Iran is not building a nuke but they are trying to build a nuclear capability. What is the difference? Leon Panetta says they are not building a nuke. But isn’t that what this is all about? Panetta says they are not building a nuke but then says that Iran building a nuke is the “red line” and the U.S. will not tolerate that. So are they or are they not? Sounds like some people need to get their lie, um I mean their story straight.
This is the FEMA commercial that supposedly warns of a pole shift. While that is a interesting theory, it may or may not apply here. This one is truly up to you, the viewer.
Just after Rick Perry’s speech announcing the “suspension” of his campaign on the heels of disappointing performances, a bystander got an interesting admission from the man himself.
The Stop Online Piracy Act sounds like it has good intentions, but what it really does is basically eliminate freedom of speech on the internet. Get involved.
Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are two politicians chasing Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination in the 2012 presidential election. They have some things in common, and of course, some differences. One is a very well-known Republican on the national stage as a former Speaker of the House. Santorum is a lawyer and has represented Pennsylvania in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Gingrich is always considered as potential runner when election time comes around, but up until this year, Rick Santorum was mostly under the national radar. However, favorable performances in straw polls put him on the map, and now he is a viable contestant in the Republican’s house of horrors.
While they are eager to throw dirt on each other, like politicians do, and both have unleashed a barrage of attack ads, that oh-so-effective form of campaigning that gives Americans that nasty taste in their mouth, they do have some real common ground on the issues. And not just the same common ground that most members of the Republican party share. No, within just a couple of days, both men were able to draw the wrath of both the NAACP and many black people in the country with comments that even the most un-political-savvy person would probably say…”Um, yeah, you probably shouldn’t have said that.”
Newt Gingrich was first up. Now, it’s no big secret that the African-American community tends to lean towards the Democractic side in the political continuum. This has been proven time and time again. And the NAACP is not viewed as a good sandbox for Republicans to play in. For this reason, many sitting presidents and nominees alike have turned down the opportunity extended to speak to the NAACP. However, wining and dining potential supporters in New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich wanted to make it abundantly clear that he is not afraid of the NAACP and will gladly take the stage if given the chance. He even enlightened them with a brief preview of what he just might say if such a proposition were ever put before him:
“If the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”
Not offensive at all, right. As the internet exploded over the controversial comment, Newt Gingrich was quick to speak up in his own defense. After a few days to mull things over, he launched this eloquent rebuttal to those attacking his comments.
“I think you would have to be nuts to read those two paragraphs and conclude anything except that I was saying that every young American deserves the right to pursue happiness.”
I’m not sure, but I think Newt just called most of the American populations “nuts.” Apparently, the whole debacle was such a powerful strategic move that fellow nominee Rick Santorum just had to get some of the action. With a golden opportunity to throw some actual worthwhile mud on his opponent, Santorum responded with his own interesting viewpoints.
“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”
Masterful. That’s a lot better than Uncle Newt, right. No need for attack ads on this subject…they would cancel each other out. Santorum had another well thought out response to his own predicament. Perhaps the same speechwriters work for both of these guys.
“I’ve seen that quote and I haven’t seen the context in which that was made.”
So, your defense is that the quote that you made yourself while campaigning was taken out of context. Even though you haven’t “seen” it. Great job, Rick.
These comments weren’t made on the golf course, on a hunting trip with buddies, or at the local KKK get-together. They were made on the campaign trail and at a public event. The worst thing about the comments is the simple fact that it just doesn’t make sense why anyone would say something like that if they had any prayer for winning the nomination, or given that, the election. If the Republicans ever want to see the White House again, silly instances like this have to be eliminated. These were not accidents or stumbles. Both men were proud of what they had to say.
No wonder the “birth certificate” debate is still kicking. It may be the only thing the Republicans have left.
Enjoy a live video of Rick Santorum’s moment:
No matter what your opinion is on the great “birther” debate, it seems that a judge in the state of Georgia has decided to put things to the test. A trial will be held to determine whether President Obama meets the requirements to be put on the ballet in Georgia. Attorneys now have the power to subpoena anyone involved in the case, including the President himself.
Not even twenty-four hours after the Iowa caucus, there is a document circulating around the internet with some pretty damning information. However, we at Common Sense Conspiracy try to stop things like this before they start, and this is another one of our patented bullshit alerts. The document that is circulating is a Google Docs file that claims to show the voting data from the caucus. As you can see in the screenshot above, according to this document, Ron Paul won the Iowan caucus, and not Mitt Romney. The document is fairly well designed, including all the counties of Iowa and going to painstaking detail to make sure that each column adds up and everything makes sense at a glance.
Most of you know that there are plenty of conspiracy theories out there that the Republicans don’t want Ron Paul and frequently find ways to quelch him during debates and public appearances. The conspiracy regarding Ron Paul is one for another article (coming soon), but this Google Docs file that will soon be viral falls firmly in our “Sometimes it is what it is” category. See, there are several glaring problems with this document.
Let’s start with the positive side. Is it possible that Iowa uses Google Docs to process election data? From one respect, it makes a lot of sense. Google Docs is a great application that allows multiple parties to access and edit a document in real-time. It would be a great collaborative tool for different counties to enter their information and allow the spreadsheet to tabulate the data. On the other hand, it makes no sense whatsoever. Google Docs is a useful tool for ordinary residents, but it is unbelievable that something like this would employ a system that could so easily be breached.
There’s also the small problem that the document being circulated shows a total of 19,294 votes total, with Ron Paul winning by a narrow margin. The actual Iowan caucus featured over 122,000 votes.
Best possible scenario…this is the real document they use and it was paused and distributed at a point where Paul was winning, with some 100,000 votes to be counted.
Worst possible scenario…it’s an elaborate fake that someone, most likely in the Ron Paul fold, took a lot of time to make the average bear think that there is a conspiracy.
And there just may be a conspiracy against Ron Paul…but you won’t find proof of it anywhere in this Google Docs file.