 |
| Image from source, Huffington Post |
Hardly anybody watched the FOX "News" Republican Presidential Debate, probably because the field is both weak, and incomplete. Presumed candidates have still not announced, including Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and others. But if those last three get in, and we add them to Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain and now Ron Paul, I have an idea for the next debate. Hire Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert to moderate. Even better,
Lewis Black. Have Reince Priebus drive a little VW Beetle on stage, all painted with day-glo colors and flowers. And then have the prospective candidates file out of the clown car. It would be a hoot.
[Excerpt]
Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Launches
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) announced that he will run for president in 2012 during an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Friday.
“I am officially announcing that I am a candidate for president in the Republican primary,” he said in announcing the launch of his campaign from the key early primary state of New Hampshire. . .
Read more at: Huffington Post
Neocons only want 4 more years of Obama's protection
ReplyDelete... 84% Reject Official 9 11 Story
Well, can't top the above comment.
ReplyDeleteBut, Paul will make things interesting though he has no chance.
And yes, all we have are idiots running now. But if Daniels of IN. gets in, then Obama will start crapping in his pants.
"Daniels" is a good Presidential name, though I know very little about the guy. I used to play the name game with prospective political candidates: "Can I picture a guy with that name as President?" The, President Barack Obama was elected, and it pretty much blew the name game. But I still can't imagine a "President Huckabee."
ReplyDeleteAs to the 9/11 thing. . .wha? Neocons like Obama because he protects them from the truth of the 9/11 story?
ReplyDeleteI might be on board with the truthers if there weren't so many crazy tangents: there was no plane at the Pentagon, it was a missile. The phone calls were faked. There were NO PLANES AT ALL. And on and on.
When it comes to 9/11, I want to know why New York and DC weren't better protected. I want to know why three of four planes weren't diverted or shot out of the freaking sky. And I want to know why we've only seen one set of blurry photos from the Pentagon, when there had to be more video/photo coverage of the area.
Beyond that, I think the truthers are cukoo for Cocoa Puffs.
"When it comes to 9/11, I want to know why New York and DC weren't better protected. I want to know why three of four planes weren't diverted or shot out of the freaking sky. And I want to know why we've only seen one set of blurry photos from the Pentagon, when there had to be more video/photo coverage of the area."
ReplyDeleteWow, and you thought I was nuts about Bin Laden?
Before 9-11, whoever thought of using airplanes as weapons like they did on 9-11? How can the planes be diverted if they were already under control of the hijackers and they turned off the transponders? And it takes time to scramble military airplanes.
As far as the Pentagon, you do have a good point and I am sure they are not releasing pictures because of "national security". I am sure there are other photos out there.
My Mom took flying lessons down in the Keys. One time, she strayed out of US airspace, and a FIGHTER JET flew up to waggle its wings at her. So tell me why they couldn't get to at least ONE of the hijacked planes? There was nothing. Yes, that part bugs me A LOT.
ReplyDelete