Charlie Sheen Schools Obama

[Danascot]

I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with our 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, while he was out promoting his health care reform initiative. I requested 30 minutes given the scope and detail of my inquiry; they said I could have 20. Twenty minutes, 1200 seconds, not a lot of time to question the President about one of the most important events in our nation’s history. The following is a transcript of our remarkable discussion.

http://www.infowars.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president/

[jakeXT]

1. it's fictional

Sheen’s request takes the form of a letter to the President in the context of a fictional meeting between the two entitled “20 Minutes With The President,” published exclusively on radio talk show host Alex Jones’ Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com websites.

[NoSheep]

2. If this is fictional, could the mods just delete it?

[LARED]

4. If the mods deleted fictional truther posts this forum would just

about vanish.

[Democracyinkind]

5. Yeah well, this is something that even the most hardened CTer must accept as fiction.

You can't keep them from writing their own fiction or from drawing fictional conclusions, but mods should be able to pull known hoaxes by rightwingers.

Charlie Sheen interviews Obama. geesh.

[jberryhill]

40. Leaving only a shadow /nt

[anigbrowl]

8. Leave it up..it's worth it just for the stupidity of the comments

A classic example of people believing what they want to believe and ignoring or failing to notice what doesn't suit those beliefs. This doesn't invalidate all the points raised, but it's a fine example of disinformation in action.

[Democracyinkind]

3. IT IS FICTIONAL. ALEX JONES NEWEST HOAX.

go to any conspiracy board and it will be number one topic today.

[ForeignSpectator]

6. The same way I think there are many things about the OCT that don't make sense

I think there are several things about these "20 minutes" that don't make sense.

No way does this transcript fit into 20 minutes. Especially making his 20 points when he has 5 minutes left?
Really?! When you're gonna make something like this, at least make it plausible. But obviously there are enough people that take it at face value on that site and buy all that alex jones merchandise there...

And if it was real (which it wasnt't), I'd say he blew it, should have stuck to 2-3 points and just make the case for a new investigation.

Oh and what's the show Obama supposedly tivos? Two and a half men? That's beyond corny.

[jakeXT]

7. Do you have to pay Reuters for a press release?

The Alex Jones Show: Charlie Sheen Requests Meeting With Obama Over 9/11 Cover-Up

...

Sheen will appear live on The Alex Jones Show on Wednesday and Friday to
discuss the content of his "20 Minutes With The President" piece and how he
plans to move forward with this exciting new initiative. You can listen free
here or subscribe to prison planet.tv to watch live streaming video.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS252554+08-Sep-2009+PRN20090908

[JuniperLea]

9. Wow...

I thought for sure this was a hoax... now I'm not so sure...

Not noted in Snopes either.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Charlie Sheen has not met with the president.

This is a lot like the dialogues that Christian apologists would write from the second century to now, misrepresenting their opponents' positions and presenting the best face of their own.

If I thought Sheen was really trying to pretend he'd met with Obama, it would be one thing. But he's not. It's just the same old bullshit that Alex Jones has been pushing for a while.

[JuniperLea]

11. Did you bother reading the Reuters piece?

I think not.

AUSTIN, Texas, Sept. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- According to syndicated talk show host
Alex Jones, actor and television star Charlie Sheen has publicly requested a
meeting with President Barack Obama to urge him to reopen the official
investigation into 9/11; in light of the fact that the majority of the 9/11
Commission members have now publicly gone on record to express their
conviction that the government agreed to lie about the official story.


No where does it say he actually met with the president, genius. So again, you are tooting your little horn without knowing what you're talking about. Brilliant. And you wonder why...


Here's the telling bit for you, so you don't hurt yourself trying to find it: "Charlie Sheen has publicly requested a meeting with President Barack Obama..."

[Bolo Boffin]

12. How exactly is anything I said contradicted in the Reuters article?

Because I don't see it.

[JuniperLea]

13. Oh bother...

Read your own subject line, please. :eyes:

On edit... read your whole damn post... nothing in the article says Sheen met Obama... it's about a request, an open letter requesting a meeting. You jumped the shark, dude. As per usual.

If Sheen objected to his name being used, then I'd believe there was some sneaky stuff going on. But no.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. You read my fucking subject line.

Nothing in the article contradicts what I have said. Does the article claim that Sheen met with the President? NO. THAT'S WHAT I SAID.

Could you be more pathological in trying to find a reason to sneer at me? Please don't try. That's not a challenge.

[JuniperLea]

15. When you respond with a statement...

It's a given the statement is connected to the post you are replying to... come on. Your statement is dumb. No where in the article does it say he met with Obama... yet you made that statement. And now you backpeddle. Sweet.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. So now you're simply trying to be incomprehensible?

Spray all the squid ink you like. I said what the article said. I didn't need to read the article again.

[JuniperLea]

17. LOL!

Admitting you don't understand is the first step in learning.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jakeXT]

18. Charlie Sheen's Video Message to President Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKR2-A0KPU

[chrisa]

19. Lmao... Get real...

Like the President would waste time on these people...

He has real work to do, you know.

[jakeXT]

20. At least Meghan McCain has .. great eyes

Meghan McCain:“I quoted Charlie Sheen yesterday about his experience with prostitutes, so really you’re the one I should be listening to about 9/11?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yENcu5_7Mdk&feature=player_embedded

[Subdivisions]

23. Sheen has, in resonse, thrown down the guantlet for Ms. McCain and

challenged her to come on Larry King with him next week (in fact, he has challenged ALL comers) to debate the questions of 9/11. I'm sure her smartass mouth won't have anything further to say about it.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Will Charlie put down the bong long enough to do an hour on Larry King?

Well, that's what they make Visine for, right?

[Subdivisions]

26. How about instead of attacking Charlie Sheen you attempt to

address each of the points he lists in his letter to Pres. Obama?

You won't because you can't.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. All right.

Number one:

I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with our 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, while he was out promoting his health care reform initiative. I requested 30 minutes given the scope and detail of my inquiry; they said I could have 20. Twenty minutes, 1200 seconds, not a lot of time to question the President about one of the most important events in our nation’s history. The following is a transcript of our remarkable discussion.

Every word is fiction.

Now we know that Charlie Sheen is writing fiction. Ancient Christians used to do this, writing long straw men treatments of their opponents' position, and then striding effortlessly to victory. It's an exercise in self-deception then and now.

Number two, skipping past all the self-congratulatory bullshit Sheen puts into Obama's star-struck mouth (if you think there's anything there I need to response to, be so good as to let me know):

CS – I really wish that were the case, sir. Are you aware, Mr. President, of the recent stunning revelations that sixty percent of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack?

The link is to this 2006 story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

The lies were about how close we got to intercepting the planes. The truth was that despite the very best efforts of the responders that day, we were never, ever anywhere close to stopping those planes. You may as well blame the firefighters for not putting out the fires in WTC 1 and 2 as blame NORAD for not intercepting the planes.

And yet they lied about this. Why, when the truth excused them? I happen to think it was because they were trying to disguise their true capabilities, a misguided effort to ward off any other attempts to commit this type of attack. Telling the truth saves their ass but invites future attacks.

I still think the truth should have been told from the beginning.

And that is the extent of the "deliberate deception" on the part of the Pentagon, as sourced in this story. Using this to indict every single statement made by every single member of the government from President Bush to Wally Miller is bong smoke.

All of the other commissioners, with the exception of Max Cleland, are talking about this.

Max's reasons are also very clearly stated by him. It was over the deal cut by the White House with the 9/11 Commission to only allow certain commissioners to review the PDBs, and then under very strict conditions.

Max also states a very specific motive:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/11/21/cleland/index.html?pn=1

What you have is the fear from the White House that the commission would uncover pretty quickly the fact that one of four legs that the war stood on was nonexistent. So they slow-walked it, and they continue to slow-walk it. They want to kick this can down past the elections.

It was the build-up to the war with Iraq and NOT the 9/11 attacks that the White House is covering up, according to Cleland. Using him to support any half-assed speculation behind the attacks is overreaching. Or overindulging, in the case of Charlie Sheen.

Then Charlie wanders off, committing what I called the major mistake in all 9/11 Truth advocates over a year ago:

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Top+10+Boneheaded+Mistakes#The_One_Major_Mistake

And that is making the assumption that by attacking the common understanding of the 9/11 attacks, they will be able to undermine the rationale for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Notice that I said "common understanding" and not "official story." There is no single source controllable by any group of people on Earth from where we get our knowledge of what happened on 9/11. The nature of all these events were much too public, and even the event most sheltered from the public eye (the crash of United 93) was soon understood by the release of phone calls to loved ones, the information from the plane's FDR and CVR, and the combined witness of the hundreds of people who helped clean up that terrible site.

It is a fool's errand to attack these combined witnesses. Yet the 9/11 Truth Movement does so in its misguided attempt to resist the current Middle Eastern wars. Gage and his organization does their part, and their motivation is fairly dripping from their every presentation. Since they believe these buildings to have been controlled demolitions, and since al-Qaeda could never have set those charges, the implication of the current administration's culpability is clear. So they will continue to twist evidence, misunderstand statements, cherrypick their data, pretend a common cause with every other opponent of their chosen targets, and move the goalposts whenever it suits them and with barely any acknowledgment of having done so.

The common understanding of 9/11 must be replaced by any means necessary, because it appears to them that this is the quickest way to stop the wars in the Persian Gulf. Unfortunately, by adopting such shoddy reasoning and destroying their own reputations, the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are only bringing their laudable goal into disrepute. Any serious activist against the war would do well to shun these conclusions and seek more effective arguments against the war.

Charlie Sheen is soaking in this problem. You will never stop renditions or the wars in the Middle East or Wall Street bailouts or any other goal by attacking the common understanding of the 9/11 attacks. That common understanding is grounded in too many diverse sources to blame it on a cabal of government officials alone.

This is reality, Charlie. You're spinning your wheels.

That's enough for now.

[Subdivisions]

28. Why do you show such contempt for

bongs?

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Bongs are perfectly fine in their place.

The mistake is scribbling things down while under the influence of bongs and thinking you've got something.

Unless it's horror movies.

ETA: Why do you hold such contempt for a discussion on the facts?

[defendandprotect]

32. This is more than enough . . . !!!

The truth was that despite the very best efforts of the responders that day, we were never, ever anywhere close to stopping those planes.

This is fantasy from every angle --

86 intercepts just in the first part of 2001 --
Protocols changed by Rumsfeld 3 months before 9/11 -
and changed back again on 9/12!

The whole area around the Capitol is a specially high security area --

There's a special designation for the area -- highly restricted airspace covering
Pentagon and White House -- 50 mile radius around DC -- and 17 miles around Washington
Monument -- and 3 miles around Capitol --

THERE IS SEPARATE RADAR TRACKING -- SEPARATE MILITARY RESPONSE --

No unknown aircraft gets thru any of this --

Essentially this area is 'UNREACHABLE' -- an 'AVIATION NO MAN'S LAND" ...

ANDREWS A/F BASE AND NATIONAL GUARD AIRWING/113th SCRAMBLE JETS

and NEITHER ONE responded until after plane hit !!

ALSO, PENTAGON HAS IT'S OWN DEFENSE -- anti-missile batteries -
MOST HEAVILY PROTECTED BUILDING ON THE PLANET!!

Any non-military plane approaching would be shot down.

$900 BILLION a year for Defense and the Pentagon can't defend itself???

NO PLANE GETS THRU ANY OF THIS UNLESS IT IS MILITARY --

[hack89]

36. Too bad there is no actual evidence for anything you say. nt

[reinvestigate911]

37. "they were trying to disguise their true capabilities" - and we're the conspiracy theorists?

And yet they lied about this. Why, when the truth excused them? I happen to think it was because they were trying to disguise their true capabilities, a misguided effort to ward off any other attempts to commit this type of attack. Telling the truth saves their ass but invites future attacks.

I still think the truth should have been told from the beginning.

hilarious.

oh and by the way... nice apology.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Yes, the government lying about its shitty performance to ward off other attacks is so implausible.

What fucking apology are you talking about? More games of yours?

[defendandprotect]

31. Prostitutes vs lying about war/killing 1.3 innocent Iraqis . . . leading our own soldiers to death!

I'm with the prostitute user -- not the torturer/liar --

[pfloydguy7750]

21. He's nuts

[jakeXT]

22. The Telegraph with a neutral coverage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6177194/Charlie-Sheen-urges-Barack-Obama-to-reopen-911-investigation-in-video-message.html

[PufPuf23]

38. Nice reasoned article and video

The comments are worth a read.

[defendandprotect]

30. Charlie getting to be more like his Dad and good for him!

Noticed he's been at this a while --

We need to stop letting them take these records and classify them for decades --

and we need a huge new investigation of all these lies!

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

33. What amazes me, is that a link to the "interview" was on the front page of Google news..

at the bottom of the page, in the spotlight section an hour ago...now it is gone.

That's news in and of itself.

[Subdivisions]

34. Charlie issued an all-points bulletin challenging anyone to debate him on

Larry King.

Not a single taker.

Seems the believers are afraid to debate the topic. That, or they know what's really up and don't want the publicity.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Or, no one thinks Charlie Sheen is worth...

debating. Duh.