Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Alex Jones' Infowars Reporter Arrested in the Spin Room
About 10 minutes after the debate ended, reporters from Alex Jones' Infowars confronted Ed Goeas, who was spinning for Rudy Giuliani, and loudly asked what the mayor knew about 9/11. I rolled tape as Goeas took the bait, asking "Where are your credentials?" and "Do any real reporters have some questions?" But someone finally wrangled security and the reporter was escorted out, followed by a phalanx of cameramen.
It was surreal and I did a lot of interviewing after that moment (of, you know, the stuff I was actually covering), so it's a bit of a blur, but I'll post and upload the video a little later.
UPDATE: OK, here it is. The reporter was Matt Lepacek. I apologize for the quality of the video and for the occasional botched shot of the action. Quick rundown of the three (back-to-back clips):
1) Lepacek confronts Goeas as increasingly bewildered reporters
look on. Goeas walks away and is sandwiched between Lepacek and
Infowars' Luke Rudowski. Eventually, security pulls Lepacek away
and he's arrested.
2) Rudowski is yanked out of the spin room.
3) Rudowski explains what just happened.
I don't know who said "You should ask your own candidate these
questions, sir." I'm guessing it was a dig at Ron Paul, of
course.
|6.5.07 @ 10:45PM|#
That's a very interesting story, David. Now, can you look at this neuralizer for me, please?
GILMORE|6.5.07 @ 11:00PM|#
"What do you know! What arent you telling us?! ISNIT TRUE THAT
IT WAS THE JOOS AND THE SPACE STATION MIND CONTROL RADAR!!"
I think the right answer to the guy would have been, "huh?"
THEN have security drag him out and kick his ass.
Plus, just for kicks, zap him with one of those Total Recall/MI-2
type Gun-Style-Injectors, and say "Now we can blow up your dick
from our space station at any time"
|6.5.07 @ 11:08PM|#
Rudy: Well I know I was mayor of New York at the time, have I ever mentioned that? That I was mayor of New York when 9/11 happened? I don't think I have. You see I was mayor when it happened. It being 9/11 and by mayor I mean I was mayor of New York. Have I mentioned that?
|6.6.07 @ 12:26AM|#
Either he had a press pass or he didn't. If he did, he did nothing wrong per the video and the New Hampshire police department should be extremely ashamed of themselves. If he didn't he should have been escorted out, written a ticket for trespassing and sent on his way. He offered no resistance to police, so if he was truly arrested, either New Hampshire law is really harsh or the police fucked up. I look forward to hearing more about this story.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.6.07 @ 12:44AM|#
Man, you can't arrest a guy that's wearing a tie. Or is that just my addled brain malfunctioning?
|6.6.07 @ 3:05AM|#
"I was just asking questions.. ya that's it questions , tought questions, ya that's it TOUGH questions ya.. that's my story and I'm sticking to it.." proof that any wing bat can get a press pass...
TH|6.6.07 @ 4:16AM|#
Yeah, the guy seemed a little wacky, but I think the point is more about the police arresting him (apparently) just for asking questions that some GOP press guy didn't like.
Guy Montag|6.6.07 @ 6:40AM|#
proof that any wing bat can get a press pass...
I believe that Helen Thomas proved that over a century ago.
|6.6.07 @ 8:31AM|#
Great. The GOP makes 1st Amendment martyrs out of a bunch of lunatics. (I'm assuming that he was arrested and also that there wasn't a good reason for it.) Would someone patiently explain to the powers that be that the most effective response to these people generally doesn't involve handcuffs?
Guy Montag|6.6.07 @ 9:13AM|#
Karen,
Ignoring them would be an option, if they would behave like civil
folk. Unfortunatly, many folks who pull this crap refuse to be
ignored and must be removed so that the sane can converse.
Kind of like those "cry rooms" they used to have in movie theaters
for loud children.
|6.6.07 @ 9:13AM|#
By the way, these guys that are asking "tough questions" are
fucking loony:
"One activist, the relative of a firefighter killed in the
collapses, asked the former NYC mayor, for an explanation as why no
steel framed building in history has ever collapsed from fire
damage except for on 9/11 and why people in the buildings including
rescuers were not given warnings they were going to collapse when
he was."
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/giuliani_infowars_reporters_gain_national_media_attention.htm
UD Dep\'t Of Comm\'n|6.6.07 @ 9:21AM|#
of, you know, the stuff I was actually covering
Yeah, uncovering lies about 9/11 certainly isn't your job.
Your a journalist after all, working for the media. Your job is to
ask candidates things that they want to talk about so that
they can get their message across efficiently. I mean, really, how
would you or your organization get access if the relationship with
the politicians became too adversarial? Pissing off Mr. Goeas is
not a good idea if Infowars wants to become a real player in the
media game.
norbizness|6.6.07 @ 9:35AM|#
As a resident of the People's Republic of Austin, I've been hip to Alex Jones and his merry band of David Icke lizardoid overlord-promoting compadres for over 10 years. Think of it as performance art that the artist doesn't realize is performance art.
Kat|6.6.07 @ 9:48AM|#
It is irrelevant whether you think these guys are "loony" or not. The point is that if a journalist was arrested or even just escorted out this is evidence that there is no longer freedom of the press.
norbizness|6.6.07 @ 10:00AM|#
Well, I assumed that the highly controlled public availabilities, "free speech zones" surrounded with razor wire at both major political conventions, and the immediate "watch what you say" admonitions after 9/11 from Ari Fleischer had already answered THAT question, Kat.
dhex|6.6.07 @ 10:03AM|#
"The GOP makes 1st Amendment martyrs out of a bunch of
lunatics."
yeah, basically. they already feel like martyrs.
also, rudy. RUUUUUUUUUUUUDY! RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDY!
a very stupid move on the part of organizers.
LarryA|6.6.07 @ 10:06AM|#
I think the right answer to the guy would have been,
"huh?"
I prefer, "The U.S. government is not competent enough to conduct
and keep secret a conspiracy of that scale."
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 10:09AM|#
"The U.S. government is not competent enough to conduct and
keep secret a conspiracy of that scale."
Which is why the media polices itself. For example:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120583.html
|6.6.07 @ 10:25AM|#
"Ignoring them would be an option, if they would behave like
civil folk. Unfortunatly, many folks who pull this crap refuse to
be ignored and must be removed so that the sane can
converse."
Exactly.
Guy Montag|6.6.07 @ 10:38AM|#
It is irrelevant whether you think these guys are "loony" or
not. The point is that if a journalist was arrested or even just
escorted out this is evidence that there is no longer freedom of
the press.
Kat,
That is quite loony itself.
"Freedom of the press" does not include disrupting the activities
of others, tresspassing, theft, speeding, double parking, assault
or a whole list of other things. Not that these child-like beings
did all of that, of course.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 10:54AM|#
"Freedom of the press" does not include disrupting the
activities of others
Sounds like you are saying:
Asking questions: okay.
"Loudly" asking questions: arrestable offense.
Thing is, this "loudness" restriction can easily get abused into a
pretext to avoid taking questions that are embarrassing or
incriminating. Is this about loudness, or is about Guiliani knowing
things about 9/11 that he doesn't want to say?
Frankly, a Guiliani presidency would probably be the next best
thing for a Truther, right after a Paul presidency. A Truther would
believe that Paul would investigate, while Guiliani basically keep
the issues fresh in people's minds. the best hope of this dying
down would be to get Obama or someone like that in there.
|6.6.07 @ 10:55AM|#
Back in 2004, Al Franken tackled a LaRouchie who was "asking tough questions" at a Howard Dean rally. In that case the heckler was interrupting the actual candidate, not a spinmeister, and had already resisted security guards who tried to escort him out. That didn't stop many GOP hacks from criticizing Franken for "suppressing free speech". It was a stupid argument then, and it's a stupid argument in this case.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 11:01AM|#
In that case the heckler was interrupting the actual
candidate, not a spinmeister, and had already resisted security
guards who tried to escort him out.
and this case is the similar to that case why?
Fluffy|6.6.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Guy -
None of that is relevant in the least, because the organizers of
the event [CNN] did not want this guy arrested.
Who made Rudy Giuliani's empty fucking suit of a press secretary
Emperor all of a sudden?
Until this pimp is in fact Emperor, if someone has a press pass and
is being a jerk he gets to sit there and take it until the people
that issued the press pass tell the guy to leave.
|6.6.07 @ 11:14AM|#
At first, I thought he didn't have a press pass, but if you look closely just before the officers take him away, you can see the press pass around his neck (at 1:40 in this video). Now, he was arguing with the officers who came to escort him out, and not moving as quickly as they would have liked...I'm not sure if that would qualify as refusing to leave when instructed to do so, which would be criminal trespass.
|6.6.07 @ 11:17AM|#
""Loudly" asking questions: arrestable offense."
And preventing anyone else from asking a question.
|6.6.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Also, hasn't the SCOTUS ruled that the First does not necessarily protect speech if it is directed at a "captive audience" which clearly tries to disengage from the conversation? I mean, the Giuliani guy obviously didn't want to answer the question, and turned his back and walked away as if he was going to talk to someone else, and this guy kept following him and demanding an answer to his question.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 11:23AM|#
And preventing anyone else from asking a
question.
According to the video he did not do that. Not to mention the fact
that is customary for reporters to talk over each other in this
kind of setting. Heck, based on the video, I don't even think he
qualifies as "loud." This is not about loudness and it is not about
speaking out of turn.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 11:25AM|#
and this guy kept following him and demanding an answer to
his question.
This did not make the guy a captive audience. usually when
politicians are hounded by reporters, then they proceed to an area
where the reporters are not allowed to go. Traditionally, that is
how it works.
|6.6.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Dave, there's an expectation that the press secy. is going to be
in the "spin room" continuously after the debate. It's not like he
can go hide somewhere for a while and wait this jerk out; doing so
will cause him to be unable to do his job.
You don't have to have barriers to re-entry in order to have a
captive audience. That's why protesting at military funerals can be
restricted, since the family members can't be expected to just
leave the gravesite if they don't want to listen to the protesters'
speech.
|6.6.07 @ 11:44AM|#
TWC, "Man, you can't arrest a guy that's wearing a tie. Or is
that just my addled brain malfunctioning?"
I once wrote a song about that, "White Guy In A Suit."
Everbody's helpful
No one's ever rude
Never see a mall cop
Cuz I'm a white guy in a suit.
People ask directions
Even when I don't know the route.
They bring me my drinks right away
Cuz I'm a white guy in a suit.
(ba-ba-ba-dada)
White Guy In A Suit!
(ba-ba-ba-dada)
White Guy In A Suit!
(ba-ba-ba-dada)
Everybody loves me
Cuz I'm a white guy in a suit.
|6.6.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not that the press secy didn't want to talk to any reporters; it's that he didn't want to talk to this particular guy. If he went somewhere where no reporters are allowed, then he can't speak to those he wants to speak to either.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Dave, there's an expectation that the press secy. is going
to be in the "spin room" continuously after the debate.
A press secretary going into the spin room leads to the expectation
that the press secretary will answer questions posed by people
legitimately in the spin room. If the press secretary wants to talk
only to reporters he hand-picks, then that can be done in a
different setting with different types of expectations on the part
of all involved (especially the ultimate media audience).
If the press secretary had stood his ground and waited for the guy
to become truly disruptive then things might have been different.
as the video shows, the INFOWARs reporter wasn't trying to talk
over anybody that the press secretary was trying to talk to, and he
wasn't being particularly loud.
I also think his question deserved a fuller, better answer than "no
comment."
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 12:01PM|#
I also think his question deserved a fuller, better answer
than "no comment."
I agree
The fuller, better response would have been, "you're a fucking
goof. Next question?"
Fluffy|6.6.07 @ 12:07PM|#
I still want to know why Giuliani's press secretary is entitled
to get someone expelled and arrested.
Did he own or lease the building?
Did he sponsor the event?
Was his candidate the only candidate present?
Was he responsible for issuing the press passes?
Why can this guy decide at a group event sponsored by others that
someone with a legitimate credential not issued by him has to be
expelled and arrested? If he's entitled to do that, can Paul's
people unilaterally get the cops to expel people from the spin
room, too? That would be awesome - just get the cops to arrest all
the other spokespeople and candidates, and then you get all the
press coverage to yourself!**
**Obvious satire.
|6.6.07 @ 12:11PM|#
'Kind of like those "cry rooms" they used to have in movie
theaters for loud children."
Perhaps they should rename them "Hit and Run rooms"?
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 12:23PM|#
The fuller, better response would have been, "you're a
fucking goof. Next question?"
(Without cheating and going back to the video), do you even know
what question that reporter Matt Lepacek?
For those of you who can't say off the top of your heads what the
question was:
1. Why are you so convinced the reporter is a loon or a goof?
2. Are you judging Reporter Matt Lepacek by his employer (as
Weigel's post is worded to make you do) or by his actual question
to the spin meister?
3. Should you judge a reporter by his actual questions or by the
identity of his employer?
4. As best as I can hear it, the question was:
"Are you aware of who told Mayor Guiliani that the buildings were
going to collapse?"
5. It is difficult to interpret what happened next, but I think
that the Mr. Goeas expressed disbelief that Mayor Guiliani knew the
buildings were going to collapse before they did, and then Reporter
Matt Lepacek offerred to show him some kind of video footage
indicating that Mayor Guiliani did know before the collapse in
question. Correct me if I am wrong, because I am no Truther, and am
not aware of any issue or proof of Mayor Guiliani's forebodings of
collapse. So far as I know, Guiliani was as surprised as I was.
However: (i) this line of questioning is relevant to what kind of
President Guiliani would make; and (ii) it is certainly more
interesting than whatever it is Weigel considered himself to be in
town to cover.
6. Assuming I have interpreted the exchange correctly, a better
answer from the press secretary would have been:
"Your question assumes that Mr. Guiliani knew in advance the
buildings would collapse. He did not. Neverthe less, if you can
show me some convincing proof that he did, then I promise to have
Guiliani show up at the next debate in a dress. Please post links
to your so-called proof at the Guiliani website. If Guiliani shows
up at the next debate in a suit, then it means your proof, pardon
my French, sucked. I think that is tough, but fair, and probably
more than you deserve. Next question."
Is that so hard?
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 12:46PM|#
I heard the fucking question
It was a non question-question. He was asking why "he lied". Even
responding admits to some case the guy has. He has none. He was (in
H&R parlance) 'baitin'. He wanted to show 'evidence' of a
'contradiction'. But its all statements taken out of context and
twisted to address their assumptions of 'vast conspiracy'. Those
guys are shitheads. Did it require security? no. But the guy wasnt
obligated to take them seriously in any way.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 12:55PM|#
He was asking why "he lied". Even responding admits to some
case the guy has.
You mean like when Guiliani asked Ron Paul whether the US invited
9/11?
btw, in my previous post, I gave the press sec'y a suggested answer
that does not admit that the "guy" had a case.
|6.6.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Dave W,
There's a difference between a "why" question and a "whether"
question. The former assumes that the following statement is true,
the latter does not.
|6.6.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Don't get drawn in like I did, crimethink.
It's a maze of suppositions if you let it get much further.
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 1:26PM|#
I saw your suggested response. The difference is that you think
the guy deserved a response. I dont think he did. I think he
certainly could have been handled deftly with a quick
acknowledgement that the rep wasnt going to deal with him, and
asked if he had any 'substansive' questions, but he wasnt obligated
to treat the guy's question with any respect. It's not just 'like'
being asked "Prove you are not a liar!", it IS being asked that
question. The guy was accusing Giuliani of 'lying'; if he had proof
of that point, then he didnt need the press rep to confirm or deny.
He just wanted footage for his rant site. Gayzorz. I am not
suprised they released the hounds on him. Although it inadvertantly
provided them exactly what they wanted, which was acknowedgement of
their existence, and hopefully martyrdom.
I've commented before that these kind of fundies deserve all the
abuse, disdain, contempt the rest of us can muster. They arent
going to change their minds when you try to explain Occams Razor to
them.
And Guiliani didnt 'ask' Paul whether the US invited 9/11. He
twisted Paul's comment to suggest he'd actually meant that. Which
was dishonest and cheap. People say things that are open to
multiple readings and using isolated statements to attribute a POV
to the opposition is disingenuous.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 2:44PM|#
I saw your suggested response. The difference is that you
think the guy deserved a response.
Earlier in this conversation I didn't know whether Guiliani had
advance warning that the Twin Towers were going to collapse. So,
when I got back from lunch, I looked it up on the Internet. Turns
out that Guiliani said this:
"I--I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75
Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner,
the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we
were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade
Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could
actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the
building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out,
walked north, and took a lot of people with us."
Which means, of course, that the reporter's question was reasonable
after all and deserved a respectful, thoughtful and true answer. It
is pretty clear to me now that Mayor Guiliani had at least some
forewarning that the Towers would fall before the first one did.
The press sec'y should come clean with the full scoop.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 2:46PM|#
There's a difference between a "why" question and a
"whether" question. The former assumes that the following statement
is true, the latter does not.
Okay, crimethink. Do you know whether Mayor Guiliani said the
following thing to Peter Jennings on ABC news:
"I--I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at
75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police
commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency
management, and we were operating out of there when we were told
that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did
collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we
were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found
an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with
us."
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Dave you dont need to quote the same @#&^$ thing twice
And the quote means nothing. He also said they didnt have time to
act on the report that the buildings were going to come down. Whats
the unknown here?
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 4:04PM|#
thats known. About 10 mins. And command and control was such that any order would have taken an hour to reach all units, if at all.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 4:06PM|#
And command and control was such that any order would have
taken an hour to reach all units, if at all.
I thought you were on Guiliani's side in this?
|6.6.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Giuliani was referring to building seven (where the emergency
headquarters was located) coming down, not the Towers, unless you
really think he survived the collapse of a 107 storey building
falling on top of him...
Professional journalists don't heckle. The guy was a nuisance who
should have been removed.
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 5:04PM|#
Dave W. | June 6, 2007, 4:06pm | #
And command and control was such that any order would have taken an
hour to reach all units, if at all.
I thought you were on Guiliani's side in this
Christ.
You're being a heckler Dave. I am on the side of reality. Read the
fucking 9/11 commission report. Page 319-320 summarize some of the
communications problems, timing issues with command and control,
different organizations operating on different frequencies, etc.
This was not "Rudys" fault. As I said at the start = you are acting
as though he was RESPONSIBLE or in control of every detail of what
was happening. That would simply not be possible. It would NEVER be
that way. Thats not how emergency management works. There is always
delegation. If the report from the site came at 9:57 that engineers
on the ground thought the building was coming down, by the time it
reached Rudy's team (10mins?) they had ~10mins to send out orders
to evacuate - which would have taken an hour to reach everyone, and
many, never. None of this could have been changed by the decisions
of one guy.
If you read the report, and do a little thinking, you might quit
worrying about what Rudy did or didnt do on 9/11
free speech|6.6.07 @ 5:35PM|#
"TOO MUCH ROUGE" RUDY (SO NAMED BECAUSE OF HIS CROSSDRESSING
PICTURES AND THE VIDEO WITH DONALD TRUMP ONLINE) GIULIANI, just
officially lost the nomination of the Republican party, and of
course, any pretense at the Presidency.
He can thank his goons and his spinmeister, Ed Gooneas (or is it
Goeas as in "GO ASS") for turning all the money he spent on his
fiasco of a campaign into a giant money pit.
WAY TO GO RUDY...EVEN GOD USED LIGHTNING TO SHUT YOU UP!
"TOO MUCH ROUGE" RUDY...AMERICA'S FAILURE!
http://ronpaulisright.blogspot.com
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 5:42PM|#
Thats not how emergency management works. There is always
delegation. If the report from the site came at 9:57 that engineers
on the ground thought the building was coming down, by the time it
reached Rudy's team (10mins?) they had ~10mins to send out orders
to evacuate - which would have taken an hour to reach everyone, and
many, never. None of this could have been changed by the decisions
of one guy.
1. First of all, you give the guy who decides if the building is
coming down a direct link to the command center. If Mr. Nameless
Engineer knew 20 plus minutes in advance, then Guiliani should have
also known 20 + minutes in advance.
2. Second, he should have given the evacuation order quickly,
whether or not everybody would have been able to get out of the
way. I mean, maybe you want to check as to whether survivors are
still being evacuated at a fairly fast rate (I don't think they
were), but after a couple of minutes you give that order, whether
or not everybody can get out or not.
3. I wasn't there, but I imagine that a lot more firefighters were
standing around the perimeters of the buildings than were way up in
the stairwells. even 5 minutes notice could have done a lot of
those guys a lot of good.
4. Sure would be nice to know how Mr. Nameless Engineer knew when
he knew. I realize the explanation is probably technical, but I bet
he could dumb it down for us if called to testify.
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 5:53PM|#
Also, if Rudy was superman, he could have blown the fires out
with his super-breath and flown around rescuing people all the
people in the building
All you're trying to do is create a reason to claim the guy wasnt
acting in his best capacity in the circumstances, and frankly
you're just wrong. There was no 'failure' on anyone's part. Yes,
they could have all had a single communications network. Now they
do. No one was planning to have to conduct combined operations on a
disaster site of that scale. But none of this matters to you;
you're more interested in political bullshit "he said she said"
It's crass and opportunistic. If you had any intimacy with the
event that day you'd be a little more reasonable but you and other
prefer to treat it as armchair dilletantes. Im sorry i'm unable to
get you to be fair, but go back to your Quest For Blame...its
apparently more fun for you
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 6:05PM|#
No one was planning to have to conduct combined operations
on a disaster site of that scale.
They already had had an attempt to blow up the Towers. They better
have had an expert at the ready to decide whether the Towers were
going to fall, and they better have had plans for ensuring quick
communication between the expert and the decider.
The expedient of the jets may (or may not) have been foreseeable,
but the need for the expert and quick communications should have
been foreseeable both before 9/11 and during the 56 minutes that
Tower 2 burned.
Which is not to say that Guiliani did planning or did a bad job.
But it is not clear that he did a good job either. we just don't
know enough to say either way at this point.
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 6:13PM|#
we just don't know enough to say either way at this
point.
You would define "good job" as what.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 6:26PM|#
You would define "good job" as what.
Reasonably quick and decisive decision-making in light of the
clarity of relevant expert opinion available at the time on an
ongoing basis.
Isn't that everybody's def'n?
GILMORE|6.7.07 @ 12:52AM|#
So, Dave - if you were mayor and 9/11 happened in your town...
read the 9/11 report and tell me what you would have done
differently?
Seriously. You're starting to some degree with assumptions that
"management failed". NYC is the biggest metro area in the USA (fuck
LA). THe guy has the second hardest job next to the president. He
has to deal with a small nation here. And he was on the scene
within minutes coordinating efforts of 4-6 agencies at once (port
authority, EMT, FDNY, NYPD, National Guard, US military). He
actually managed to help save 1000s of people. there were (est)
18000 people in the buildings when the shit started. 3000 died. A
lot of the stuff the agencies did was contradictory and confused
(at one point Port Authority told people to stay where they were
which delayed evacuation efforts). But he was there, on the block,
trying to make the thing work and help the people of the city. As a
lifelong resident of this place, Rudy isnt just admired for being a
strong leader on 9/11, but for the decade of revitalization he
oversaw. He was also a loundmouth dick with a lack of fear of the
press. He was a very genuine NY'r, who made his bones taking down
mob rings in the fulton fish market. You can hate on the guy for
whatever reason, but he's much more of a get your hands dirty
problem solver than most of these empty suit politicians, and while
I can't say i'm a supporter of his or potential voter, the man
deserves a modicum of respect for his track record of facing down
tough problems and taking them head on. He's honest to a fault
(with recent exceptions, the downsides of national politics), and a
pragmatic guy. I may never vote for him, but people who disparage
his character or capability over bullshit details that they
miscontrue and half understand should be called out for the
schmucks they are.
all of the citizens of NYC, and the officials and departments under
rudy's control during the whole 9/11 thing have praised his rapid
take-charge ability ad nauseaum. You - a stranger to this event to
a large degree - declare him a questionable character. Who do you
think people should take more seriously?
The Downtown Talent Scout|6.7.07 @ 12:55AM|#
From PrisonPlanet.com:
Presidential candidate Ron Paul was informed about what had
occurred and stated words to the effect that while we are supposed
to be spreading freedom and democracy abroad, we couldn't even
handle it in New Hampshire.
|6.7.07 @ 10:45AM|#
Hey, time for the Truthers to kiss and make up for Ron Paul
effectively spurning them in some of Reason's recent
interviews.
"All is forgiven! Please be our friend!
Sincerely,
Alex Jones"
|6.7.07 @ 4:10PM|#
http://blip.tv/file/256575
new video of incident only more blatant cause the audio is clear.
and multiple camera angles
HippyInASuit|6.8.07 @ 9:56AM|#
He really was arrested! Why are you reading articles here if you
don't trust the reporters. Would you believe it if CNN said it? Why
is this any different?
There are several reports across the internet and they all state
the fact that he was ARRESTED. CNN staff pleaded that he not be
arrested because they really did give him a press pass.
|6.11.07 @ 10:15PM|#
Marcvs
Fucking lunny? thats funny asking a question as to how in the
history of mankind no steel building has ever failed due to fire is
a lunny question indeed. Just to point out this "activist" lost a
famuly member in the 911 attacks and you should show some fucking
respect regardless of what you think of this so called "activist"
And regardless of how lunny this reporter may be the fucking 1st
amendment gives him the right to ask a question dummass especially
if he has a presspass now you notice my use of name calling towards
you and use of labeling does it feel good you fascist pig? I can
tell you this:the U.S.A was founded on the premise of free speech
and to say or justify someone being arrested for asking a question
means we are turning into fascist state just like the lunatics Alex
Jones and David Icke have been mentioning for decades. If getting
arrested for asking the wrong questions means nothing to you then
maybe you should go live in China you fucking commie or maybe your
are a cuban trying to push a socialist\fascist agenda in the U.S.A?
its the only reason you could justify the breaking of the 1st
amendment the bedrock of what makes America free. Or maybe your
North Korean? Because you are not a fucking American for #1 calling
an AMERICAN HEROES NEPHEW A LUNATIC FOR ASKING A QUESTION. #2 for
justifying the arrest of someone for asking a question breaking the
1st amendment of the United States Of America. Maybe your a Nazi?
spill it out and tell us where your really from because you are
definetly not American and if you are you have just commited
treason againts the 911 victims, againts the U.S constitution and
our founding fathers.Who is more lunny the person who asked the
question or the one who called someone lunny because they were
excercising there freedom of speech? I think you are the one who is
Lunny.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245