ACORN has been vindicated

I'm so glad that ACORN has finally been vindicated. I'm sick about hearing of those videos that O'Keefe made and distributed. They were highly edited and doctored. There never should've been any news stations covering those videos as if they were accurate.

For those of you who don't know, The ACORN undercover videos controversy started in September 2009 when Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe published selectively edited hidden-camera recordings in which Giles posed as a prostitute and O'Keefe claimed to be her boyfriend in order to elicit damaging responses from employees of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).*

You can make anything sound or look like anything that you want it to if you edit it enough.

I'm glad that ACORN's federal funding has been restored and that the judge ruled it unconstitutional for it to be taken away.

Maybe, now this nonsense will stop or at least move on to a new topic. Its not okay to make up your own evidence that something is going on just because you can't find any real evidence to support your theory.

This O'Keefe guy is a real snake and he deserves every disciplinary legal action that comes his way. Probably more than that. He can't find evidence to support his theories about certain politicians and organizations, so he just makes it up instead.

Either way, this should be a lesson to everybody. Be careful what you watch. Its entirely possible that whoever put it out there has an ulterior motive that is anything but pure.

Of course, this information won't be good for everybody. There are always going to be people who refuse to believe that ACORN is dirty no matter what kind of evidence to the contrary comes their way. But, I'm more inclined to believe the actual evidence, not the made-up evidence.

To read the entire article this screen capture came from, click here.

*This sentence was copy and pasted from the Wikipedia page on James O'Keefe, because I think they did a phenomenal job of telling what happened.

Hayward is now a psychic

Apparently, we are supposed to take Tony Hayward's word for this now. Obviously, I mean why not? Its not like he's biased at all, and its not like he would profit from calming down the public and any investors or potential investors, its not like he's concerned for anything other than the environment.....ohwait....

Yeah, actually, here is a huge bias there from him and he'd stand to profit from it if people calmed down and believed him. Apparently, we're all supposed to believe that Tony Hayward is psychic. I'd say he's closer to psycho, if he thinks anyone in the general population is stupid enough to actually believe his lies and placations.

To read the full article, go here.

Agent Orange no danger? Yeah right.

This would be laughable if it weren't such a serious situation. Apparently, the US government and military would have us believe that Agent Orange has no ill effects toward people. This is not new, they've been using this excuse since the beginning to get out of helping soldiers who were exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War ever since claims began to crop up.

But, I can't imagine how a herbicide that is that potent couldn't be toxic to human beings. Let alone to animals. How can they claim such a thing with a straight face? Worse, how can they expect the general world population, and especially US citizens who are suffering with the effects from Agent Orange today and Vietnamese citizens who will continue to suffer probably for more generations.

Agent Orange's dioxin stays in the soil and the sediment at the bottom of lakes and rivers for generations (see screencap or actual article for reference), and enters the food supply via fish and other animals. And probably also via fruits and vegetables, those of which actually still grow in such areas.

Since when has it been considered a good idea to ingest herbicides? Especially herbicides with such potency as Agent Orange. And, I'm pretty sure its even less of a good idea to inhale it or absorb it through your skin. Agent Orange was dropped on the foliage without any sort of discretion about where even the US soldiers were at that time, let alone innocent Vietnamese citizens who were actually not even part of the war in the first place. Thus, it was not only ingested by people who had to eat food from Vietnam itself (rather than military rations), but it was also inhaled by people, including many US soldiers, and absorbed through the skin.

And, yet, none of this is supposed to cause adverse affects to a human being? Um. Sorry. I don't buy that. And nobody who has an ounce of common sense in their head, even the tiniest of ounces, would buy it, either. Its just an attempt by the US government and military to skirt around wrong-doing and taking responsibility for the actions that have generations of aftermath for those exposed and the lands and waters exposed. Nothing new, I suppose, but still despicable.

For the full article, click here.

Most ridiculous excuse I've ever heard

I know that faith and lack of faith has been blamed for a lot of things. But, as my friend Roxy said when I was talking to her about this very excerpt, I don't remember the Bible mentioning that you had to believe things that probably aren't true.

Christian faith or lack thereof has nothing to do with this issue. It was a low blow and a very lame blow that this man took when blaming the family's "lack" of Christian faith for not believing what the military told them about their son's death just because the military told them. Last I checked, the military was actually pretty notorious for lying and covering up the things it does wrong. And, grieving parents have every right to question the validity of what they're told about their child's death, especially if it sounds unbelievable to them.

I could see it making some form of sense if he had said, instead, that he blamed their grief over their son's death as the reason their judgment on this was cloudy and why they weren't believing the military. That might make a little sense. Maybe. That isn't a reason to totally brush off their concerns, but it would make more sense than what he actually ended up blaming.

Christian faith, or lack thereof, has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. And the fact that he used it as an excuse says WAY more about him than it ever will say about Pat Tillman's family.

To read the entire article, click here.

Exxon fraud? You be the judge.

I realize that big business gets a lot of breaks that nobody else ever gets. I realize that there is a bias there and it is nothing new. It should change, of course, but that isn't really my main point with this.

Rather, instead, my point is about common sense. How do you get a refund from the IRS if you didn't pay any federal income tax in the first place? For one thing, if you are getting back more than you put in in the first place, there is probably something wrong. I can certainly understand them having a tax break that allows them NOT to pay their federal income tax. Okay, I don't understand WHY they need that, but I could understand them not paying because of that. The problem is that if you do not pay anything in, you cannot get a refund.

Generally, a refund is given when you pay too much in. They give you back what you overpaid. But, if you don't pay ANYTHING in the first place, there is nothing TO give back. Think of it like going to Wal-Mart, and then returning home to find that the cashier overcharged you for something. You take the receipt back and show the supervisor or whoever you need to show. They give you a refund only for what you overpaid. They don't give you a refund plus $100 extra just for the heck of it or for being conscientious and looking your receipt over and promptly returning.

Its the same sort of concept. You get back what you overpay. If you don't pay anything in, you can't have overpaid. Therefore, you do not get a refund. There is no money of which to refund you in the first place. Because, you didn't pay.

So, essentially, this seems to me to be fraud. Exxon Mobile should not have gotten a refund if it paid nothing in in the first place. They were essentially given free money on the tax payers' dime.

For the entire article, click here.

This is a joke...right?

I'm sorry. Maybe its just that I don't like the taste of bullshit in my mouth, but who are they trying to kid? Who do they think is going to listen to that nonsense?

Its no secret that once elected, a politician will not be able to keep all of his or her campaign promises. And, its also true that sometimes they just simply can't and other times they purposely don't. But, that is not the issue I'm taking with this little tidbit of nonsense.

The issue that I'm taking with it right at this moment is the fact that its total bullshit. Its not even attempting to engage us, its an insult to the intelligence of anyone who reads it. There is no way that increasing dirty energy is going to lead to green energy.

I realize that the transition from dirty energy to green energy or clean energy cannot be made overnight. However, this is not a step, not even a baby step, in the direction that would lead us there. Instead, its a huge giant leapfrogging step toward increased dirty energy. Period.

There is no way that I can see that you can increase dirty energy in order to get to clean or green energy.

There's nothing more to say about it than that. Its a lie, but its not even a well-thought-out lie. Its not even an intelligent lie. Its just bullshit.

I like you, Mr. President, but don't feed me bullshit. It doesn't agree with my system.

To read the full article, go here.