighborhood. OK, it was more than that.
Letterman: They served on a committee at one point
McCain: Yeah, they gave $230,000 to ACORN…which he’s now involved in one of the great voter frauds in history
(Hmmmm, then why was YOU (John McCain) the keynote speaker at an ACORN rally in 2006?)
Here is Olbermann’s story on McCain’s ACORN involvement
Here is the entire interview
by Andy Ostroy
The Ostroy Report
October 16, 2008
All three presidential debates are now history. With just 20 days left until the election, judging from the polls and Sen. John McCain's overall sub par performance Wednesday night in which he needed a knockout but failed to get one, it looks as though Sen. Barack Obama is well on his way to becoming the 44th President of the United States. That is of course barring any acts of terrorism, widespread election fraud and/or large-scale racism.
As a post-mortem to the debate, I have some questions for McCain:
1. Who the fuck is Joe the Plumber, and why is he so important to have been mentioned 21 times by you? And, why is he the only American you referred to the entire evening?
2. Is Joe the Plumber a $40,000 per year working stiff or the wealthy owner of the plumbing company? In your repeated populist references to him, you implied that he's just your average blue-collar worker, yet all of your tax and health policy examples clearly had him as the more affluent entrepreneur in control of his workers' fates.
3. Who the hell cares about William Ayers and Acorn? Did you not see the new NY Times/CBS News poll indicating that voters are utterly fed up with your dirty politics and smear attacks on Obama? With the Dow down another 700 points earlier in the day, and with the economy's meltdown scaring the bajesus out of Americans, how about talking about something they're all really interested in?
4. Why don't you directly answer this question: "Is Sarah Palin the best possible choice you could've made...the most qualified, capable second-in-command, to lead this nation in the event of something happening to you?" (forget it, we already know the answer).
5. How can you possibly defend and be "proud" of those who attend your and Palin's rallies and scream despicable threats like "off with his head" and "kill him?" In terms of simple human decency, how did you not turn to Obama and sincerely apologize for this vile behavior? Instead, you went tit for tat in saying "your supporters have said some awful things too." Excuse me, Gramps, but no one at an Obama rally is screaming "kill McCain."
6. You know damned well you can't balance the budget in four years, so why keep regurgitating this irresponsible promise? Makes you look like you know even less about the economy than you do..which is pretty little as it is.
7. Why do you keep distorting and lying about Obama's record on tax, spending, health care and energy policies? (sorry, dumb question, we already know the answer to that one too)
8. Why so nasty? So condescending? So sarcastic? Why all the eye rolling and agitated facial contortions? The obnoxious smiling, laughter and mock-indignation? What's your real problem with Obama's "eloquence?" (sorry, that's a lot of questions in one question). As CNN's David Gergen said, your erratic behavior tonight was an "exercise in anger management." MSNBC's Rachel Maddow noted that you were "gritting your teeth down to sawdust." And Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel said you're a "grumpy old man in slippers."
9. Why all the stammering and verbal gaffes: "Senator Government," "Fannie and Freddie Mae," and "Freath Bresh," and of appointing Supreme Court Justices: "I will find the best people in the world!" You seem so nervous and desperate that you don't know what the heck you're saying anymore, doggonnit! (sorry, I just love PalinSpeak)
10. Why bother saying "I'm not Bush" when, judging from your voting record, you and President Disaster are virtually one and the same?
11. And what's this disingenuous "spread the wealth" nonsense about Obama's tax plan? Was the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%, which you were vehemently against before political expedience had you for them, not "spreading the wealth" eight years ago? So, reversing the grossly unfair tax breaks for the rich is your idea of socialism?
12. Lastly, where was your flag pin? We noticed Obama's, but nothing on your lapel. Are you unpatriotic or something?
To be sure, McCain came out swinging Wednesday night, but swinging wildly and not really connecting. He was about as embarrassing and unpresidential as, well, our current White House occupant. To the contrary, Obama was cool, composed and highly presidential. He showed superior intellect, knowledge of the complex issues, clarity of thought, and provided well-articulated proposal specifics on his tax, spending, health care and energy policies. And while his feisty, petulant opponent spoke only to the ubiquitous Joe the Plumber, Obama often looked directly into the camera to make that much-needed visceral connection to voters across all party lines. And like in the previous two debates, his strategy seems to have worked yet again.
Some very interesting numbers: in CNN's Columbus, OH focus group of thirty independents, two-thirds said Obama won the debate. Additionally, McCain's smear tactics continued to cost him votes. Three out of four in the group who indicated that tonight's debate convinced them to vote for one candidate or the other, said they'll be voting for Obama. In CNN's overall poll, Obama won the debate by a 58%-31%margin. Among the much-coveted independents, Obama won 57%-31%. CBS News' poll had Obama winning 53%-22%, while MSNBC's focus group of independents chose Obama by a 20-7 margin.
As I wrote the other day, let's just hope grumpy Grandpa McNasty and Grandma Sarah-Joe Sixpack keep up the current strategy of talking about everything that voters clearly couldn't give a rat's ass about. Ayers and Acorn and Wright, oh my!
Witness John McCain’s THIRD asskicking here
Thursday, October 16, 2008
October 15, 2008
Alex talks with Peter Joseph, producer of the documentary Zeitgeist, about the film’s controversial Addendum. On October 9, 2008, Zeitgeist became rated as top 19th at the Guardian’s Weekly Viral Video Chart.
This, of course, is one of the many films that my “christian” buddy David H. Willis refused or it “wasn’t a priority” to watch (lol)
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Paul Joseph Watson
October 15, 2008
Both individual proposals to roll out free nationwide wi-fi Internet access across the United States contain language indicating that political websites deemed "offensive" will be filtered out and blocked.
The implementation of a universal wi-fi network covering the entire country is moving closer following the approval of House Representatives Anna Eshoo and Edward Markey after it was discovered the network would not interfere with incumbent wireless telcos such as AT&T and Verizon, who had raised concerns over potential signal interference.
Two competing parties, M2Z Networks and the FCC, are jockeying for the rights to roll out the network, but both have already stated their intent to install filters that block out pornography and anything else deemed "harmful".
According to a Daily Tech report, "Both proposals stipulate that any free wireless offerings have mandatory content filters, preventing users from viewing any material that "would be harmful to teens and adolescents," including pornography and anything "contemporary community standards" deem as obscene. Free-speech advocates call this condition unconstitutional."
As we have previously reported, similar free wi-fi networks on smaller scales include mandatory content filters that screen out even mildly political websites that are not part of the corporate establishment media.
London’s St. Pancras International free wi-fi network blocks a barrage of alternative political websites, as we found out earlier this year when our own sites were inaccessible on the network.
"If you follow the logic of the rule, the network would have to block the news because a great deal of it discusses disturbing events or depicts these events through photographs and video clips," reports ABC News, adding that blogs, social networks and any other user generated content would be excluded entirely from the network.
"If the FCC insists on tying the creation of a free nationwide broadband wireless network to government mandated censorship, the constitutionality of the plan will surely be challenged in court and will be struck down," states the report.
However, if the rollout of a nationwide network is privatized then what is to stop the company from installing filters that censor political websites? This is already the case in major transport hubs across the west as free speech and anything that goes against the establishment grain is classified as "hateful" and is banned.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Sarah Palin welcomed at Philadelphia Flyers hockey game with deafening boos; FOX News edits it out and calls crowd reaction “mixed”
Obama-Biden signs seen in crowd
by Larry Simons
October 12, 2008
VP candidate Sarah Palin was on hand in Philadelphia on Saturday night to drop the ceremonial first puck at the Philadelphia Flyers’ home opener. As she makes her way to the ice you can hear the crescendo of boos that permeated the Wachovia Center.
When “fair and balanced” FOX News aired the footage, naturally they would not want their mindless sheep watching at home to see their favorite hockey mom get greeted with a tidal wave of deafening boos, so they are left with no choice but to do what FOX News does best-----edit it out!
After all, that’s FOX News’ motto: “If you don’t see it or hear it…it’s not there!”
Wow, getting booed in the city of brotherly love? Maybe she should have been accompanied by Rocky Balboa!
One blogger, here, said this, “The Alaska governor and self-described “hockey mom” heard a few boos when she walked onto the ice, but that soon turned to polite applause as she headed to center ice with captain Mike Richards of the Flyers and alternate captain and Alaska native Scott Gomez of the Rangers.”
Really? What clip was he watching? The boos are clearly heard nearly the entire length of the clip!
Christian Red of nydailynews.com writes, “Cars honked in support of the protestors, with some motorists leaning out their windows and shouting, "Go Obama!" After awhile, the protestors began a chant that mimicked the "Let's go Flyers, let's go!" cheer with the substituted words, "Go home Palin, go home! A few miles south, a man handed out Sarah Palin hockey trading cards near the SEPTA subway entrance. On the card was a photo of Palin winking on the front with a burst that said, "Rookie Right Winger" and a banner above her name that read, "The Alaska Disasta." The message on the back of the card read, "Pucked Up!"
Here is the original video
Here is the video that FIXED News aired and is on their website here [with boos still heard but very faintly]
Here’s a split screen of the original video and the one unfair and unbalanced FIXED News aired.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Serge F. Kovaleski
October 11, 2008
Gov. Sarah Palin abused the powers of her office by pressuring subordinates to try to get her former brother-in-law, a state trooper, fired, an investigation by the Alaska Legislature has concluded. The inquiry found, however, that she was within her right to dismiss her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, who was the trooper’s boss.
A 263-page report released Friday by lawmakers in Alaska found that Ms. Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, had herself exerted pressure to get Trooper Michael Wooten dismissed, as well as allowed her husband and subordinates to press for his firing, largely as a result of his temperament and past disciplinary problems.
"Such impermissible and repeated contacts," the report states, "create conflicts of interests for subordinate employees who must choose to either please a superior or run the risk of facing that superior’s displeasure and the possible consequences of that displeasure." The report concludes that the action was a violation of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
What now lies ahead is not fully known at this point. Ms. Palin could be censured by the Legislature, but that is unlikely.
Ms. Palin, who had been elected governor in 2006, was tapped as Senator John McCain’s running mate in late August, about a month after an inquiry was opened into her firing of Mr. Monegan. Her political ascendancy took what was essentially a state personnel matter and elevated it into a national issue, one that has been simmering in the background of an increasingly heated presidential race.
In the report, the independent investigator, Stephen E. Branchflower, a former prosecutor in Anchorage, said that Ms. Palin wrongfully allowed her husband, Todd, to use state resources as part of the effort to have Trooper Wooten dismissed.