by Mike Adams, Natural News
Political theater is so amusing these days that it deserves some comment. All across the internet, people are asking, "Who won last night's presidential debate?" The conventional wisdom is that Mitt Romney won the debate and that Obama turned in a very poor performance, but even that's not the real story. The correct answer is that Goldman Sachs won the debate. And why? Because both candidates are beholden to Wall Street interests and the global banksters who now influence nearly everything that happens at the highest levels of government.
I get tired of hearing it. "You're nuts and our Government would never do any spraying of chemicals on Americans." Get ready to eat your words!
- - - - -
ST. LOUIS (AP) — Doris Spates was a baby when her father died inexplicably in 1955. She has watched four siblings die of cancer, and she survived cervical cancer.
After learning that the Army conducted secret chemical testing in her impoverished St. Louis neighborhood at the height of the Cold War, she wonders if her own government is to blame.
In the mid-1950s, and again a decade later, the Army used motorized blowers atop a low-income housing high-rise, at schools and from the backs of station wagons to send a potentially dangerous compound into the already-hazy air in predominantly black areas of St. Louis.
The biggest election news this week won’t be who wins the presidential debate Wednesday night. It will be how many new jobs were created in September, announced Friday morning by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
He just doesn't get it...
After watching the first presidential debate between President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney (I live blogged the entire debate for PolicyMic), I couldn't help but think how different the debate would have been if Texas Congressman Ron Paul had been the Republican nominee and had the chance to debate President Obama instead.
While Romney appeared more aggressive and assertive than the president — who looked tired, shaky, and noticeably rusty after nearly four years of no primary debating — there was much more rhetoric and half-truths to Romney's attacks than substance.
Clint Eastwood only got it half right. Jesse Ventura finishes the job.
I have tried to Google this question and can't seem to find an answer. I know that Ahmadinejad is called "evil" and "wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth" (which I know is a misquote).
Both of my parents are faithful Republicans who I have tried to speak to about America's horrible foreign policy and the masquerade that is the presidential election. All they know is what Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh tell them to believe, and I haven't had success opening their eyes to these real issues. My father usually says, "We can't just pull out of other countries. We need to stay in Germany and Japan (yes, still) for our national security." They believe the lies about Iran just as they believed the lies about Iraq.
My question, therefore, is why is Ahmadinejad considered evil?
Washington Post: Breaking from two decades of tradition, this year’s election exit poll is set to include surveys of voters in 31 states, not all 50 as it has for the past five presidential elections, according to multiple people involved in the planning.
The implementation of Iranian sanctions are increasingly having horrific effects. It is estimated that the monthly inflation rate of the Rial is now at roughly 70%. Imagine losing 70% of your purchasing power in one month. Food, energy, health care, and shelter would become impossible to afford.
How is the impoverishment and starvation of an entire population of 75 million people humane? Is this any different than Stalin's purposeful starvation of an estimated 6-8 million peasants in the Holodomor?
The following article outlines the gradual implementation of these insidious sanctions beginning in November, 2008 through August, 2012 by the US Government. The corresponding charts of the Rial/USD exchange rate and Misery Index are shown.
TechCrunch: Presidential debates were not always a soapbox for ideological soundbites. During the heyday of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, debates lasted several hours and dared to tackle policy nuances. Then, technology shot critical thinking in the head: radio forced once-complex messages into Twitter-like sound bites; television rewarded style over substance; and these days, users’ social media feeds are covertly manipulating the public into a partisan echo-chamber before they have a chance to objectively evaluate the speeches for themselves.
Here’s what changed – and why this “debate theatre” became an acceptable norm.
Ben Swann Reality Check: Who Is Behind The Commission on Presidential Debates? Are The Debates Rigged?Submitted by DJP333 on Thu, 10/04/2012 - 00:02
Ben Swann Reality Check takes a look at the Commission on Presidential Debates and why they are not allowing Gov. Gary Johnson or any other candidates take part in the 2012 Presidential debates.
Ron Paul: My Supporters are angry at the Republicans for the way they were treated at the conventionSubmitted by DeejayG on Wed, 10/03/2012 - 22:08
Turkey PM’s office says Turkish artillery fired on Syria after shelling of Turkish town