Gary Johnson for POTUS! [was: Ron Paul for POTUS!]

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Wed, 2012-01-11 12:45


( categories: )

Why Obama and Romney are Both Wrong

Richard Goode's picture

Libya, Afghanistan and the Middle East -- Why Obama and Romney are Both Wrong

Foreign policy is supposed to make us safer, not get Americans killed and bankrupt us. Yet, even as we mourn the loss of four Americans in Libya and watch the Middle East ignite with anti-American fervor, our leaders don't get it.

In one corner, we have the U.S. apologists warning that -- after the murders in Libya and the attack on our embassy in Cairo -- we must be careful not to say or do anything that might hurt someone's feelings. In the other corner, we have the chest-thumpers demanding that we find somebody to shoot -- and shoot them.

I have a better idea: Stop trying to manipulate and manage history on the other side of the globe and then being shocked when things don't turn out the way we wanted. As far as what we do right now in response to the tragic events of this week, it's actually pretty simple. Get our folks out of places they don't need to be -- and out of harm's way -- and cut off every dime of U.S. tax dollars we are sending to clearly ungrateful regimes.

Let's review American foreign policy during the Bush-Obama years. Just imagine for a minute that, in 2002, President Bush granted Iran's Ayatollah one wish above all others. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Supreme Leader would have said, "Can you please kill Saddam Hussein and make sure our mortal enemy Iraq can no longer threaten us. Then, we can get about our goals of destroying Israel, building a nuke and becoming a legitimate thorn in the side of the Western infidels."

Well... [more]

Evasive Tactics of Goode

Michael Moeller's picture

I mean, Goode could easily dispel any notion of his (1) whitewashing of racist material, (2) of trying to cover-up Ron Paul's risible 9-11 statements, and (3) shrugging off the idea that Ron Paul purposely let the material into his newsletters to further business, while repeating a smear about Gingrich to distract from the argument. Oh yeah, he said he was just playing games on the Gingrich score. Uh-huh, sure, right-o.

If it was me, I would respond by tackling the evidence. The one way I would NOT respond is to ignore the evidence and make feeble assaults on the other person's character.

No, not Richard Goode. Instead of responding to the three points above and explaining why he did what he did, he calls me a "cyberbully". In my mind, such tactics show he has no explanation and is pretty much admitting his egregiously immoral behavior. But he can always dispel this by explaining his conduct in the three instances above.

From where I stand now, it looks like the little rat IS almost entirely drained of blood and has nothing left but open-mouth snarls. Hissssssssssssss!!

Michael

Oh Really?!?

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode wrote:

"I wanted to know what you think of other people who just like to make stuff up, to smear people. That's why I threw in the one-liner about Gingrich."

Is that so? This story is widely spread and many still consider it valid, as Desalvo repeated the same story on the other thread. Yet, you knew this to be false, even though you said nasty things about Gingrich before? Riiiiiight, pal.

SO you admit were just playing games? There's just one HUGE problem: you've just given reason to doubt anything you've ever said, and will say.

If you are busy saying things that are not true just to play for effect, how does one know you are doing the same with your other statements? How can anyone trust your word? How does anybody know that you are not similarly playing for a response and not stating your true belief?

One doesn't. Thanks for giving everybody a reason NEVER to trust your word.

And does this apply to your other statements? When you said there was "nothing much to see" in terms of the racist content of Ron Paul's newsletters, were you also playing for effect and you really believe there is racist content? Do tell, now that you confessed you don't state your actual opinions, at least in one case.

When you misrepresented Ron Paul's 9-11 statements by using Mark Levin's words instead of Ron Paul's own words, were you similarly testing the waters to see what it is like to misrepresent a source, and therefore you agree that Ron Paul's statements blame America for 9-11? Do tell, as you now have given us a gigantic reason to doubt the sincerity of your positions.

When you are deep in a hole, the wise thing to do is stop digging.

You've really done a good job of discrediting yourself, though.

Michael

So I Take It...

Michael Moeller's picture

You are not going to explain why you whitewashed racist material by saying there was "nothing much to see"?

Also, I take it that you are not going to explain why you tried to whitewash Ron Paul's risible comments about 9-11?

Furthermore, are you going to explain why you are shrugging off the very real possibility that Ron Paul knowingly included deplorable content in his newsletters because it furthered his business?

If you are running for public office, don't you think potential voters have the right to know about this despicable conduct of yours? Conduct that many, including myself, would describe as totally immoral?

Well, you are a total blank, so I am voters would pick up on it pretty quickly.

Nevertheless, the disinfecting nature of light always helps. Thanks for the demonstrations as to the nature of your character.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Why are you alluding to a story that is not true?

I wanted to know what you think of other people who just like to make stuff up, to smear people. That's why I threw in the one-liner about Gingrich. Which led you to pronounce that I'm undoubtedly the most immoral person you've ever seen on any internet forum ...

Got caught with your pants down and it is not a pretty sight.

Not a pretty sight? Go take a look in the mirror, Michael.

Hey Moeller ...

Richard Goode's picture

Next time Richard Goode runs for public office, I hope this stuff is brought to light.

Spoken like a true smear-monger!

I've got you tagged. Since 2009.

I almost forgot...

Michael Moeller's picture

Remember when you tried to substitute Ron Paul's actual statements about 9-11 with Mark Levin's summary of Ron Paul's statements? Are you going to provide us with an explanation as to why you did not deal with his actual statements?

You never gave us an explanation for your blatant substitution and why you did use Ron Paul's actual statements. In case you don't remember, here is the article that Mark Levin used, and here are some of the quotes:

“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”
[...]
“After 9/11, (people said) ‘Oh yeah, it’s those very bad people who hate us,’ but 15 of (the hijackers) came from Saudi Arabia,” said Paul. “One of the reasons they attacked us, is we propped up this Sharia government and the fundamentalists hated us for it.”
The congressman particularly decried U.S.-led bombings in foreign nations, saying that “almost always those individuals that they are trying to kill did not have any direct relationship” with threats to the U.S.
[...]
“(9/11) was one of the main motivations for getting your attention on why they hate us and want to kill us,” he said. “You could send 20 million people over there and all it would do is make our problems worse.”

Given that I have provided these quotes -- these actual words of Ron Paul -- and you have not denounced them, is it fair to say you agree with these statements of Ron Paul? I mean, I brought these -- RON PAUL's actual words, not Mark Levin's -- to your attention and you've said nothing. You are still defending him, and apparently still endorsing him as a candidate.

Do you agree with these statements about 9-11? If not, are you going to overlook them when promoting him for president?

I am just trying to get a feel for how you come to terms with these statements that you previously evaded. Do tell us, please.

Michael

While You Are At It...

Michael Moeller's picture

Are you ever going to provide an explanation for whitewashing the racist content of Ron Paul's newsletters?

In case you forgot, it was you who said that you read the material and there was "nothing much to see". Why did you pretend that the material was not racist? I am really curious, especially since you have seemed very sensitive to racial language on other occasions.

Hypocrisy much?

Oh really?!?

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode wrote:

BTW, did you know that Newt Gingrich defines marriage as between a man and a woman who does not have cancer?

Really, where does he do that, Goode? Why are you alluding to a story that is not true?

Goode wrote:

It was neither a counter-argument nor a smear as such.

As you can see, you ARE alluding to a story that is not true, in a slimy, smarmy, underhanded way. Got caught with your pants down and it is not a pretty sight. If not a smear, then tell me what you call it when somebody alludes to a story that is not true, but treats it as true?

Goode wrote:

BTW, did you know that Michael Moeller defines a smear as an unsubstantiated charge or accusation against someone who is not Ron Paul?

Really? Quote me on that definition. Copy and paste, please.

Unless you can provide a quote, you are blatantly making things up.

How many falsehoods are you going to circulate?

Michael

Olivia Dahlink...

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

Many of us have met him, he's a total blank who sits silently in the corner. All his bravado is an invention for the internet only

.

Hahahaha. I bet.

I had just seen somewhere that he had run for office, and his entire platform was the legalization of drugs. Gave me quite the chuckle, even though he isn't fit enough to run for dogcatcher.

Michael

Nothing much to see

Richard Goode's picture

And what does Goode use as a counter-argument? He alludes to a false story about Gingrich.

The problem? Besides Goode reaching a new low with a new whitewashing of the most contemptible behavior?

He's repeating a false smear against Gingrich. That story has been debunked as false. By who? By the daughters of Newt Gingrich and his first wife. Now, unless Goode has some information that the daughters involved -- who were at the scenes of the divorce and the hospital room -- do not, then he compounded his wretched and immoral behavior by promoting another smear.

It was neither a counter-argument nor a smear as such.

BTW, did you know that Michael Moeller defines a smear as an unsubstantiated charge or accusation against someone who is not Ron Paul?

Don't worry Michael...

Olivia's picture

Next time Richard Goode runs for public office, I hope this stuff is brought to light.

Richard has no public persona worth watching to be in public office. Many of us have met him, he's a total blank who sits silently in the corner. All his bravado is an invention for the internet only.

Ron Paul

Brant Gaede's picture

Ron Paul is a political and philosophical hypocrite who will not be nominated to be the Republican candidate for President much less elected as such. His ideas are better than he is--to a point. We need a President who will and can defend this country, afterall. All we can assume is he will even if he (implicitly) says he won't; it's the seduction of presidentiality. You can see that same thing in Obama, only in his case it's war-mongering. It's not Ron; it's his son we should focus on: Rand Paul.

--Brant

As to Goode's Evasions and Questions

Michael Moeller's picture

As I previously stated, I have no intention of playing Goode's pathetic games.

As those who have followed the Ron Paul debates, Goode has evaded liked a mad snake. He was asked particular questions eleven times, and he refused to answer each time. Yes, count them, eleven times. During that same time, I answered every one of his questions.

Now this depraved cretin thinks I am going to continue to play his pathetic games? No thanks.

Michael

The Despicable Evil That is Richard Goode

Michael Moeller's picture

A statement by Goode truly had me rubbing my eyes on what a whitewashing, evil-appeasing scum he can be.

When Goode tried to whitewash the racist content of Ron Paul's newsletters by taking a benign quote and further stating there was "nothing much to see" (as reported here and here), I thought he had truly hit the depths of depravity.

Not to be outdone by that instance, he tried to misrepresent Ron Paul's statements about 9-11 by using the radio host's words, not Ron Paul's; thus, whitewashing and running cover for despicable statements again. (See here and here for Goode's treachery.)

And now he has sunk to a new and unimaginable low. Goode wrote:

The worst that can be said of Ron Paul is that, in willfully allowing this material to be printed under his name, he was pandering to the lowest elements of society. Is that the full extent of your inconvenient truths about Ron Paul?

BTW, did you know that Newt Gingrich defines marriage as between a man and a woman who does not have cancer?

Am I reading this correctly?!?! Is Goode merely shrugging off the very real possibility (especially based on the new testimony of his associates in the Washington Post article) that Ron Paul purposely left racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic content in his newsletters in order to pander to such low-lifes? WOW, just WOW. Does Goode not find this worthy of condemnation? Does he not think this makes Ron Paul unfit to be president? Inquiring minds want to know.

And what does Goode use as a counter-argument? He alludes to a false story about Gingrich.

The problem? Besides Goode reaching a new low with a new whitewashing of the most contemptible behavior?

He's repeating a false smear against Gingrich. That story has been debunked as false. By who? By the daughters of Newt Gingrich and his first wife. Now, unless Goode has some information that the daughters involved -- who were at the scenes of the divorce and the hospital room -- do not, then he compounded his wretched and immoral behavior by promoting another smear.

Richard Goode is undoubtedly the most immoral person I have ever seen on any internet forum, and this includes that some really despicable characters.

Next time Richard Goode runs for public office, I hope this stuff is brought to light.

Michael

Let's See Where This Goes...

Michael Moeller's picture

As I have diligently documented, thus far Richard Goode has run cover and whitewashed the racist content of Ron Paul's newsletters. Thus far, Richard Goode has run cover and whitewashed Ron Paul's statements re 9-11. And with each piece of treachery, he has the audacity to accuse me of smearing.

Well, it will be interesting to get Goode's take on the newest piece of evidence. Previously, when Goode was busy running cover and whitewashing for Ron Paul, Goode wrote:

The last of the above quotations is worth repeating, in bold, even though Michael has already copied and pasted it no fewer than a dozen times already.

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

As part of his whitewashing, Goode dutifully repeats Ron Paul's 2008 statement, as if there was nothing else to consider -- as if I had not laid out the other facts, issues, and discrepancies in Ron Paul's statements. No, Goode evaded all that completely.

Now let's see if Goode evades once again. Here is the newest piece of evidence in which a former secretary, an unnamed business associate, Ed Crane, and a former Paul aide talk about Ron Paul's "hands-on" approach to the newsletters. Here are some of the money quotes from the article:

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.
[...]
A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’
[...]
Paul “had to walk a very fine line,’’ said Eric Dondero Rittberg, a former longtime Paul aide who says Paul allowed the controversial material in his newsletter as a way to make money. Dondero Rittberg said he witnessed Paul proofing, editing and signing off on his newsletters in the mid-1990s.

“The real big money came from some of that racially tinged stuff, but he also had to keep his libertarian supporters, and they weren’t at all comfortable with that,’’ he said.
[...]
Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period and the two discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” were more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

Oh boy, that doesn't sound Goode. Among the many things I said on this topic was the following:

Ron Paul was either extremely incompetent in managing his own newsletter, or worse -- he was willfully allowing this material to be printed under his name and pandering to the lowest elements of society.

From the statements of those former associates, it is becoming clearer and clearer that Ron Paul was pandering to the lowest elements of society.

What does Goode make of this evidence? How is Goode going to whitewash the evidence or deflect this time in another attempt to smear me?

Or will Goode finally apologize for his misrepresentation of the facts and his attempts to smear me?

Stay tuned.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Perhaps you're right, after all, that "there’s every reason in the world to keep talking about [the Ron Paul] newsletters." That's what Steve Horwitz says in answering the question, Why Do 20 Year Old Newsletters Matter So Damn Much?. According to Horwitz

It’s time to face our ugly past head on and to explicitly reject it. And it is the past of every libertarian. It doesn’t matter if you weren’t there, or weren’t alive, or think it’s stupid: if you call yourself a libertarian and especially if you support Ron Paul, it’s part of your past like it or not. That’s how life works sometimes. We can’t make Ron Paul name the authors or make the authors step forward, either of which would help immensely. We can, however, take pains to make clear that some of Ron Paul’s past and current associations are rejected by libertarians who understand the “liberal” in libertarian and whose vision of a free society is one that is so clearly in conflict with racism, homophobia, antisemitism and all the rest that people like Stormfront would never even consider sending us a donation and we would recoil at being photographed with them.

Until we can say that with confidence, there’s every reason in the world to keep talking about these newsletters and what they mean for the 21st century libertarian project ... It’s time to reclaim our progressive history from the hands of the right: from the Old Right of the 40s, to the Reagan era LINOs, to the paleolibertarianism of the 1990s.

BTW, do you call yourself a libertarian? Or are you some kind of Reagan era LINO?

Blantant Moellerisation

Richard Goode's picture

As I have diligently documented, Goode has misrepresented the facts of Ron Paul's newsletters ...

I have presented the facts of Ron Paul's newsletters, not misrepresented them. The diligent documentation is all mine.

He continues to provide excuses for Ron Paul regarding the racist content of his newsletters.

I have provided no excuses for Ron Paul regarding the racist content of his newsletters.

Additionally, Goode has been caught red-handed trying to whitewash Ron Paul's 9-11 statements

I merely agreed with Mark Levin.

Smear on.

Exactly As I Thought

Michael Moeller's picture

Vermin Supreme II gives no explanation -- much less an apology -- for his repeated misrepresentations of the facts, and the resulting smears lobbed in my direction. No, he will evade any moral responsibility and move on to the next smear.

Rodent.

Goode's Got Some 'Splaining To Do

Michael Moeller's picture

As I have diligently documented, Goode has misrepresented the facts of Ron Paul's newsletters, and evaded many questions on the matter. He continues to provide excuses for Ron Paul regarding the racist content of his newsletters. Additionally, Goode has been caught red-handed trying to whitewash Ron Paul's 9-11 statements, and caught completely evaded any responsibility in doing so.

At first I just chalked this up to a blantant attempt to smear me, and there is no doubt that is what he is doing. He has also feigned disinterest in the election and waffled on Ron Paul. But now he is endorsing him, even after being given the facts. In the process, he is whitewashing the entire episode of Ron Paul's newsletters and his 9-11 statements.

Was Goode all along pining for Ron Paul, pretending otherwise, and simply trying to run cover for the racist content of Ron Paul's newsletters and his 9-11 statements?

Goode has much 'splaining to do. WATCH THIS SPACE!

Michael

Vermin Supreme II

Michael Moeller's picture

I would say that Ron Paul is almost the perfect candidate for Witch Doctor Goode. Almost.

I say almost because a candidate called Vermin Supreme has been making news lately. Vermin Supreme wears a boot on his head, like Goode should. He holds some of the wackiest ideas around, like "time travel research". Goode could be an advisor, considering he claims the future has already happened. Vermin Supreme is on-guard against zoombies. Goode is on-guard against sentient robots out to crush him like a grape. Vermin Supreme wants to run the energy economy on pony poop -- the same thing that fuels Goode's ideas.

Yes, this is a match made in heaven. A fundamentally unserious, act-like-a-buffoon-for-attention, joke of a human being. Next time Goode runs as a candidate, Goode should run as Vermin Supreme II -- with the added vice of being totally devoid of moral character, which I cannot yet say of the original Vermin Supreme.

Michael

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.