I'm not sure how many of you have ever heard of Debra Medina, gubernatorial candidate for Texas, with a very strong libertarian core. I don't live in Texas, but I was excited to see how she might do and WHAT she might do in office. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.medinafortexas.com/ Well, things had taken a turn for the worse, and it all started with this interview with phony wolf in libertarian clothing, Mr. Glenn Beck, when he asked her a stupid question about her being a supposed "Truther" about 911. It is apparent when you listen to it that he seemed to be using it to trap her into saying something "wrong" so he could tarnish her reputation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8aKN_FaNsk&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30rD6TqDZek&feature=grec Here is a pretty neat letter found here: http://www.nolanchart.com/article7383.html Glenn Beck is a snake. Did anyone else follow this?
And then, to make matters more interesting, the Rick Perry campaign had automated calls going out in less than an hour (some say it less than a half-hour!) hammering away at this newly forged fact that she was indeed a filthy, despicable, 911 TRUTHER. A TRUTHER!!!! She should have turned the tables on him and asked what he had against the truth. I had not once heard her say anything about 911. It wasn't a Texas issue. She gives a great response to Glenn Beck, but he seems bound and determined to brand her as this feared and wretched creature known as a "Truther".
I mean to imply there that many suspect it was a coordinated attack between the Glenn Beck show and the Rick Perry camp, because the small amount of time between the show and the automated robo-calls seems to indicate foreknowledge that she would say something damning. Yes, foreknowledge that she would say something about government foreknowledge about the attacks of 911.
Looks like she did it to herself. Blaming Beck for what she said is like blaming Couric for what Palin said. Medina refused to take a position on it, but also stated good questions have been raised and there are some very good arguments [from Truthers]. She could have left it at "I don't", but she made the mistake of rambling on about it and should take responsibility for that. Excerpt from transcript GLENN: Right. Here then let me be more frank and ask you the question: Do you believe the government was any way involved with the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11? MEDINA: I don't, I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn. So I don't. I'm not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I've not taken a position on that. GLENN: I think the people of America might think that might be a yes. MEDINA: Well GLENN: Do you have advisors, do you have advisor MEDINA: I'm not going to take a position. GLENN: That's fine. MEDINA: These questions have been raised and they are not answered.
And what did Palin say? She did it to herself? She asked the question? I doubt that very much. I don't think she refused to take a position on it. I heard her in several interviews previous to the one with Glenn Beck and I never heard 9/11 come up at all. I think she answered quite well in the Beck interview. She was being truthful, and at the same time not taking a concrete position on something that wasn't a frickin Texas issue. I may have my own opinions, but I think he asked a question that was totally irrelevant to her campaign, and it is obvious that he is trying to hammer that one point. And if she thought there were good questions about that event? What of it? What are you trying to get at? Enlighten me, please.
I agree, I think Glenn Beck's TV and radio shows should be the equivalent of moved to the Cesspool, but I agree that she clearly indicated that she thinks federal involvement in 9/11 is a real possibility to be seriously considered. And that *is* a state issue both because (A) it indicates a conspiratorialist mindset on her part, and "stupid" is a quality it's best to avoid in a governor (granted that Texas has done worse in the past), and (B) because she thinks the federal government is capable of intentional mass murder of Americans...and as governor she'd have to deal with the federal government. How could her belief not color her interactions with them in some way? In her mind, the feds may well be looking to make Texas a future home of some staged atrocity. In many ways (A) is more important. After all, would anyone want her elected if she were a Holocaust denier? That's not a "Texas issue", right? Suppose she believed that aliens regularly abduct people? Not a Texas issue? You hire a governor because you trust him or her to run the affairs of the state, and the quality of the thinking involved is definitely an issue.
I'm getting at the facts you presented. I didn't fabricate the transcript, and it appears to be consistent with the video you provided. In the interview, he claimed he's received questions about it from listeners. Regardless of whether he did or not, I don't want to see restrictions on what interviewers can ask politicians. If they respond badly, it's their fault not the interviewer's fault. She responded badly. She absolutely opened herself up to ridicule because of her responses.
An Open Letter to Giambattista: This is Glenn, I have just made 32 millions in 2009. I will be thinking very fond of you all the way to the bank. Isn't America great? In no other country one can make so much money by spreading bullshit. Glenn
Fatboy is a no-brained loser and woman-hater. Talk about a disrespectful little slimeball. I disagree with a lot of that woman's ideals but she was giving honest and very straightforward answers to his questions, and he acted like she was avoiding an issue.
As far as I can tell, there was nothing wrong with her thinking. She said good questions have been raised. Even this leftist agrees good questions have been raised (and many bad ones). That is not the same thing as accusing the Bush adminstration of mass murder. She is a nutbag, but for other reasons. Mild health care insurance reform that gives people tax breaks to buy private insurance is unconstitutional?
Her answers are less offensive than GW's thoughtless and provocative "bad pilot" comments after the attack. BTW, can displaying gross ignorance be considered "in any way involved"?
Hi Glenn! I had no idea you cared enough to actually write ME! I love it when you cry on air. It makes you so authentic. I saw it on TV and I said, that's a bad pilot there! In any way involved... hmm. What does that mean? Is this a reference to "Bush knew"? For the record, and not implying you are saying as much, but she didn't say anything of substance other than that people had good questions. And the whole "W knew!" or "W did it!" is a diversion. It oversimplifies the whole problem and then does away with it after it has been reduced to the ridiculous. It's an effective tactic, though. I'll give it that. Questioning blatant errors in an official story is not kooky or ridiculous or the mark of the beast or whatever. Asking good questions about serious dilemmas or events such as 911 is very patriotic. Blindly supporting a war of "US versus THEM" is NOT. That is FALSE PATRIOTISM. Sad how often people are sucked into that thinking.
The comparison between Conspiracy Theory X and the Holocaust, and denial of such, is generally fallacious and used as a petty appeal to emotion and "common sense" (oh, come on! only unamerican kooks would think that!) rather than something based in fact, and therefore is only something to laugh about and bolster the self-esteem of those fortunate enough to "know better". The Holocaust happened a LONG TIME AGO, compared to 911. It involved a different country, a different mindset, different land (often remote camps far from most civilization) in a closed society without the benefit of open media and the internet and all that instantaneous record creation that is ubiquitous in this day and age. I know there are serious questions about the Holocaust raised by some. Some question the severity and the death toll, saying numbers have been inflated over the years by a pro-Israel propaganda campaign. Others deny it happened outright. I haven't looked into it much, but I can safely say the second mindset is probably for neo-Nazis only. 911 happened in the last decade, in our own country, and has been documented up and down, left and right, backwards and forwards. We have pictures, video, official and unofficial testimony, and investigations of every stage of the events of that day. We have not nearly the extent of coverage of anything that happened in WW2 Germany. Secondly, and maybe I misspoke about it being a Texas issue. Not directly as part of state policy, but Federal legislation, including that represented by the Oxymoron Act and the subsequent wars, has indeed affected EVERY state and EVERY citizen, whether directly or just in principle. So I was mistaken in part because ultimately 911 and government complicity in that is very much an issue for every state. So if people have questions about the holes in the official story and about the so-called independent investigation and about the way the buildings fell and why this or that was ignored or not investigated and about the real connections to bin Laden. or what the hell Iraq had to with any of it... GREAT! Many of them are the exact opposite of intellectually deficient and lazy, let alone unpatriotic. I would rather have mentally acute watchmen around me, willing to scrutinize and take to task the government rather than another lackey or member of the herd who doesn't ask questions.
Because daring to ask good, well thought out questions that need to be asked is sometimes grounds for being given the dunce hat to wear by people who are far more deserving to wear it, but just happen to have the clout to pass themselves off as bright.
I can do lots of things for 32 millions, crying is nothing... By the way this is a Glenn quote: " 'I Could Give A Flying Crap About The Political Process' -- I'm An Entertainer!"
But the point is that it did not haoppen in Texas and and that it in a certain sense has no more or less effect on Texas than 9/11 at the present time. If 9/11 is not a "Texas issue" (in that its effect is not having a particularized effect of Texas governance this many years later) for the very reasons you note, then surely the Holocaust is not one. If 9/11 denial is irrelevant *because* it is not a Texas issue, then her views on the Holocaust would also therefore be irrelevant on the same grounds. If your complaint is that the Holocaust retains relevance because of the nature of the atrocity, the volume of evidence, or some other factor, then discounting her views of 9/11 based on it not being "Texas issue" becomes immediately suspect, because 9/11 may also share such extraordinary characteristics. That was my point, and why, in this case, the reference was not an logical fallacy. After this many years, the evidence for your preferred massive government conspiracy has never gotten past the level of being plausible speculation, and then only taken in isolation from all other information, including information learned about al Qaeda and the preparationd for the attack. Even if you put weight in the isolated mysteries and allow that to color everything else on the theory that the vast mass of otherwise established facts may all be a carefully orchestrated ruse, all you have is a *plausible* claim the government did it, not slam dunk proof. If you cling tenaciously to that mere plausibility in light of everything else we know (including al Qaeda's having claimed credit for the attack many times), then you are not a vigilent watchdog, you are an injudicious and incompetent watchdog, barking and snarling at the mailman (a federal employee, so therefore, plausibly in on the conspiracy). You make nothing safer, you just create noise.
No, that's a myth. But it's understandable that those who don't have a grasp on the scientific method might jump to that conclusion. If there is truly irrefutable proof, then invariably it falls into your lap. Questioning things tends to lead to wrong thinking. If you have to go looking or asking for evidence to back up your anti-government conspiracy claim (or insert any other crackpot pseudoscience belief), you most certainly must be reaching for something that isn't there. But the easiest way to tell if your crazy conspiratorial nuttery is out of touch with reality: it contradicts official proclamations. And/or The Amazing Randi says you're an idiot for believing in it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
