*Written by Rob Rimes.

Today is a great day for liberty. As I write this it is January 18^th, 2012 and the Internet is ablaze with anger towards SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act). Not only was The Swash down in protest of these dastardly bills but Internet giants Wikipedia and Reddit were down as well. Shit, even Google participated in this blackout with a unique graphic on their page that lead to information about these two horrible laws and what you can do to fight them.

I was more than ecstatic today when I signed into my Facebook account and was overwhelmed by all the people who blacked out their own photos and had status updates and links protesting SOPA and PIPA plastered all over the home page. The impact of this protest is literally reaching further than any other online protest I’ve ever witnessed or been a part of. In fact, in just a few short hours, the tide has turned and the pimps pushing this law are now starting to run like the two-faced pandering bastards they are. I guess when you shine a little light the cockroaches scatter.

One of my favorite punching bags, Marco Rubio – the Republican senator form my home state of Florida, was a co-sponsor on one of these evil bills but he has now come out against it. This is because Rubio is a dickbag, a panderer and a wolf in Tea Party clothing. This “noble” act doesn’t excuse the fact that he co-sponsored PIPA and was also a champion for the insanely tyrannical NDAA bill, which just passed recently. Don’t get excited and let Rubio fool you, when this dies down, he’ll help reintroduce the bill with a few modifications and continue on his fascist path.

Conservative darling Paul Ryan just wrote this status update on his Facebook:

The Internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address a legitimate problem, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House.

While that sounds all fine and dandy, Mr. Ryan doesn’t fully oppose the idea of the bill and chances are, if it was tweaked and the opposition towards it died down, he may just very well vote for it.

Senators Jim DeMint, Robert Menendez and others have come out against this tyranny. Another co-sponsor, Arizona congressman Ben Quayle has withdrawn his support. Freedom fighter and libertarian leaning Michigan congressman Justin Amash continues to speak out against this, as does Kentucky senator Rand Paul and his father, Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul.

The opposition to these bills has grown so quickly in the last several hours that six Republican senators wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The letter states:

We have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights.

For those of you who have been in the dark, I’ll break down what these bills are. In a nutshell, what they are supposed to do is to protect copyrighted material and eliminate piracy. What they actually do is a different story.

Basically, these bills give the entertainment industry the power to censor the Internet and breed a whole new type of crony capitalism while forcing us into a digital police state. You see, private corporations want to be able to choose what can and cannot be censored on the Internet. These corporations are trying to protect their property, which is understandable, and since the Internet is a bastion for downloading music and movies, they want to be able to tighten their grip and control how the whole system works. Considering that many of the sources for this copyrighted material exists outside of United States jurisdiction, these laws are being put in place to give the government and their corporate buddies an easier way at stopping copyright infringement. Again, that is understandable but the methods about doing this are just awful.

The first thing that this does is it gives the power to United States based ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to have special access at blocking infringing domain names. This also gives companies the power to sue websites, bloggers or whoever until they remove links or information directing Internet users to anything that they deem as infringed upon property.

Secondly, the government and their corporate pals would also be given the power to cut off funds to any websites that they believe are infringing on copyrights. Essentially, they can forcibly cancel infringing websites accounts with financial services and advertisers.

Now even though this all may seem somewhat proactive, one has to look at what actually constitutes copyright infringement. The description that they provide is so broad that if you technically upload a video to YouTube and there happens to be a piece of a song playing in the background, even if it’s just on the radio while you’re talking to the camera unaware of it, you have just infringed on copyrighted material and could face some serious penalties. This is just a small example but think of all the things you come across on the Internet on a daily basis that could technically be considered as copyright infringement. Violations are pretty much fucking everywhere! Hell, the whole Internet is a violation!

Besides all that, if there is a will there is a way. These laws won’t stop Internet users from finding music and movies to download illegally. In fact, even if a URL is blocked, an Internet user can still access the site via its IP address. Hell, this might start a revolution in web browsing and millions of digital pirates will be navigating the Net with IPs as opposed to typical URLs.

Another thing to mention is that these laws are incredibly bad for business. Essentially, they will cripple and stifle startups as corporations will have the power to sue any company that they feel isn’t properly protecting their interests. In a classic case of crony capitalism or corporatism, this allows the giants to stay on top, where they can look down and crush any growing company that may become a viable competitor for their business. Basically, these bills will create and perpetuate monopolies. When large corporations have the power to bankrupt new search engines and social networking sites, there really isn’t room for growth or innovation. We might as well just go back to the days of dark dingy uninspiring chat rooms.

The scariest thing that these laws will do is tamper with the Internet as a whole from the backend. By messing around with the Internet’s vast registry of domain names we could very well end up with a World Wide Web that is less stable and less secure. At the end of the day, these laws won’t stop piracy, as they claim and they will just create an environment for a new type of corporatism while leaving the Internet less secure and less reliable than it has ever been.

The Internet has already become a playground for government and corporate meddling. Hell, they already have laws in place to protect copyright infringement yet they want to push the envelope as far as they can. As of right now, the government and corporations already have the power to block any site just off of one infringing link. Social media giants like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and others are now forced to censor their users because if they don’t, they become liable for the material their users upload and could be forced to shut down. On top of that, an ordinary Internet user could already be sentenced to prison for up to five years just for posting any copyrighted material – this includes someone like Tay Zonday who became an Internet sensation for singing pop song covers.

This situation is incredibly fucked up and it is just one more battle in a long line or tyrannous laws that the government is trying to impose on us. Just add this ingredient to the same bowl of tyranny punch that already consists of the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, indefinite detention, Homeland Security, the TSA, previous Internet censorship, FEMA, etc. The list goes on and on and hopefully people’s distrust in government has grown to the point that all future legislation the tyrants bring forth will be scrutinized and passionately opposed as much as SOPA and PIPA.

In the end, we’ve got to chain these bastards’ feet to the grill and turn up the fire until they do what we say because frankly, that’s their damn job.

It’s on — at least partially: Reddit has announced that it will be going dark for 12 hours to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has said that he hopes to coordinate with the site so that Wikipedia does the same. Will other sites join in? Should we prepare for the Great Internet Strike of 2012?

Writing that it’s “not taking this action lightly,” Reddit announced on Tuesday that it will blackout its site on Wednesday, January 18 for 12 hours, starting at 8:00 a.m. Eastern time. During that period, the site’s content will be replaced with “a simple message about how the PIPA/SOPA legislation would shut down sites like reddit, link to resources to learn more, and suggest ways to take action.” The company will also run a live video stream of that day’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on Internet security, intellectual property and economic growth.

On the site’s blog, the Reddit team admitted that “We’re as addicted to reddit as the rest of you,” but explained that “We wouldn’t do this if we didn’t believe this legislation and the forces behind it were a serious threat to reddit and the Internet as we know it. Blacking out reddit is a hard choice, but we feel focusing on a day of action is the best way we can amplify the voice of the community.” The company admits that support for a blackout isn’t unanimous among the Reddit community and it’s asking for the community’s input as it decides what to do next.

(MORE: At the Top of Congress’ New Year Agenda? Regulate the Net)

If support isn’t unanimous within Reddit’s community, it’ll be interesting to see how things go for Wikipedia if that site follows suit. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales writes ”it would be great if we could act quickly to coordinate with Reddit,” thought adding the community needs a “thumbs up/thumbs down vote” on whether or not to participate, and “we don’t have the luxury of time that we usually have, in terms of negotiating with each other for weeks about what’s exactly the best possible thing to do.” I suspect the ratio of those in favor of a blackout to those opposed would be greater for a more activist site like Reddit than one that’s more mainstream (and let’s be honest, passive) like Wikipedia.

Something I appreciate about Reddit’s announcement is that they’ve factored in the importance of educating would-be visitors to the site about why they’ve decided to go dark, what SOPA is and why it’s so important. I can only assume Wikipedia would do the same thing, should the site community decide to go dark on the same day. After all, protests only work when people understand why they’re happening.

That said, now that we have a date for a potential shutdown, the question becomes “Who else will join in?” Google, Twitter and Facebook have all been rumored as contenders, in part because of comments made by NetCoalition’s Markham Erickson (when I asked, Google and Twitter declined to comment on their support for an Internet blackout). But with a real strike looming and despite attempts to push the issue onto agendas, support for this kind of action may be shifting in favor of alternative methods. Finding other ways to protest may be ineluctable — after all, we’re talking about the Internet’s most popular sites going dark for 24 hours.

Sure, there may be some disappointment that we’re not days from Temporary Internet Apocalypse To Prove a Point, but I suspect there’s relief as well. The idea of a multi-pronged attack on pro-SOPA arguments — of different flavors of activism and discussion for different people — feels like the more mature response on behalf of tech companies (who after all may not agree on what’s wrong with SOPA as it stands). Let Wikipedia close for the day and generate headlines, while others like Google and Facebook pursue alternative forms of protest that engage their respective audiences. In the end, the more people paying attention, the better.

MORE: SOPA: What if Google, Facebook and Twitter Went Offline in Protest?
Source: Tech Land.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I actually really dig these Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Granted, I bitched about the last one while writing about it but that was because I wasn’t all that interested in watching a Cain-Gingrich dick sucking contest. Apart from that, I like the format. However, I would really like to see one with Ron Paul in it but I guess that’s wishful thinking. Either way, it is refreshing to see Jon Huntsman get so much time devoted to him, as he goes head-to-head with Newt Gingrich here.

The debate starts with some dude talking for five minutes, which I just skip through because I have to watch it on a delayed stream, due to my work schedule. A few minutes later, Newt and Huntsman sit down and both give nice introductions. Newt gives props to Huntsman and his wife for being gracious hosts. Newt also applauds Huntsman’s passion for trying to maintain America’s image throughout the world. Huntsman says that it’s an honor to be debating Newt and that he loved having Newt and his wife at his place in Beijing when he was the ambassador to China. He then says that we need to fix our core, promote our values as well as liberty and free markets. Huntsman calls for a foreign policy that puts economics first. He also says that we need to realistically engage terror the right way. Lastly, he adds that he wants the world to know what it is like to be a friend and ally to the United States.

The first subject of the night is our relationship with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Huntsman points out that we have been in the Afghan war for over ten years already. He says that too many military families have already given the ultimate sacrifice. Huntsman calls for us to bring our troops home. He says we need to stop focusing on this idea of nation building in Afghanistan and we need to really focus on terror. Huntsman reminds us that we knocked the Taliban out of power and have been able to establish free elections. He mentions that we have uprooted Al-Qaeda and taken care of business by killing Osama bin Laden. In essence, it is mission accomplished. He says that we don’t need 100,ooo troops on the ground, we just need a serious counter-terror effort and to work on our intelligence gathering in the area. He also wants stronger special forces to deal with a threat if it arises. He calls for better training of the Afghan soldiers, so that they can defend themselves from further tyranny. Huntsman explains that Afghanistan is a tribal country and goes on to describe what that means by using the words of Hamid Karzai, who told Huntsman that it is a very difficult country to be the leader of, as he can’t even return to his own region due to the lack of respect his tribe has for him due to their differences that grew over time.

On Pakistan, Huntsman runs through our history in dealing with them and how it was China that initially got us in there to be allies with them. He also talks about how we set up shop in Pakistan to help Afghanistan deal with the Soviet invasion back in the 80′s. He says that the Ministry of Defense and the Islamist groups have now made dealing with Pakistan somewhat difficult. He says that it is one of the youngest countries in Asia, as far as the average age of its citizens, but that there is a growing anti-American mentality that is spreading. Huntsman wants us to just recognize it for what it is, which is a transactional relationship and country where we have real interests, mainly because it is a nuclear country. He says that we need to work on them to get them to help us in our counter-terrorism efforts. Huntsman believes that foreign aid should be based off of how our relationship goes in the future.

Newt Gingrich starts by telling us that you can now have a 5-star hotel in a third world country that is only a block away from a slum that is made up of people who came out of the jungle. He paints a picture about the different worlds, as the person in the hotel is used to living a very Western life with proper sanitation and things taken care of, where the guy a block over lives in filth. He says that this is what Karzai was talking about in Afghanistan, that those living in filth, even in close proximity to immense wealth, just can’t relate to that sort of life.

Gingrich talks about how if you asked him a year ago where Osama bin Laden was, he would’ve never guessed that he was living in a large compound out in the open in a major Pakistani military city. Newt feels that that would only have been possible if Pakistani intelligence was protecting him. He then points out that when we killed him, the Pakistani government was happy about it, in fact they were mad at the people within their own country that helped the United States take him out. Newt asks what the lesson of this is. He says that it tells him that we have a much deeper problem across the region than we think we do. Apparently Newt hasn’t been listening to those of us who have said for years that hanging around in these countries will build anti-American sentiment and eventually breed more terror. How would we feel if the Chinese constantly drove their tanks up our streets?

On Iraq, Newt says that since we eliminated Saddam Hussein the numbers of Christians in that country has gone from 1.2 million all the way down to 500,000. He says that that is not a success story. He cites all the x-factors of Libya, Syria, Egypt and Tunisia and says that we never know how these things will pan out. Newt says that we just randomly use our forces and drones but that we don’t have any clear cut understanding of what we are doing and what our objectives are. He calls for us to go back to the drawing board as we aren’t any safer than we were ten years ago and our economic situation is much worse now. Gingrich goes on to warn us that a movement that is willing to train their children to be suicide bombers in an effort to blow themselves up, just to kill a few of us, would stop at nothing if they were able to acquire a nuclear missile. The two then exchange a few extra points but really just revisit what has already been said before moving on to the next question.

The second topic is the issue of Iran. Gingrich starts by asking if we are willing to accept them having nuclear weapons or not. He says that everything else is secondary to the issue of them having WMDs. He then says that we need to work on forcing regime change, which never works if he would pay attention to all the other times we’ve done this throughout history. He says that the Iranians have huge underground facilities that are protected and that we can’t just wipe out their nuclear strongholds without harming tons of a civilians in the process. So he feels that we need to start forcing them to change through economic bullying. He goes on saying that they produce lots of oil but import a large portion of their gasoline because they only have one refinery. By stopping the importation of gasoline we would stifle them. He says that we cannot tolerate them having a nuclear weapon. Yep, so as long as we have all the bombs, we can dictate the rules.

Huntsman says that he agrees with a lot of what Gingrich has said. He says that Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer our problems and that we need to focus on how we are going to meet the challenges of the 21st century. He adds that these challenges are economic and educational and that they will play out over the Pacific Ocean. He says that the biggest threat and challenge is Iran. He talks about how our relationship started and how it evolved over the years. He points out that we missed a huge opportunity with the Persian Spring in 2009. Huntsman believes that Obama dropped that ball and if we had done something earlier we could’ve built up good relations with those in Iran opposing the current regime. He asks the same question Newt did, when he wants to know if we are okay with Iran having a nuke. He says that China seems to be fine with it and Russia isn’t really concerned. He adds though, that if Iran gets one, the Saudis will and then the Egyptians and then everyone else in the region. Huntsman says that ALL options need to be on the table in regards to stopping a Iran from becoming a nuclear threat.

Newt adds that all it would take is two or three nukes to create another Holocaust and thus, it would kill Judaism on the planet. M’kay, has he ever been to New York or Hollywood? This is what gets me, where Newt can often time make good points, he ruins it by going over the top with this fear-mongering bullshit. He says that he doesn’t want to be the one guy that would stand to the side and allow Israel to be susceptible to a future holocaust.

Huntsman says that there will be talks of sanctions against Iran but says that it won’t work. He points out that China and Russia won’t work with us and that Iran will still build a nuke anyway. He says that the United States needs to do it their way and that the U.S. works best when it is left to its own devices.

The third topic up for discussion is the Arab Spring. Huntsman goes first by saying that we are in a period of great uncertainty in the Middle East. He said that we make a mistake whenever we try to get involved and pick a winner. He talks about how when he was the ambassador to China, they were on high alert over Middle East issues because depending upon what happened with all the dictators and regime changes, it affected their bottom line. Huntsman says that we need to look for and support groups that share American values but we need to make sure we don’t back those whose viewpoints are inconsistent. So what he is hinting at is that we need to not help a rebellion made up of Al-Qaeda and Taliban soldiers that used to kill American soldiers: Libya is where that happened. Huntsman goes on to say that he couldn’t see a national security issue that could justify us going into Libya. He says that Syria is different however as it is an ally of Iran and it is used as a pipeline by Iran to help keep the region destabilized. He feels that this makes Syria a national security issue, unlike Libya. In my opinion, Libya probably will be a huge threat down the road considering who we propped up there. Egypt also fits this mold now, even though we weren’t involved.

Newt talks about how we made a mistake not doing anything in regards to Egypt. He says that Honsi Mubarak was our ally for decades and that he did a lot to help the United States in that region. So Newt, is basically ignoring the fact that this propped up “president” who fixed elections for over thirty years, deserved to be protected from his subjects who just wanted fair elections and regime change. Newt is excusing Mubarak’s tyranny because we created and approved the tyranny. This whole stance is crap. I’m not saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is better by any means but who are we to say who Egypt can chose as their leaders? Newt feels that we are allowed to dictate the fate of other countries. Newt just goes on and on about how Obama turned his back on our friend and how he was forced to step down without any dignity. Shit, is it just me or was Mubarak’s entire presidency severely lacking any dignity?

Gingrich then goes on a second rant about how poor our intelligence is. He says that we didn’t know who these people were who wanted to overthrow Gaddafi but we helped them because Gaddafi was an evil dictator (and Mubarak wasn’t?). He talks about how the biggest influx of anti-American fighters joining terror cells came out of Saudi Arabia and Libya. Funny because it was widely reported that the rebels fighting Gaddafi, who we were helping, were made up of several former Al-Qaeda and Taliban soldiers. Well, the mainstream media ignored this but the alternative media was all over it. So Newt is saying that alternative media outlets have better intel than the U.S. government. Newt is a good talker and he wins over a lot of people with this bullshit but being a good talker can’t save you from digging your way out of your own bullshit when actual facts are present. Keep building the fear though buddy.

The next topic is how to bring down the debt without destabilizing America’s place in the world. The multiple problems with this discussion topic should be obvious. First, it implies that American imperialism is okay and is essentially wondering how we can continue to maintain our military’s overreaching power. Keep in mind that we are currently in over 130 countries; there are only 196 in the world, so we are roughly in two-thirds of all the countries. Sorry, but I find that to be insane and incredibly wasteful. The second problem with this question is that it completely ignores the difference between defense spending and military spending. The vast majority of our military actions aren’t done as a means of defense, they just lump them into the categorization of “defense” because they need to sell it and they need to keep us controlled through their manufactured fear. That may sound crazy but Newt’s been manufacturing fear all night: read between the lines.

Gingrich kicks it off by saying that you have to build strategies off of all the things that threaten you in the world. He actually says that this is the “first priority of government”. He says that Obama’s proposal of randomly cutting “defense” by 500 billion is horrible and that cutting the military budget in that way is basically bad policy. He then cites the fact that he established the Military Reform Caucus in 1981 under Reagan and that he helped eliminate waste in the area of defense. He then recycles his point from a few debates ago about how Apple can develop new products so quickly and frequently but the military takes a dozen years or so to develop a single weapon. He says that you can’t balance the budget until you make the military you need and handle the foreign policy issues first. Newt is so far from the Founding Fathers it’s like they are separated by more than two centuries!

Jon Huntsman talks about the Navy service of his two sons and how important the military is to him and his family. He goes on to say that the fact that we are 15 trillion dollars in debt, is crazy and that it is our biggest national security issue. Yeah Newt, take that! You and your phantom menaces! He talks about Japan and Europe and their debt to GDP ratio and how much trouble they are all in. He says that everything needs to be on the table, there are no sacred cows. We don’t have the right to bitch about our entitlements like we live in the lap of luxury anymore: this includes defense. He points out that we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined and that we are spending much more than we did at the height of the Cold War. He goes on to say that terror is a real problem and that it isn’t going away anytime soon. He is for counter-terrorism measures and developing the tools necessary to stop the evil bastards but that we need to really look at where we can cut military spending regardless. Bringing the troops home from all these pointless ongoing wars would be a big start. Huntsman also points out that the cost of making a fighter jet now as compared to before is ridiculous. He says that the huge spike in cost isn’t reflective of parts and labor, instead it is reflective of the high cost of red tape and bureaucratic bullshit. Both candidates conclude this discussion by agreeing that we need to look at wasteful spending like having bases in Germany and other silly places.

The final topic is China and the Pacific Rim. Huntsman, the former ambassador to China starts. He talks about how we have elections in America and how China doesn’t, they just have leadership changes. He says that they are in for some major changes as the leadership will soon shift again. He says that the younger generations are of a different mindset of their predecessors. This is very true considering the growing Jasmine Revolution going on that the Chinese government is trying to stop. Huntsman then asks what our objectives should be. Talking about their future economic woes, he talks about how the numbers of active farmers have gone from 800 million down to 200 million and that there are now 600 million ex-farmers that are creating a major burden on the major cities, as they are looking for work in the manufacturing industry. Unlike Mitt Romney and all the other candidates who are trying their damnedest to make us fear China, Huntsman just hits us with logic, reason and actual knowledge of the situation. Huntsman says that we would be “crazy” to not “recognize the tectonic shifts that are happening in the macroeconomic environment.” He adds that we need to prepare ourselves for these shifts and to be ready to make a serious impact. Huntsman is so positive when it comes to this stuff. He closes this point by saying that this country is on the cusp of a “manufacturing renaissance” if we do this the right way. He goes on to another point where he says that we need to communicate with China better because they are the “greatest long-term strategical thinkers in the world” and we are “the greatest short-term tactical thinkers in the world”. He believes that we need to find a way to make these two cultures mesh and to develop a dialogue that works in a respectful way that shows dedication to each other. Huntsman tells us that from 2014 to 2017 we will have more flexibility to work and develop a better relationship with China, due to their next and younger regime coming in.

Newt re-enters the discussion and immediately admits that Governor Huntsman knows more than he does on the China issue. Newt feels that the most important relationship over the next fifty years is the one that the American people need to have with the Chinese people. He says that we have to understand that even though their totalitarian ways go against our American values, that we need to not forget that we are still better off being on good terms with each other. Newt says that where China is now getting more expensive in manufacturing, America is getting better at modernizing it and eventually that will be a big benefit to us. However, fear-monger Newt takes over and immediately starts talking about how we need better weapons to deal with a potential Chinese military threat. At this point, I think Newt is winning in the polls just because he is scaring the shit out of enough people. Vote for me or get bombed! Bwahahahaha!

The candidates then go on to give their closing statements. In the end, I thought this debate was very good and it really provided the viewer with deep insight into Huntsman’s policy, which is always overshadowed by the moderators of other debates giving too much airtime to Romney, Gingrich and Perry. Unfortunately this wasn’t on TV, except for a tape delay on C-SPAN. Personally, I had to watch it online. I really wish that more people would have had access to this discussion as it provided a lot of new ideas and insight on issues that most of the other candidates either don’t fully understand or just use in an underhanded way to scare votes out of us. Unlike the majority of the choices the GOP is providing right now, Huntsman isn’t your typical narrow-sighted fear-mongering bastard. As far as China and foreign policy go, Jon Huntsman fucking gets it. If Ron Paul wasn’t in the race, Huntsman would be my guy in the GOP. This is also assuming that Gary Johnson is now jumping ship to the Libertarian Party.

Grading Scale:
Grade B+: Jon Huntsman
Grade C-: Newt Gingrich
Grade I: Ron Paul
Grade I: Mitt Romeny
Grade I: Rick Perry
Grade I: Rick Santorum
Grade I: Michele Bachmann
Grade I: Gary Johnson

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I almost don’t want to write about this debate because it was utter fucking shit! But then I thought about it and since I’ve written about every other debate, except the first one back in May, I felt it necessary to continue chronicling my thoughts and analysis and to use my disgust over this shit debate to my advantage. It amazes me that the top network in the world was able to produce such garbage but CBS pulled it off brilliantly!

To start, the set looked morbid, not to mention small. It’s like CBS threw this thing together last minute and were lucky enough to find the only National Guard Armory in America that wasn’t running a local wrestling show that night. Not to say that the entertainment provided wasn’t similar to a small town wrestling show, it was. Granted the heated rivalries weren’t turned up to maximum but the show did feel like it was scripted. Oddly enough, there is some leaked info that came out to support this wild theory. More on that at the end.

The moderators were hot garbage and the format was weak. The worst part about this whole thing is that it was a 90 minute debate and not 120 minutes like all the others. Not only that, but the last half hour was cut off in favor of running an episode of NCIS. I guess a shit forensics show is more important than listening to potential presidents having a much needed discussion on foreign policy. So, I, like many others who are more interested in our future than a cookie cutter crime show had to watch the last 30 minutes on the Internet. I don’t know if it was just me or if other people had the same problem, but the live feed cut out a few times and at the end, I lost 6 out of the final 10 minutes. Whatever, it’s not like CBS was taking any of this seriously anyway.

CBS does the standard introductions and everyone gets a pop, it is worth noting that Ron Paul got the loudest ovation from the South Carolina crowd. Being that this debate was primarily focused on foreign policy, it should’ve been expected that Ron Paul’s answers would upset the conservative establishment. Shit, Bachmann was ready to swing on Ron Paul a few times. I’ll get to that shortly.

Kicking things off, Herman Cain gets the first question, which is basically about his strategy for dealing with Iran, whom many conservatives feel is a crazy enemy that is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons just so they can terrorize Israel as well as us. Cain, subscribing to standard GOP theory on Iran says that he would place warships all over the Middle East strategically. Theoretically, he believes that this will deter Iran from using weapons on us. Yep, let’s build our military up in their backyard and point our guns at them so they don’t point their guns at us. We will force peace!

When the issue of Iran moves over to Mitt Romney, he says that if Obama is re-elected, Iran will become weaponized. Mitt says that if he is president, he will wave his magic wand which will make Iran’s nuclear progress disappear. Romney says that Iran having weapons is unacceptable but it is okay for the United States and its allies to be armed to the teeth. Only we can have the guns. Sounds like something a bully would want. Mitt Romney reminds me of the kid that would only play Nintendo with a Game Genie.

Unfortunately for those of us who have an appreciation for Newt “Honey Badger” Gingrich, our love was thwarted a bit when Mr. Badger admitted that he liked Romney’s answer on the Iran situation. Things like this are why I cannot get behind Newt Gingrich. Where he has won me over on several points, to support Romney’s misguided logic here, is just careless and dangerous. Essentially, guys like Romney, Gingrich and Cain are the ones changing the oil in the American imperialist machine.

Ron Paul steps in with an astute observation and likens the talk in the debate thus far over Iran to the war propaganda pimped out by the media and the fear-mongers leading up to the invasion of Iraq. If you remember, we went there to stop Saddam Hussein from using his cache of nuclear weapons against us. We quickly discovered that no such weapons existed. Although we are still there a decade later, which means that the threats sold to the American people weren’t the real catalyst for war. So what is the real catalyst for war with Iran? That is what we are building towards isn’t it?

Rick Perry ads to the war propaganda by saying that we need to use our power and influence to collapse the Iranian banking system. Yes idiot, let’s send the whole country completely into the dark ages to make our point. Let’s cripple them all so that they starve, shoot and kill each other. Let’s start our mission of peace through war by completely disrupting their lives and forcing them to suffer. One’s gotta love these humanitarian conservatives.

Dork Dick Santorum gets pissy like the little bitch he is because he wasn’t asked the Iran question. Santorum espouses some nonsense and then says vthat he defines victory as “no longer a security threat”. Hmm.. well, what if they aren’t a threat to begin with? These conservatives are always chasing phantoms and boogeymen.

Bachmann looks somewhat normal this round, I can’t really knock her fashion choice for this debate even though she looks like a woman at a funeral in a western film. Shit, I just knocked her, ah well. She talks a bunch of gibberish I can’t really hear over the sound of my urine hitting the side of the toilet bowl. “Bachmann” has become Minnesotan for “piss break” as far as I’m concerned.

When Huntsman is brought into this foreign policy debate, he says that we need to stop nation building oversees and focus on rebuilding our own nation, as it is suffering. His observation brings light to the fact that our problems at home need to be addressed before we can even really think about expanding military action in other regions. Talk like this is why conservatives claim that Huntsman is running in the wrong party. Talk like this is why I sometimes like what Huntsman has to say because at least it differs from the large helping of bullshit served up by most of the candidates in this race, excluding Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

Truth is, where I do not like Huntsman on most things, he does understand foreign policy better than most of the people on the stage and should have some sort of cabinet position, even if it is being the ambassador to China once again. Although, that might not work since the Chinese government associates Huntsman with the Jasmine Revolution, which saw young Chinese taking to the streets protesting the need for democracy in Red China. The Chinese government also went as far as to censor Jon Huntsman from search results on the Internet.

When Mitt Romney is asked if he would talk directly to the Taliban in order to bring forth peace in Afghanistan, he proudly proclaimed that he “..will NOT negotiate with terrorists!” Of course this got a loud pop. What he really meant to say was that the world better do things his way or they were going to be licking the shit off of his Salvatore Ferragamo python loafers.

Newt comes into the debate next and is asked how we can bring about peace in Afghanistan without negotiating with the Taliban. Newt points out that the Taliban has a sanctuary in Pakistan and informs us that it is Iran and Pakistan, two countries that border Afghanistan that are the ones we need to be focusing on.

Herman Cain says that it isn’t clear whether or not Pakistan is a friend or an enemy. He says that clarity is missing. Um.. dude, just pay attention. Didn’t Mark Block put down his cigarette long enough before the debate to hand you some notes? You’ve got to be prepared for these things and stop getting caught with your pants down, pun intended.

When the issue of foreign aid comes up, Rick Perry says that every country needs to be sent a clear message. Perry’s clear message is to make everybody start at zero dollars. Perry says that it is real clear that Pakistan is sending us a message that they don’t deserve our aid.

Bachmann vehemently disagrees with Perry, which I stayed to listen to as I didn’t have to pee at that moment. Michele, instilling fear, points out that Pakistan has a nuke and that the Al-Qaeda is close by. Bachmann, instilling even more fear, says that the table is set for nuclear war between Israel and its enemies.

Okay, so by this logic, Bachmann would rather give foreign fucking aid to a bunch of anti-American fucksacks in order to keep them at bay. Really lady? Are you shitting me? So you’re like one of those business owners that pays the mafia’s “protection fee” once a month to keep them from vandalizing your store. You’re too much of a goddamned fear turtle to run the show.

Newt agrees with Rick Perry and adds that countries receiving foreign aid should have to explain to us why they need it. He also warns that the Arab Spring is becoming the Anti-Christian Spring, which shows that we do need to go through the list of countries that we give foreign aid to, so that we can stop wasting it on those that aren’t even our friends.

Santorum jumps back into the debate and says that we must make sure that Pakistan is our friend because they have nukes. Okay, so with this idiot’s dumb ass logic we should be besties with North Korea since they hate us and are estimated to have 6 to 8 WMDs. Shit, maybe we should stop bashing Iran and send them some gift baskets full of love and Reese’s peanut butter cups before they point their superweapons back at us. Conservatives are confusing.

The debate shifts back to Newt who bitchslaps a gotcha question like the pro he is. He talks about Iran and North Korea and says that he would manage those situations with the same strategy Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II used against communism. Newt says that we need to build up the Navy. He also says that he would reevaluate our relationship with the United Nations.

Rick Perry is asked how he would manage America’s nuclear weapons if he were to eliminate the Department of Energy. Perry says that he would surround himself with the best advisors and he would consult them on it. Homie is sounding a lot like Herman Cain.

We move on to the torture part of the debate where the only two sane people in the room are Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. Cain kicks it off by saying that he is against torture but would trust the military to make the right decisions. Once again, Cain puts his trust in others to lead. Is this really who you want to waste a fucking vote on? Maybe Godfather’s Pizza was successful because of Cain’s advisors not because of Cain. Then again, they are only the 9th biggest pizza chain in America. Cain also says that waterboarding is not torture, that it is just “enhanced interrogation”. Yep, so is a testicle in a vice dude.

The moderators turn to Bachmann. She thinks that waterboarding is super fun.

Ron Paul points out that waterboarding is bullshit and that it is torture. He says that it is impractical, ineffective and that it has never been proven to work. He also states that it is un-American on principle alone. Crazy Eyes Bachmann starts shouting out of her shit pipe for the moderators to allow her to battle it out with Ron Paul but they ignore her. Jon Huntsman cuts in and says that waterboarding is indeed torture and warns us against using it.

The subject of presidents using their executive power to assassinate American citizens, without arrest or a trial, comes up and Mitt Romney chimes in. Romney says that it is okay if the citizen is deemed a terrorist. Okay, well shitpickle, any American can be deemed a terrorist if one goes by the guidelines laid out for what constitutes a potential terrorist in the MIAC Report. Mitt Romney is a tyrant without power, hopefully he doesn’t get power.

Newt makes a point to say that if you engage in war against the United States, that that makes you an enemy combatant and the rules change because war is war. This is a seemingly solid point but the word “war” isn’t as clearly defined as some might think. Once again, refer to the MIAC Report and see what constitutes a potential threat to national security.

The debate moves towards our relationship with China where the optimistic Rick Perry says that he believes that China will have the same fate as the Soviet Union because China doesn’t have the virtues that America has. The virtues that Perry is referring to are those same virtues that made him try to force needles into the arms of young girls in Texas. Perry also says that we must fight the cyberwar and we must win it.

Mitt is asked how he would prevent a second Cold War, this time with China. Mitt goes through his spiel about how China is a currency manipulator and how they don’t play by the rules, etcetera, etcetera, et-fucking-cetera. Mitt says that China has to be forced to play by the rules and that he would bring an action against them to the World Trade Organization. Romney says that contrary to his critics fears, he will not start a trade war because we are already in a trade war.

Huntsman is asked to give his two cents on Romney’s stance. Huntsman says that you cannot bring an action against China to the WTO. He also says that the key to reaching out to China is the young people. Remember earlier when I mentioned that China felt that Huntsman was somehow associated with the Jasmine Revolution? Well, Huntsman points out that the young people of China are fighting against the older generation and those in power who are stuck in their tyrannical communist ways. Huntsman lets us know that the future in China could be drastically different than what we know now. Where I stand, I can only hope that what will probably be a hard-fought and hopefully non-violent revolution ends up a success. The young people of China are hungry and they are tired of being subservient pawns to an overbearing state. Huntsman assures us that China’s Internet generation will bring down the tyranny in their country.

Rick Perry is then asked if his zero dollar foreign aid policy would apply to Israel. Perry says that Israel would also be reset to zero. Perry is then cut off as he starts to explain how he would handle Israel. Why is Perry cut off? Well, CBS tells us that the televised portion of the debate is over because NCIS is coming on. The audience at home is told to tune in on CBS.com to watch the last half hour of the debate.

The Internet only portion of the debate kicks off with Michele Bachmann painting a birdhouse.. just kidding. Actually, Bachmann says that we need a fixed cost system for the military. She says she will modernize military spending.

Herman Cain is asked about the Obama administration’s handling of the Middle East. Cain says that the Obama administration has mishandled all of the recent Arab uprisings but doesn’t really explain why.

Ron Paul is asked about Syria and he states that it is wrong for the United States to get involved in the problems of all these other countries. He says that it is wrong of us to go in and prop up dictators, which has been our history with similar situations. Paul points out that every time we do this sort of thing, it creates worse problems. Ron Paul gets cheers but the moderators cut him off before he can finish his quick rundown. Funny, because they let almost everyone else go over on their time.

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich both agree that they would use covert activity to take out Assad. Chances are, he would be dragged around in the street, shot like a dog and then be sodomized to death with a knife just like Gaddafi was. Or they would just assassinate him like Osama bin Laden. Mitt Romney says that it is very important that we help Syria get rid of Assad and give them a new leader. Jesus people, do any of you listen to the common sense being dropped on you by Ron Paul? Have any of you ever picked up a fucking history book?

Herman Cain and Rick Santorum both admit that they would leave Gitmo open. They also say that they would continue to allow “enhanced interrogation” tactics.

Ron Paul attempts to educate the other conservatives again. He states that we have a bad foreign policy and we pretend we are at war with everyone. He points out that we have gone as far as assassinating American citizens, even a 16-year-old kid, the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who’s death has been widely ignored and unmentioned by the mainstream media. Ron Paul says that in regards to torture and assassination, even our leaders have to live within the constraints of the law. Ron Paul is owning these cockpuppets and then Bachmann starts yelping like a fucking Yorkshire Terrier in an effort to respond to Ron Paul. Once again, the moderators ignore Bachmann’s pleas and tell her that there are rules to follow.

Rick Perry, who is up next, disagrees with Ron Paul. Perry declares that “THIS IS WAR!” and goes on to tell us about how we have to do certain things when we are at war. Jesus, it’s like these people are just locked in this war mode and completely oblivious to their own insanity. It’s like our leaders are programmed to perpetuate this aimless blind madness forever!

Bachmann finally gets her moment and actually compares the death of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. She treats them as if they are one in the same, even though one was a citizen and one was not. Granted both were enemies of the state but there is something fundamentally wrong with our country when its leaders kill its own citizens without a trial, regardless of the situation. If you can’t see why, fuck you.

The only way a citizen, even one aligned with terrorists, should be murdered without a trial is if he happens to be caught in a crossfire or a battle and is slain. If this citizen turned terrorist was found by intelligence and then targeted for death by an unmanned drone, there is something incredibly wrong with that. If he tries to evade capture and is shot, that is understandable but to send a robot to terminate him like a T-1000 hunting down John Connor is something that evil machines do, not human beings. Then again, we are dealing with imperialistic bastards here.

Jon Huntsman gets the conch again and tells us that our debt is our biggest national security problem. He pimps out the Paul Ryan Plan and also mentions that he believes that education should be handled at a state level.

They bring in “Tutti Frutti” Bachmann again, a name given to her by Herman Cain (see here). She goes on some weird tirade about how she hates LBJ and how great China is for not having LBJ’s “Great Society”. Huh? What she is saying is that the United States should be more like China because China doesn’t have a welfare system. Yes, she wants us to be less socialist like communist China.

Herman Cain is then asked a military question and he can’t answer it! C’mon man! Well, he does technically answer it, he just says that he would put his trust in his advisors to make the right decisions. Alright dude, are we voting for you or a team of advisors? Do we even need you? Can we just have the advisors then? What the fuck is this guy doing up there? It’s time to leave the big kids table and stop making an ass out of yourself. Rachel Maddow was right when she called your campaign “performance art” and god I hate saying Maddow was right about anything. Thanks a lot Mr. Cain! Now could you conservatives stop giving this guy an endless supply of mulligans? It’s like he’s using the Konami Code and has 30 lives!

With 10 minutes left my Internet dropped the feed. I got it back 6 minutes later with only 4 minutes left in the debate. I probably didn’t miss much.

Huntsman talks about how he has worked with Pakistan in the past and how most of the other candidates don’t get it. He tells us that they are incredibly hard to work with. Throwing money at them isn’t the answer.

Rick Perry is asked about the euro versus the dollar. He starts by saying that the euro was created to compete with the dollar but, just like 30 minutes earlier, he is cut off by the moderators who say we’re all out of time. These asshole moderators are shitty fucking timekeepers and horrible at managing debates. Fuck Major Garrett and his butt buddy.

God, this debate was fucking crap! It was painful to watch and it was just a big ass joke. It was obvious that the debate was structured in such a way that the most time was given to Romney, Cain and Gingrich. Ron Paul only had a total of 89 seconds in the one hour televised portion! He was cut off again and again and so were the other candidates that aren’t the mainstream media’s darlings. Hell, even Rick Perry, who was once their darling, was shitted on pretty hard.

Now I know that seems like conspiratorial nonsense but there was an e-mail sent to Michele Bachmann’s campaign staff from CBS that leaked out (I posted a story on it here). The e-mail basically admits that the decision to limit the time of certain candidates was deliberate on the part of CBS.

Here’s a piece of the story I posted earlier, which is written by Prison Planet’s Paul Joseph Watson:

As Marc Fortier points out, an email inadvertently sent to Michelle Bachmann’s campaign clearly indicates that certain candidates were given less air time as a result of a deliberate CBS policy.

When a CBS staffer referenced how Bachmann’s campaign had made representatives available for an after-debate webshow, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson responded by saying, “Okay let’s keep it loose though since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else.”

Dickerson’s admission that CBS had deliberately ensured Bachmann was “not going to get many questions” during the debate indicated “a planned effort to limit questions to Michele Bachmann at tonight’s CBS/National Journal Debate,” the Bachmann campaign said in a statement.

Obviously, that policy of limiting air time to certain candidates was also applied to Congressman Ron Paul, despite the fact that he has consistently won straw polls and proven himself as a top tier candidate in national polls.

As we have documented, despite his popularity the establishment media has deliberately downplayed and sidelined Paul’s campaign.

After Ron Paul finished a close second to Bachmann in the highly regarded Ames straw poll, and was subsequently blacklisted by the corporate press, Politico’s Roger Simon said the reason for him being ignored was that “the media doesn’t believe he has a hoot in hells chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, the Republican nomination or winning the presidency, so we’re gonna ignore him.”

“We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race,” CNN host Howard Kurtz responded.

It’s a fucked up crazy race people and the media is doing everything it can to try and shape the results. It’s up to us to make our own decisions and to speak up when they try and pull these kind of bullshit stunts.

Grading Scale:
Grade B-: Ron Paul
Grade C: Jon Huntsman
Grade C-: Newt Gingrich
Grade D+: Mitt Romney
Grade D: Rick Perry
Grade D: Herman Cain
Grade F: Michele Bachmann
Grade F: Rick Santorum
Grade I: Gary Johnson