CPAC Speeches Worthy of Listening To

Michael Moeller's picture
Submitted by Michael Moeller on Sat, 2012-02-11 23:23

Marco Rubio:

Paul Ryan:

Andrew Breitbart:


Total Evasion

Michael Moeller's picture

So is it your position, Desalvo, that the State Department is falsifying their claims to Iranian terrorism?

So is it your position, Desalvo, that Iran has not funded and sent insurgents into Iraq?

So is it your position, Desalvo, that Iran has not funded, harbored, and supported terrorists groups such as Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, that killed American citizens in numerous acts of terrorism?

These are yes or no questions, and they directly pertain to Iran's funding, harboring, and supporting of terrorism against the US that has resulted in American deaths.

Stop evading the questions. Simple yes or no will do. If you cannot stipulate to these, then you are completely irrational and there is no point in arguing with you.

Michael

Read it again and answer

atlascott's picture

I am still waiting for any evidence that IRAN has attacked America, or has any ability or capacity to do it. Or even any evidence that Iran has ANY history of fighting wars of aggression in the modern era.

Duplicate

Michael Moeller's picture

Deleted.

Blinders Still On

Michael Moeller's picture

So is it your position, Desalvo, that the State Department is falsifying their claims to Iranian terrorism?

So is it your position, Desalvo, that Iran has not funded and sent insurgents into Iraq?

So is it your position, Desalvo, that Iran has not funded, harbored, and supported terrorists groups such as Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, that killed American citizens in numerous acts of terrorism?

These are yes or no questions.

Michael

I agree

atlascott's picture

"Ignorance of the facts results in dangerous and stupid ideas -- and dead Americans."

I agree. Supporting candidates who believe in invasion, occupation and nation-building is ignorant, does not work, and results in dead Americans.

Occupying foreign nations, NOT expecting some people there to dislike it and act against it, as virtually EVERY occupied area of the world has throughout human history, and using this basic, knowable FACT as a pretext for ANOTHER war of occupation and ANOTHER nation-building exercise, which DOES NOT WORK, is idiocy, and anyone who supports same does not deserve serious consideration for the office of President.

I am still waiting for any evidence that IRAN has attacked America, or has any ability or capacity to do it. Or even any evidence that Iran has ANY history of fighting wars of aggression in the modern era.

"What we are seeing with

Cornell's picture

"What we are seeing with Islamo fascism are the consequences of the US installing a dictator, the shah, and sbuverting the democartic process in Iran, so long ago, ousting the democratic selected leader. For the purpose of having OUR dictator in power, and cheap oil for the US."

Unfortunate. But that is at least part of the truth. The other part of the truth is that Arabic culture has elements within it that create the other half of that equation.

"Now, if you read Cosmopolis by De Lillo, and you will find more "truth" in fiction than in all the journalistic babble, he tells you very carefully that this great enemy of ours IS REQUIRED for the Dominating Discourse to function. Extreme opposites are needed. Without these terrorists our system cannot be sustained as it is."

Cliff notes?

cornell a decent analysis

seymourblogger's picture

good.

troy nobody can be nuked

seymourblogger's picture

because everybody will suffer the consequences.

Iran cannot be nuked because that would end the oil fields.

What we are seeing with Islamo fascism are the consequences of the US installing a dictator, the shah, and sbuverting the democartic process in Iran, so long ago, ousting the democratic selected leader. For the purpose of having OUR dictator in power, and cheap oil for the US.

It is our own goddamn fault. And the children of the children of the US citizens that allowed their govt to do this are paying the price. All those long ago US citizens who listened to their radios, went about their business, fucked and bred children, are under the dirt now.

This is what "even unto the 7th generation" means. BUt no one any longer thinks unto the 7th generation, it is the short term bottom line that predominates.

Now, if you read Cosmopolis by De Lillo, and you will find more "truth" in fiction than in all the journalistic babble, he tells you very carefully that this great enemy of ours IS REQUIRED for the Dominating Discourse to function. Extreme opposites are needed. Without these terrorists our system cannot be sustained as it is.

Baudrillard's The Spirit of Terrorism, his analysis of 9-11 will not please you, but it will shred the veil through which you are perceiving our "reality".

And they need us as much as we need them.

The moment America declares

Cornell's picture

The moment America declares war on Islam is the moment America ceases to exist. Religious freedom is perhaps the very most foundational principle on which this nation was founded. It's why people came here in the first place.

Yes, we've taken PC altogether too far. You should be able to "Islam sux" without fearing for your life, much less fearing from the government. These are major concerns. But you can't declare war on a religion without plunging this nation into Bloody Mary-esque tyranny.

Also, declaring war on a specie of act is absurd. War on Terror? War on Drugs? War on Poverty? These "wars" have done nothing but drive the economy of this nation into the ground, taking our freedoms with them. What we should have done is what Reagan would have done: go into the country, kill whoever was responsible, blast the infrastructure into oblivion, and then leave. Don't use nukes -- nukes cause collateral damage in countries which are uninvolved. And we don't need them to do what needs to be done. Actually, one of the things I actually like about our current president is how he fights a war. See what he did in Lybia? That's how it's done. I don't agree with his reasons for going there, but if you're going to fight a war, that's how you do it. Identify the enemy. Kill the enemy. Leave.

At the risk of sounding...

Jules Troy's picture

The MINUTE the twin towers were destroyed the president should not have declared a war on terrorism.  He SHOULD have declared an act of war and how do you make Islamofascist bastards fear you? Well seeing as Iran actually did declare war on the usa yearsss ago and are responsible for 911 give them what they want. You really should have nuked the living shit out of Iran and said fuck what the rest of the world thinks.

When the rest of the dictators decided to cry about it one question should have beenn asked.   Who is fucking next?

No ten years of fucking running your economy into the ground and living like rabbits scared of their own shadow for daring to even say "hey islam sucks".  I mean wtf the president of the usa apologizing for burning the koran by us soldiers?

They want to kill us.  They hate us because we live by the rule of law and uphold the individual.  Mothers turn their children into suicide bombers, they video tape themselves beheading captured american and other nationals using a knife in a slow sawing motion were it takes over a minute of terror for the victem to die squealing. This is what they want to do to us all if we do not accept islam. WE are infidels worthy of any inhumanity according to them.  Ron Paul thinks you can somehow be friendly with that?

There is no negotiating peace with that.  The world had better recognize the nature of that beast and put it the fuck down before its too late.

Iran has no power to hurt the usa? What kind of crack are you smoking desalvo.

Pffft and everyone thinks canadians are peaceful.

Well most of them say sorry when they bump into a piece of furniture but hey such is life.

Desalvo Evading the Facts One More Time

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo , pulling the blindfold ever tighter over his head, wrote:

"And, of course, I get cites to the sound bites of "proxy war" (which is chickenhawk for "Iran itself has not attacked America or American forces, but we think Iran might be involved") and "State sponsor of terrorism" (which is chickenhawk for "Iran itself has not attacked America or American forces, but we think Iran might be involved")."

Iran has been supplying weapons and insurgents to Iraq from the very beginning. I'll see if I can dig up an estimated number, but they probably have killed thousands in that war. Two seconds of Googling and one can find this out.

Iran has sponsored terrorism and killed Americans going back to at least 1983. In just that year alone, Iranian-backed Hezbollah killed over 300 Americans. And that is only the beginning. Iran has funded and supported al-Qaeda. They're the ones responsible for 9-11, you know that group, Desalvo?

Scott asked for the facts, he gets them, and then blindly and desperately just asserts the above ridiculousness. It took him almost a full day to come up with that response? Not only are these Paulbots ignorant about the facts, they are willfully evading them.

So for all Desalvo's pious talk about caring for American lives, his intentional evasion of the facts here shows he has absolutely NO REGARD for American life when it conflicts with his falsehoods.

Ignorance of the facts results in dangerous and stupid ideas -- and dead Americans.

Michael

Hmmmm

atlascott's picture

You said:

""YES, we certainly have the right, and we should, destroy the Iranian regime. Not only do they threaten us, but they have been waging war against us and killing Americans for over 30 years. They are the NUMBER 1 state sponsor of terrorism against the United States."

I said:

"Cite that. And I don't mean in a propaganda type sound bite. HOW do they threaten us? HOW and WHERE exactly have they been waging war against us? Be specific. HOW MANY Americans have been killed in the last 30 years by Iran, and how, and where? After all, THIS threadbare excuse of a rationale for war is what you are using to convince a nation to kill and risk death themselves.'

And, of course, I get cites to the sound bites of "proxy war" (which is chickenhawk for "Iran itself has not attacked America or American forces, but we think Iran might be involved") and "State sponsor of terrorism" (which is chickenhawk for "Iran itself has not attacked America or American forces, but we think Iran might be involved").

So then you answer is: Iran has not attacked America and does not have the capacity to do so.

Should it be surprising that some Iranians might be assisting fighting forces who do not want America there?

So, if we weren't "fighting them THERE" they wouldn't be "fighting US THERE"?

Hardly a persuasive argument for further occupation of the region, WHICH YOUR CANDIDATES SUPPORT.

Iran could not be a threat in any sense if we were not occupying the region.

Iran would never be a nuclear threat if we let Israel do what she has every right to do, SINCE SHE HAS BEEN THREATENED AND CAN DIRECTLY BE HARMED by Iran.

Rip Van Desalvo

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo wrote:

"I notice that you cruised right by the part where you could have explained exactly HOW Iran is a threat to America."

No, you are blissfully bypassing and hand-waving away the fact that not only are they a threat, they are currently killing Americans. Either you are asleep, or you are just going to dismiss inconvenient facts as "propaganda".

Now, it is well established -- and takes two seconds of Googling -- to show that Iran has been engaged in a proxy war in Iraq and has been killing Americans since the beginning of hostilities.

As you previously acknowledge, and now blissfully ignore, Iran has threatened to nuke the US. If you could hold facts in your head for two seconds, you would further realize that not only did you completely miss my point about North Korea, but North Korea has been collaborating with Iran on nuclear weapons development for years -- one of the unfortunate consequences of the Ron Paul-like appeasement policy with North Korea. Even the UN admitted, just last year, that nuclear development is "credible". Ron Paul and the Paulbots appear to be the last people in the world acknowledging this. We've just seen the pictures of their new nuclear rods.

When they get it is just a question of time. And as you should know, it can be deployed other ways besides missiles, including a dirty bomb. What is clear is that they intend to use it, and if you would wake up to your former statement that they should be "taken at their word", you might get somewhere.

As to their being the number one state sponsor of terrorism, I believe this goes all the way back to at least Clinton's State Department, but here is a more recent article (also, there is a broken link on Wiki to a State Department report) and this statement from the Council on Foreign Relations. Do some work, Desalvo, and Google the US reports on Iranian terrorism, which goes all the way back to at least the their funding and support of the three 1983 bombings in Beirut -- killing 5 Marines (airport bombing), killing 63 and wounding 120 in the US Embassy bombing, and killing 241 and wounding 81 in the Marine barracks bombing (edit: almost forgot the Marine barracks bombing was in 1983, too). It's only ramped up and gotten worse since then.

"Where's the threat?", says Desalvo.

Michael

Where is the threat?

atlascott's picture

"Too bad his position is demonstrably at odds with the facts, and downright ignorant."

It is easy to get caught up in the pro-war rhetoric. Iran certainly positions itself as an enemy.

But that doesn't relieve anyone of taking the lives of our servicemen into account, and to hold our politicians accountable for wars they CLAIM are necessary.

So, I am still waiting, Michael. Especially since, presumably based on your post, YOU have done complete thinking and have some sort of great case laid out as to why we should go to war with Iraq.

Still waiting. I think that this is the third request.

One of the reasons I accuse you of having a casual dilettante's approach to human life is -- you claim this war is necessary, but you have yet to lay out why you think they are a real, direct threat and why a war is necessary. The terrible costs have all been laid out. he reasons we SHOULDN'T have been laid bare. You remain silent on your justification.

Instead, it seems to me that you are stalling, and talking about any thing but.

Again, not surprising, since you are developing quite the habit of NOT addressing the issue at hand.

Winding Himself into a Pretzel

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo before:

"I think Iran is an enemy state, so to that extent, I disagree with Ron Paul, and their leader has said, point blank, that his goal is to wipe Israel off of the map. It is time we take them at their word. Air power and technology, not eternal boots on the ground."

Desalvo just wrote:

"Since I wrote that, I have done more thinking about whether Iran, though an enemy, is actually a THREAT."

Apparently, Desalvo's "more thinking" no longer includes taking a brutal dictatorship at their word. Hey, that's nice, it gives Desalvo the opportunity to take the "threat" out of "the enemy" Iran.

"An enemy" that we should now, and I quote:

"Anyway, yeah. Ron Paul wants us to be friends with all nations. I want to be friends with all people. You try to be friendly and break the cycle of domination, nation-building and violence. Some current enemies will come around, and other will not."

There you have it. The idiotic idea that we should try to be "friends" with a nation that Desalvo describes as "an enemy". Kumbaya doesn't begin to describe it.

But the main takeaway is this:

"Your casual dilettante's approach to spending men's lives is terrible, immoral, unConstitutional and illegal."

So, not more than four months ago, Desalvo would have described himself as "terrible, immoral, unConstitutional, and illegal". Hmmmm.

What really explains his change of mind from just four months ago?

Looking at this last quote, I think it is very reasonable to say that Desalvo has shedded every last vestige of independent thinking and disagreement with Ron Paul, and now taken up the position so he can go wax moralistic about "terrible, immoral, unConstitutional, and illegal" wars...because he has no logical argument.

Too bad his position is demonstrably at odds with the facts, and downright ignorant.

Michael

Right

atlascott's picture

My preference is to have Israel do it. I do not know how you go about negotiating with the current regime.

Since I wrote that, I have done more thinking about whether Iran, though an enemy, is actually a THREAT.

She is to Israel, unquestionably. To us? How?

I await your answer.

Disagree

atlascott's picture

"Because Ron Paul is clueless about most of this"

Ron Paul knows more about economics, politics and history than any other candidate, and is the smartest of the bunch of them.

Spinning this way and that...

atlascott's picture

Is North Korea Iran? Isn't North Korea doing EXACTLY what it did before it became nuclear? I am afraid this is not a convincing argument.

You claim not to support nation building, but your Presidential candidate supports it.

Ron Paul does not support appeasement. He just takes people's lives seriously, and it is clear that you do not.

I notice that you cruised right by the part where you could have explained exactly HOW Iran is a threat to America.

Is Iran Nazi Germany? Really?

Germany was giving Europe more than she could handle. She aggressively invaded other nations. She intended to keep it going. She was murdering millions.

In contrast, Iran has invaded no one. An ally in the region WITH a dog in the fight could neutralize her. Iran's last war, with Iraq in the 1980's, involved Iraq invading THEM. It's people believe that WE are over there in an imperialistic sense, to divide the Islamic world and impose Americanism on them. They issue threats. That's about it. The Nazi Germany to Iran analogy is perhaps the least apropos and most colossally historically inaccurate thing that has ever sprung from your fingertips. Just plan wrong.

So you want to talk moral equivalence?

Nazis murder MILLIONS of Jews and Eastern Europeans, and waged foreign wars of aggression against their neighbors, had the best military and tanks in the world, and beat everyone they fought.

Iran talks trash, has not invaded anyone or started a war with anyone in modern history, and makes ridiculous, oblique threats against an enemy that could crush it AND WHICH IT CANNOT HIT OR HURT (us) and more serious threats against a regional country that could likewise wipe them out.

You are profoundly deluded, Michael.

Seriously, other than their cracked President's stupid comments, what act have they taken, exactly, which counsels a US-Iranian war?

Where's the threat? There is no real, credible direct threat.

And in the face of no real threat, I submit that it is irresponsible to support this constant invasion and occupation.

As to moral relevance, you missed the point. I am not saying the Iran, China and the US are morally equivalent. My point was: it is not difficult, since we are all human beings, to understand motives and the likely reactions to stimulus.

If someone punches you in the nose, you probably will not like it. If your house is surrounded by armed gunmen, whether thugs or thugs with badges, you will feel threated. Simple.

I brought this up to help you understand one of the reasons why Iranians take an aggressive posture. Instead, as usual, you try to distort it to accuse me of something. Pretty silly. but not unexpected, considering the source.

"YES, we certainly have the right, and we should, destroy the Iranian regime. Not only do they threaten us, but they have been waging war against us and killing Americans for over 30 years. They are the NUMBER 1 state sponsor of terrorism against the United States."

Cite that. And I don't mean in a propaganda type sound bite. HOW do they threaten us? HOW and WHERE exactly have they been waging war against us? Be specific. HOW MANY Americans have been killed in the last 30 years by Iran, and how, and where? After all, THIS threadbare excuse of a rationale for war is what you are using to convince a nation to kill and risk death themselves.

I eagerly await YOUR answer to this. I don't EXPECT an answer at all, or a satisfying one, based on your history at avoiding the tough questions.

It is NEVER cowardly to respect human life and take a life or lives entrusted to you very, very seriously.

Maybe Not So Simple....For Desalvo

Michael Moeller's picture

Just last October, Desalvo wrote:

"I think Iran is an enemy state, so to that extent, I disagree with Ron Paul, and their leader has said, point blank, that his goal is to wipe Israel off of the map. It is time we take them at their word. Air power and technology, not eternal boots on the ground."

What changed since then?

**Solo doesn't allow linking to particular posts that are not on the first page of a multi-page thread, or at least I do not know how to do it. This quote is from Desalvo's post on Submitted by atlascott on Thu, 2011-10-20 21:35 on the linked Ron Paul Traitor thread.

Today

Brant Gaede's picture

In the world we live in today Iran will eventually be neutralized as a threat to the U.S. and Israel by one or the other or both. It won't be pretty. How we got to this insane state of affairs is another story though it's the story of the history of the U.S. and its geo-political impact on the world starting even before it became a country. It has always been interventionist to the extent of its power and moral hubris. Because Ron Paul is clueless about most of this he is incompetent to be President. Anyway, he won't be and admits as such.

--Brant

Exactly

Michael Moeller's picture

It had to come, and here it is:

"The simplest answer to this is that YOU believe Iran is a serious and credible threat to the US, and Ron Paul and I do not."

Yes, that is the answer I was waiting for -- i.e. the head in the sand justification.

Now, to hold this position, one has to evade the fact that Iran is engaged in a proxy war in Iraq, and has killed Americans.

One has to evade the fact that Ahmadinejad has promised to nuke America, should they get nuclear weapons.

One has to evade the fact that Iran is the number #1 state sponsor of terrorism against America and has been killing Americans for 30+ years.

Once one gets done evading those facts, then we get to:

...YOU believe Iran is a serious and credible threat to the US, and Ron Paul and I do not.

Ignorance of the facts results in dangerous and stupid ideas -- and dead Americans.

Yet, even though Iran has killed -- and threatens to nuke more -- Americans, Desalvo likes to piously lecture about how he is the great defender of Americans. In fact, he is not. He is turning a blind eye to it happening now, and downplaying both those who have died by Iranian hands, and those who would in the event of a nuclear strike.

THAT is immoral.

And with his pious proclamations, he still needs to answer the following:

Yes, and if we had not entered WWII, there would be hundreds of thousands more Americans still alive. If we had not entered WWII, would have saved about ~10 times the cost in relative GDP terms compared with the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. In fact, these two wars put together are among the cheapest, and are the least deadly, in American history. This argument is a total non-starter.

Should we not have entered WWII because, in terms of lives and costs, there was much greater loss than the Iraq/Afghanistan wars? According to your logic, the answer is yes.

Should we have not entered the wars because would not have liked the possibility that Germany could have "beat the snot out of" Canada? According to your logic, the answer is yes.

In historical perspective, these arguments are totally absurd and unserious.

Michael

Desalvo Apparently Cannot Tell the Difference

Michael Moeller's picture

Between a direct quote of X, and somebody else saying you said X. He calls this "nitpicking". I call his position absolutely retarded.

(1) Person X: "I think Sally is a racist".

(2) Person Y says Person X said: "I think Sally is a racist".

He sees no difference, and worse, (2) one can be properly rearranged to read the same as (1).

This is the absurd position one takes when one is too lazy to check to see if the quote is true after one rips it from a website.

Michael

Simplicity

atlascott's picture

""For clarity, neither I nor Ron Paul support friendship with nations which threaten us. But someone has to the break the cycle of bad blood.""

The simplest answer to this is that YOU believe Iran is a serious and credible threat to the US, and Ron Paul and I do not.

That about summarizes it.

They are a tiny country. We have better troops, better equipment, air and sea power, and the ability to level their entire country in a weekend.

We have them surrounded.

They do not have missiles that can reach anywhere. No Army, Navy or Air Force that poses any threat at all.

Any time we want to unleash Israel, Iran's nuclear ambitions would be neutralized.

Iran poses no credible threat of any kind to the domestic United States. It does to Israel. And Israel can handle it.

In exchange for extinguishing what you, inexplicably, perceive as the threat to America Iran poses, let's examine what your cost is:

Dead Iranians.
Dead Americans.
Maimed servicemen and women.
Trillions more in deficit.
Another ground war/occupation.

As an individualist, you owe a moral duty to those whose lives and wealth you would so casually spend.

Each of us only gets one life. You must be scrupulously careful in how you spend it, whether a man enlisted or not. Enlisting makes a man's life no less valuable. Treat your decisions which affect the lives of others accordingly.

The duty is to make absolutely sure action is necessary, and to take the least costly action necessary.

In Iraq, we weren't sure, and it turns out that we were WRONG. There were no WMD's.

We should not make another such mistake, and literally waste the lives for free men and women, and the lives of innocent people in the countries we invade and occupy.

Your casual dilettante's approach to spending men's lives is terrible, immoral, unConstitutional and illegal.

"Talking" to Iran

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo:

"I personally think that friendship with the current regime in Iran is a tough sell, given statements and actions of both sides. But when we aren't even TALKING to them, how are we supposed to work it out?"

You mean like when we "talked" to North Korea when they were developing nuclear weapons? How did that work out? Are they less of a threat now that they have nuclear weapons?

Ron Paul and Paulbots have a Chamberlain approach to foreign policy -- no question about it.

And then it gets worse, Desalvo uses moral equivalency:

What if China came over and beat the snot out of Canada and maintained these kinds of bases on our border. Would we be okay with that?

I already debunked this, as it is a terrible argument:

"Right after Doug makes the prescient point about moral relativism running rampant among libertarians, you step up and provide an excellent example of it. It completely obliterates the distinction among governments and for what purposes they use their militaries (defense vs. aggression), but hey, if you object to China invading the US, you must surely object to the US invading Iran, right? Real nice."

Desalvo piously intoned:

"Let me be perfectly clear: if we followed Ron Paul's foreign policy, there would be a trillions-less deficit, hundreds of fewer scarred veterans, and thousands of more Americans alive."

Yes, and if we had not entered WWII, there would be hundreds of thousands more Americans still alive. If we had not entered WWII, would have saved about ~10 times the cost in relative GDP terms compared with the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. In fact, these two wars put together are among the cheapest, and are the least deadly, in American history. This argument is a total non-starter.

Should we not have entered WWII because, in terms of lives and costs, there was much greater loss than the Iraq/Afghanistan wars? According to your logic, the answer is yes.

Should we have not entered the wars because would not have liked the possibility that Germany could have "beat the snot out of" Canada? According to your logic, the answer is yes.

In historical perspective, these arguments are totally absurd and unserious.

Desalvo lamented:

"And MAYBE, domestically, America would not have the Patriot Act, NDAA and its ilk being proposed, and things like H. R. 347..."

In fact, I know quite a bit about these. I also know that Ron Paul (and Rand Paul) have been spreading total misinformation, scare-mongering, and do not know what they are talking about. Why don't you go ahead and repeat their arguments, as I am sure you will, so I can debunk those, too.

Desalvo asked:

"What's your solution? Another war? Another occupation? Because that's working out so well in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

You are falsely lumping together the combat with the nation-building/democracy projects. In fact, the wars went extremely well. Militarily, we crushed the regimes quickly and easily. I am not for the nation-building or democracy projects. I am of the Break-It-And-Leave-It school of defense.

I know you like the buzzwords, like "occupation", but this is a distraction. The question is whether we have the right to invade and destroy enemies that threaten us. The answer is a resounding: YES.

YES, we certainly have the right, and we should, destroy the Iranian regime. Not only do they threaten us, but they have been waging war against us and killing Americans for over 30 years. They are the NUMBER 1 state sponsor of terrorism against the United States.

And you and Ron Paul want to crawl in hole and evade these facts. THAT is fear, and it is loathesome. Not on my watch.

Michael

No, Michael

atlascott's picture

But Michael, those are not all precisely the same quote, are they?

And HAVE you confirmed with Ron Paul that he actually said those exact words to those exact entities?

Of course, the above is tongue in cheek.

I am teasing you because of your unrealistic views as to whether someone can be quoted -- namely, that if the declarant denies saying it, it is immoral to use to the quote. Patently ridiculous on its face.

But then, you probably knew that, and are, once again, trying to make an issue of something because you have no foreign policy answer, no answer to the Gingrich criticisms -- really, no answers of your own at all.

Nit picker. Smear artist. This is where you live, evidently.

Desalvian Denial

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo wrote:

Have you contacted Ron Paul to see if he denies telling "Fox News Sunday" that? Because, you know, per you, if so....it would be dishonest to use that quote...

What's Desalvo's implication, that Fox News is lying? Of course!! This is always the Paulbot excuse, and it is pathetic.

But then, CBS News:

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul is suggesting that Washington adopt a new approach – don’t impose sanctions, “treat them differently,” and offer “friendship.”

And on Townhall: :

GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul says "offering friendship" to Iran, not sanctions, would be a more fruitful to achieving peace with Tehran.

All Desalvo has to do is Google, and then a zillion hits come up. I suppose he will suggest going to ask every news agency reporting this?????

Michael

And consider this

atlascott's picture

"Iranians show high levels of mistrust in the United States. Eight in ten say the United States seeks to weaken and divide the Muslim world (unchanged from 2008). Three in four say the United States has the goal of imposing American culture on Muslim society.

But there are also some positive signs. While most Iranians continue to believe that it is not really a goal of the United States to bring about an independent Palestinian state, the number believing that it is a goal has doubled from 12 to 25 percent--suggesting that Obama's efforts to stop Israeli settlements may be having some impact.

Also attitudes toward the American people are largely positive, with 51 percent of those polled expressing favorable feelings toward Americans (13 percent very favorable).
Asked about the prospect of "Iran cooperating with the US to combat the Taliban operating in Afghanistan near Iran's border," a substantial 43 percent favor doing so, while 41 percent are opposed.

While one in four (26%) Iranians say they support attacks on US troops in neighboring Afghanistan (26%) half (49%) are opposed (41% strongly)--perhaps due in part to past friction between Iran and the Taliban. "

http://www.worldpublicopinion....

This data is not ALL encouraging, but 51% have positive or very positive feelings about Americans, and 49% are against attacking American troops in Afghanistan.

I wonder how the data and our relations would change if we convinced them that we are not trying to "weaken and divide" the Muslim world, by ending our occupation of the Middle East?

Hmmmmm...

atlascott's picture

"When asked on "Fox News Sunday" what he would do to deter Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions, Paul said "maybe offering friendship to them.""

Have you contacted Ron Paul to see if he denies telling "Fox News Sunday" that? Because, you know, per you, if so....it would be dishonest to use that quote...

Anyway, yeah. Ron Paul wants us to be friends with all nations. I want to be friends with all people. You try to be friendly and break the cycle of domination, nation-building and violence. Some current enemies will come around, and other will not. But that doesn't mean you do not try. You are cool until it is time NOT to be cool.

And, frankly, Iran would have no nuclear capabilties if we just let our "friend" Israel defend herself. No more Iran problem.

So let me ask you -- if Iran lost her nuclear capabilities -- would you still support an isolationist foreign policy towards Iran? Why? Wouldn't it make more sense to open up diplomatic relations?

I personally think that friendship with the current regime in Iran is a tough sell, given statements and actions of both sides. But when we aren't even TALKING to them, how are we supposed to work it out? Or, how can we logically satisfy ourselves that they DO need to be eliminated without trying to talk first? I don't mean to suggest that the current leadership is particularly rational, but you need not be particularly rational, just have a desire for self-preservation. Suicide bombers are all younger. The older guys want to save their bacon.

Take a look at this.

Bases Around Iran

You think Iran isn't threatened by this? Could you imagine the US allowing China or Russia or ANYONE having those sorts of bases all around us?

What if China came over and beat the snot out of Canada and maintained these kinds of bases on our border. Would we be okay with that?

What's your solution? Another war? Another occupation? Because that's working out so well in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Let me be perfectly clear: if we followed Ron Paul's foreign policy, there would be a trillions-less deficit, hundreds of fewer scarred veterans, and thousands of more Americans alive. Israel would have solved the "nuclear Iran" problem a year ago, and we could try to defuse tensions with Iran and MAYBE try to convince them that brutally oppressing their protesting citizens is not too cool.

And MAYBE, domestically, America would not have the Patriot Act, NDAA and its ilk being proposed, and things like H. R. 347, which just passed the House yesterday, whichoutlaws assembly which might disrupt operation of government on government property, near government property, on any property where a "special event" is occurring, or at or near where the Secret Service is protecting anybody, whether you know it or not.

That sounds like a better plan and a better situation to me.

Desalvo vs. The Facts, Part 1,000,000

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo:

"For clarity, neither I nor Ron Paul support friendship with nations which threaten us. But someone has to the break the cycle of bad blood."

But, but, but....Let's listen to the real Ron Paul, instead:

When asked on "Fox News Sunday" what he would do to deter Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions, Paul said "maybe offering friendship to them."

Gee, how could Desalvo miss that? Ron Paul has only said it about a zillion times.

This is the same man who said in a debate:

"Why wouldn't it be natural that they'd [Iranians] want a weapon. Internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people off?"

This man is a complete joke, and his ideas are dangerous.

Meanwhile, Paulbot Desalvo is either very ignorant of the facts, or he is busy making them up, once again.

Michael

Nope

atlascott's picture

"Scott says, "A foreign policy of peace, friendship and prosperity is vastly superior to what we have now." Actually, what we have now is a policy of "peace and friendship"—at any price. Only it's not sufficiently touchy-feely for the Ronroids. They would be worse than Obamullah. "Kumbaya.""

This is a straw man, and since I know that you are honest, it means you do not understand Ron Paul's foreign policy. As I suspect of all those who do not give it some merit.

For clarity, neither I nor Ron Paul support friendship with nations which threaten us. But someone has to the break the cycle of bad blood. We could squish Iran over a weekend. We are in the position to cool things off.

As it happens, there are a LOT of Iranians who do not care for the current, brutal regime. We should support regime change there as much as possible, and offer a new, secular regime our hand in friendship. I do not know how you can possibly befriend the current regime.

Ronroids' Kumbaya Foreign Policy

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Iran: Youcef Nadarkhani, a Muslim-turned-Christian pastor, faces a death sentence on charges of apostasy and refusing to recant his Goblianity. This is the Iran which is about to acquire nukes (while Ronroids advocate looking the other way) and whose president has said Israel should be wiped off the map. Ronroids chant, "Kumbaya."

Syria (Iran's puppet): The government is committing citizenocide. Ronroids chant, "Kumbaya."

Afghanistan: Islamosavages are rioting and killing American soldiers because other American soldiers burned copies of their Book of Superstition, the Koran. Obamullah apologises to the savages. A Nato spokesman says troops involved in the Koran-burning incident should have known to check with "cultural advisers" to determine how to dispose of religious material (which was being used by prisoners at a detention centre to pass messages to each other) properly. Ronroids chant, "Kumbaya."

Scott says, "A foreign policy of peace, friendship and prosperity is vastly superior to what we have now." Actually, what we have now is a policy of "peace and friendship"—at any price. Only it's not sufficiently touchy-feely for the Ronroids. They would be worse than Obamullah. "Kumbaya."

Uh, Desalvo...

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo: "But you, like he, seem not to even understand that cutting Departments is step ONE of Paul's plan. Not the only step."

Did you read the underlying articles? Ron Paul's current position, contrary to his previous positions, on entitlements is that they can be preserved by cutting overseas military spending. And which is consistent with his budget?

Indeed, he promised to cut military funding and did. He promised to cut entitlements, but turns around and significantly increases them? Increasing SS and Medicare -- by 5% and 9% per year over his four year term (if I remember correctly) -- strikes me as an odd way to move into step 2, doesn't it? And it strikes me as oddly consistent with his current position of preserving entitlements by cutting overseas military spending, doesn't it?

Once again, the facts totally defy your alleged "step 2". It's nothing but an assertion.

Desalvo: "And, as to Iran, opinions vary as to correct approach, but a foreign policy of peace, friendship and prosperity is vastly superior to what we have now."

Yes, if that is your position, people will certainly vary in opinions. Not only is it inferior, but it is disastrous.

This is the policy we've had with North Korea. How has that worked out? While we were busy cutting deals and giving them freebies not to develop nuclear weapons, they went ahead and...developed nuclear weapons, thus making them a greater threat than before.

This was also the policy followed by Chamberlain.

I can scarcely believe you are positing this as serious foreign policy. How many times has history taught that appeasing evil regimes only leads to disaster? How closed do one's eyes have to be when somebody tells you that you are "The Great Satan" and want to wipe you off the face of the earth, yet you want "friendship" with them?!? Jesus, Desalvo, this is BEYOND absurd.

It's an unrealistic hippy-happy approach so distant from reality that I cannot take it seriously. Sorry.

I mean, do you normally make friends with people who want to kill you? I don't. If somebody threatened me that way, I would arm myself to the teeth.

Michael

Wrong again.

atlascott's picture

Thanks, Michael.

See, you're wrong again.

I really enjoy Marc Steyn. But you, like he, seem not to even understand that cutting Departments is step ONE of Paul's plan. Not the only step.
And, as to Iran, opinions vary as to correct approach, but a foreign policy of peace, friendship and prosperity is vastly superior to what we have now.

Desalvo:So though not

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo wrote:

"So though not perfect, at least Ron Paul sees the problems and doesn't ignore them."

You mean like entitlement spending and radical Islam, specifically Iran? Oh yes, Ron Paul is right on top of things.

Maybe you should try the Mark Steyn approach to the evidence, instead of the Desalvo approach.

Perhaps you'll thank me for it one day. Probably not, but such is life.

Michael

Yawn

atlascott's picture

More name-calling and grandiose pronouncements which ignore the fact that you either misspoke or lied. Evidently, a topic you wish to be done with. Fine.

I have always maintained that Ron Paul is not perfect. I think there is something to the argument that Gary Johnson may have been a "better" candidate.

I do not see my provisional support for Ron Paul as the best of the current crop (by MILES) as a monolithic, gargantuan struggle of "good" versus "evil." But on the other hand, we would ALL be fools if we did not realize that the financial means by which America sustains herself is a railroad track which ends in...NOTHING. We have passed the last turn and are gaining speed and there is nothing in front of her but a nasty, brutal derailment.

None of the politicians talk about this. None of them talk about natural rights and the Constitution. None of them talk about how far we have moved from what history shows works. Individualism. Capitalism. Freedom.

Well, none but Ron Paul. And Gary Johnson, to some extent.

So though not perfect, at least Ron Paul sees the problems and doesn't ignore them. That's the important part of him as a man, and a candidate.

There will always be classless pieces of garbage who regard ideas as baubles and their own intellects as a means to bully and cut down tall poppies. These are the folks who know the weight of charges of "racism"" and "anti-semitism" and "homophobic" and never miss an opportunity to paint their target with misattributed epithets. They use their big brains to deluge readers with what THEY describe as air-tight evidence, which is almost always nothing of the sort. But they know that most will not check sources and think for themselves.

So far, the only thing Michael has proven is that he belongs to this post-modern intellectual diletantte's group.

LOL

Richard Goode's picture

LOL

Paulbots and True Believerism

Michael Moeller's picture

If Objectivism is one thing, perhaps more than any other, it is the ability to look evidence and facts straight in the face, no matter how inconvenient they may be to one's currently held ideas. Desalvo has clearly demonstrated he has NO grasp of the basic facts, never intended to grasp the facts (no "research projects" for Desalvo!!), has no intent to argue the facts surrounding the 1996 statements (and when he did argue one quote he only proved he needs to take Evidence class again), and no intent to argue the totality of the evidence. The only defenses Desalvo has put up this far is the "Liar, liar pants on fire" defense in BOLD LETTERS, and to pull the blindfold ever-tighter over his eyes.

The level of self-induced blindness by Desalvo is truly mind-boggling, but to then shout unfounded accusations at me for his ignorance/blindness is beyond the pale. As Linz stated, these Paulbots have no desire to see, they just bob and weave in every way possible to avoid looking the facts straight in the eye.

Scott Desalvo has truly disgraced himself in the most undignified manner. Sitting alone in the darkness, and even abandoned by the risible cockroach Goode, who could no longer refuse the evidence despite his constant evasions and denials.

I refuse to link to the websites, but you can visit any Ron Paul fan website and look at the vicious ways these crackpots denounce anybody who says anything bad about Ron Paul, just like Desalvo has maliciously lobbed attacks at me from the very beginning. Perhaps he didn't expect me to bite back, but he picked the wrong person.

As luck would have it, I have been rereading Gustave Le Bon's The Crowd and Eric Hoffer's The True Believer for another purpose, but they have also given me great insight into the Paulbot/Rondroid phenomenon. There are so many parallels, such as True Believer movements attracting misfits (racists and conspiracy theorists, anyone?), usually young (most Paulbots), in hard times (like now), embracing their cause as a holy war (Ron Paul Revolution!!), and the attacks on/moralization of those individual that stand outside of their crowd (eg. see any Ron Paul fan forum). There are many more parallels, but one is particularly apropos here; namely, the fanatical loyalty to the person or cause, as against all facts and reason:

It goes without saying that the fanatic is convinced that the cause is convinced that the cause he holds on to is monolithic and eternal--a rock of ages. Still, his sense of security is derived from his passionate attachment and not from the excellence of the cause. The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness and holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold on to. Often, often indeed, it is his need for passionate attachment which turns every cause he embraces into a holy cause.

The fanatic cannot be weaned away from his cause by an appeal to his reason or moral sense. He fears compromise and cannot be persuaded to qualify the certitude and the righteousness of his holy cause. (Emphasis mine) --Eric Hoffer, The True Believer.

Probably the last I have to say to Desalvo on this topic, as I think he is waaaayyyyyyy beyond the point of being reached with reason and facts.

Michael

Making it up?

atlascott's picture

No, I am not saying anything like that.

I am supporting my contention that you lied when you claim that Ron Paul Said he wrote the newsletters. He didn't.

You lied.

I agree: there is a lot more to talk about. We can start with my response to your summary of what you think the evidence shows.

I have already demonstrated that you were either mistaken about it, or out and out lied.

Ron Paul explained all of this, succinctly and credibly. Rather than accept it, you want to rely on secondary sources, parsed quote. And worse than that, you even misrepresent the evidence. Ugh.

Right back where we were. YOU think these bullshit quotes prove Ron Paul was lying. And really, all it means is that you have been less than stellar in the honesty department.

Clarity

atlascott's picture

I think Richard is a very smart guy, and occasionally hilarious.

He can stand on his opinions, and I, on mine.

For clarity, none of this is about whether Ron Paul, like EVERY person in publishing and/or with an ounce of sense, knows that you make more money being outrageous than bu being boring.

No, you aren't going to straw man your way out of this, my friend.

No, you aren't going to change the subject, and thereby "win" the day.

I am still waiting for Ron quote saying what you say he said.

Desalvo

Michael Moeller's picture

You've just been abandoned by your guttersnipe co-hort, who is now "in fact, acknowledging" that Ron Paul could have purposely left racist material in the newsletters to further his business interests.

That puts you and him in a bit of a quandry, doesn't it?

I mean, if Ron Paul is to be believed in 2008 when he said he did not write the offensive content and does not know who wrote the content, it seems a bit difficult for him to purposely allow the racist material into his newsletter to further his business interests, doesn't it?

What say you, Desalvo?

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Do you realise that you are potentially only a single move away from checkmate?! (If you ask nicely, I'll tell you.)

Was Evidence...

Michael Moeller's picture

An optional course in your law school, Desalvo? Apparently so.

Desalvo wrote:

And what, may I ask, is the relevance of this:

"July 25, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
Democratic congressional candidate Lefty Morris on Wednesday produced a newsletter in which his Republican opponent, Ron Paul, called the late Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and an "empress without clothes." [...]

Paul said he was expressing his "clear philosophical difference" with Jordan. [...]"
[...]
Desalvo: "Completely irrelevant."

Usually relevance is the first thing covered in Evidence class, and apparently you were sleeping.

As you can see from the direct quote of Ron Paul, he is showing knowledge of statements (i.e. truth of the matter asserted) about Barbara Jordan contained in the newsletters, and is playing them off as a "clear philosophical difference". He's not saying: "I don't know about any statements concerning Barbara Jordan" or "I never made those statements". No, he admitting to writing them, but playing them off under an excuse.

Don't become a judge, Desalvo.

Try again, Ace. And you have many, many questions to answer beyond that, according to the following (and good luck, pal!!):

From Reason:

May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News:
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.
[...]
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
[...]
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

Well, well, lookee lookee. This is the first one for the Dallas Morning News. Is it Desalvo's contention that The Dallas Morning News made up the statement that Ron Paul said: "when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation." Even though this same statement was recorded by other papers such as the Houston Chronicle?

In the second part, Ron Paul evidences knowledge of the content of the newsletter (i.e. swiftness of black men), is it Desalvo's positon that the newspaper made that up?

In the last part of this quote, Ron Paul shows he KNOWS of the criminal justice article and urges the newspaper to look at the report, thus evidencing again he knows what is in the newsletter. Is it Desalvo's contention that the newspaper made this up?

Here's another:

"May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman:
Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said. "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on."
[...]
"You have to understand what he is writing. Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half-quotes to impugn his character," Sullivan said. "His writings are intellectual. He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments."

Here, the campaign spokesman is directly quoted as saying Ron Paul wrote the content. Is it Desalvo's position that the campaign spokesman is lying, or acting on his own accord?

Here's another:

May 26, 1996 Washington Post:
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context.

Is it Desalvo's position that The Washington Post is making this up? Even though at other times, other newspapers also report that Ron Paul said his writings were taken "out of context" or "misrepresented"?

Here's another:

July 25, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
Democratic congressional candidate Lefty Morris on Wednesday produced a newsletter in which his Republican opponent, Ron Paul, called the late Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and an "empress without clothes." [...]

Paul said he was expressing his "clear philosophical difference" with Jordan. [...]

Here is a direct quote from Ron Paul that evidences he KNEW about the Barbara Jordan statements in the newsletter and is taking credit for writing it. This quote is also relayed by the Dallas Morning News. Is it Desalvo's position that Ron Paul is lying? That would be counter to Ron Paul's interests, not to mention deflate Ron Paul's credibility. IF he lied then, could he being lying in 2008? Especially when he has a much, much greater motive to lie by denying the statements?

Here's another:

Oct. 11, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday. But his spokesman, Michael Quinn Sullivan, accused Morris of "gutter-level politics."

Sullivan said it was "silly" to try to make a political issue of something written in an "abstract" sense. [...]

So 5/6 months from when the issue blew up, Ron Paul was still claiming he the newsletters. Is it Desalvo's position that the Houston Chronicle is also making up this later statement? As we can see, the campaign spokesman is still trying to deflect by calling it "abstract".

Plain-as -day, both Ron Paul and his campaign are saying that Ron Paul wrote the material -- in both direct quotes and summarized statements. This is one hell of a coordinated fabrication going on by all these newspapers.

Or is Desalvo still trying to make the laughable claim that these quotes reported by Reason and a bazillion other places, including some of the papers that quoted him in 1996, are making it all up? Do tell us, Desalvo.

Michael

Yep...Scott Has No Intention of Dealing With The Evidence

Michael Moeller's picture

And never has. He cannot explain the discrepancies in the evidence, and has no desire to. All he is left with is the "Liar, liar pants on fire" defense. Sad, but that's a True Believer who cannot deal with the evidence.

What we are watching is the the blindfold being slowly removed from Desalvo's eyes, and he is squirming like a little lizard. Oh, it is beautiful to watch.

One more illustration of how duplicitous Desalvo is being and how he has sunk into the gutter. Just on Sunday, Desalvo wrote:

I am not sure I believe your summary of Ron Paul's statement in 1996 is accurate. I am pretty sure that Ron's statement in 2008 does NOT follow your summary in that above question.

So just three days ago, Desalvo was "pretty sure" that my summary of Ron Paul's 2008 statement was not true. NOW, Desalvo is using that 2008 statement as his only defense, while blantantly ignoring everything else.

Just three days ago he was "not sure" my summary of the 1996 statements was accurate. Yet, he claimed to have read all of the links and material. He made this claim waaaaayyyyy back in October. Yet he was not sure as of Sunday?!? And, in is state of uncertainty, he is using this to claim I lied?

It's going to be interesting to continue to watch Desalvo dig himself deeper into the hole.

I think it is obvious that Desalvo never bothered to read the evidence and come to grips with it. He just wanted to hold on to his delusions about Ron Paul. True Believerism at its finest.

Michael

LOL

Richard Goode's picture

Goode tries to snip the quotes. Hahahaha, the last refuge of a true scoundrel.

Moeller's latest accusation is that I tried to "snip the quotes." Actually, it was as effortless as Moeller's accusation is priceless. The quotes came pre-snipped. That's what quotes are! They're snippets.

Moeller, of course, would not "snip the quotes." Instead he'd say something like

If he read the quotes from the papers contained here and here that I've linked to and directly quoted many times, Ron Paul is directly quoted.

and hope that no one would bother to fact check his distortions, or follow the links to see whether or not Ron Paul is directly quoted and, if so, what Ron Paul actually said.

Moeller, after a couple of preliminary insults, says

people can easily read his misrepresentations as the quotes are all right there.

but neglects to say what my alleged misrepresentations are. So I'll ask him. Michael, can you give me a specific example of my alleged misrepresentations?

Turnabout

atlascott's picture

"Goode tries to snip the quotes. Hahahaha, the last refuge of a true scoundrel."

And exactly what have YOU and your secondary sources been doing from the very beginning?

Just accept that Ron Paul has never said that he wrote the articles, already. That still leaves you with "he is dishonest for taking his campaign manager's advice to not directly deal with the issue of authorship." Still an nonsense argument, but it leaves you with some modicum of dignity.

And what, may I ask, is the relevance of this:

"July 25, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
Democratic congressional candidate Lefty Morris on Wednesday produced a newsletter in which his Republican opponent, Ron Paul, called the late Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and an "empress without clothes." [...]

Paul said he was expressing his "clear philosophical difference" with Jordan. [...]"

I mean REALLY? This is the Moeller intellect at it's apex?

Completely irrelevant. You have a pathologic drive to see your words on the screen, even when they are to no purpose whatsoever.

Isn't that Just Plain Pathetic??

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode tries to snip the quotes. Hahahaha, the last refuge of a true scoundrel. As anybody can see from the quotes in their entirety, Ron Paul and his campaign issued statements saying he wrote the material, Ron Paul is directly quoted taking credit for specific subject matter (eg. Barbara Jordan and black men being fleet-of-foot), and the campaign spokesman is directly quoted not only issuing general statements, but also statements on specific subject matter.

Goode has to be the lowest form of creature around, and one of the stupidest considering people can easily read his misrepresentations as the quotes are all right there.

Yes, the game was over a long time ago.

Desalvo had a couple of choices, he could have easily just admitted the evidence and dealt with it straight in the eye. He could have made arguments that it was ~15 years ago and the entirety of Ron Paul's candidacy should not be judged solely on that, etc. etc. There are other arguments to make is my point. He could have stopped being stubborn and pigheaded and just retracted his smears against me.

But he didn't. Scott instead deliberately chose to misrepresent the evidence, and then exacerbated the problem by trying to smear me in the process. This was deliberate and calculated on his part, and now his chickens have come home to roost. I'll have more to say on this.

Michael

Game over

Richard Goode's picture

Plain-as -day, both Ron Paul and his campaign are saying that Ron Paul wrote the material -- in both direct quotes and summarized statements.

You have yet to supply a direct quote from Ron Paul saying that he wrote the material. Despite the fact that I have asked you to do so on numerous occasions.

You have yet to supply "the material". Despite the fact that I have asked you to do so on numerous occasions.

Ron Paul never said that he wrote the material. ("The material." Nice and vague, huh? Just how you like it.)

The Dallas Morning News says "he wrote the columns." (Which ones?)
The Washington Post says he charges one of his detractors "with taking his 1992 writings out of context." (Which of his 1992 writings?)
The Austin American-Statesman reports that Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan says that "Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context." (Which quotes?)
The Houston Chronicle says that Paul called the late Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and an "empress without clothes." (Is she?)
The Houston Chronicle says that Paul "said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers." (In their entirety?)

It's all hearsay. Has anyone actually asked Ron Paul if he wrote "the material"? Oh, yes, they did!

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.

Well, gee, you have yet to supply a direct quote from Ron Paul saying that he wrote the material, but you've supplied a direct quote from Ron Paul saying that he didn't write the material a dozen times or more!

You can stop scoring own goals now, Michael. Game over.

Gee, I Wonder Why Scott Leaps on the 2008 Statement...

Michael Moeller's picture

It is miraculous -- a true wonder -- that the only statement Paulbot Desalvo finds credible is the 2008 statement. None of the other evidence, which Desalvo never read or is deliberately misrepresenting if he did read it, is credible in his mind. Oh, right. I find that truly amazing. Testimonies from other witnesses, for instance, carries no weight with Desalvo.

I think it is pretty clear why Desalvo is misrepresenting these sources. Namely, he is trying to make it appear as if Ron Paul is not being inconsistent when he made the following 2008 statements:

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. (From Ron Paul's written response to The New Republic article that opened the floodgates.)

And

I honestly do not know who wrote those things. (From CNN interview, in which he also denied writing the newsletters).

Magically, Desalvo finds the first quote to be the only reliable explanation. What a coincidence!!

But is it credible?

-In 1996, as clearly evidenced from the newspapers, Ron Paul and his campaign spokesman are stating he wrote the material AND Ron Paul is showing knowledge of the content, such as the statements about Barbara Jordan and black men being fleet-of-foot.

-We also have Ron Paul, in 2001, blaming his campaign for telling him to take credit.

-As Desalvo acknowledges, Ron Paul claims to have written and edited other content, but somehow missed the offensive material.

-The paper made a lot of money for, over $900K in one of the years (1993, if I recall correctly). He also promoted these newsletters in public. But he has no idea the content that is generating so much money for him? Would Desalvo not pay attention to a newsletter bearing his name and generating almost a $1million a year for himself? Do tell us Desalvo.

-In 2008, he says he did not write the content, nor does he know who wrote the content. Really? Why would he not come out and say that in the first place? In which case does he have a greater motive to lie -- when he says he wrote the content, or when he denies writing the content? Gee, that's a tough one. When you have multiple inconsistent statements, the best place to look is where the person had a greater motive to lie.

-Four people come forward, three named and one unnamed, giving testimonies that Paul not only knew of the offensive content, but sanctioned it because it was generating good business for him.

Now, which of these facts really stands out from the others as distinct? The 2008 statement, perhaps?

Nah, not that -- that doesn't fit Paulbot Desalvo's delusions!!

Tell us Desalvo, and this is an important question, which statement presents a greater motive to lie, the 2008 statement where he denies writing or knowing who wrote the material, or the closer in time 1996 statement where he claimed ownership and both he and his campaign said he wrote the material? Do tell, Desalvo, do tell.

Michael

Desalvo BUSTED Lying and Discrediting Himself

Michael Moeller's picture

Not content with misrepresenting what I have said, or misrepresenting the statements of Linz and Olivia, Desalvo is now blatantly misrepresenting the sources.

Desalvo wrote:

Does Ron Paul ever clearly or affirmatively state that he wrote the articles? Because none of your quotations found in your secondary source are actual quotations from Ron Paul where he says 'I wrote such and such'"
AND
"he...says he wrote the material"
has utterly no support. Because he never said he wrote it.

I am not sure why Desalvo is lying about what the sources say, as anybody with eyes can verify it here. Notice Desalvo NEVER tackles the evidence, he just asserts, asserts, asserts.

Although this is a bit painstaking, let's go through these quotes in order to document Desalvo's blatant and risible misrepresentation of the sources.

From Reason:

May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News:
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.
[...]
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
[...]
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

Well, well, lookee lookee. This is the first one for the Dallas Morning News. Is it Desalvo's contention that The Dallas Morning News made up the statement that Ron Paul said: "when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation." Even though this same statement was recorded by other papers such as the Houston Chronicle?

In the second part, Ron Paul evidences knowledge of the content of the newsletter (i.e. swiftness of black men), is it Desalvo's positon that the newspaper made that up?

In the last part of this quote, Ron Paul shows he KNOWS of the criminal justice article and urges the newspaper to look at the report, thus evidencing again he knows what is in the newsletter. Is it Desalvo's contention that the newspaper made this up?

Here's another:

"May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman:
Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said. "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on."
[...]
"You have to understand what he is writing. Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half-quotes to impugn his character," Sullivan said. "His writings are intellectual. He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments."

Here, the campaign spokesman is directly quoted as saying Ron Paul wrote the content. Is it Desalvo's position that the campaign spokesman is lying, or acting on his own accord?

Here's another:

May 26, 1996 Washington Post:
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context.

Is it Desalvo's position that The Washington Post is making this up? Even though at other times, other newspapers also report that Ron Paul said his writings were taken "out of context" or "misrepresented"?

Here's another:

July 25, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
Democratic congressional candidate Lefty Morris on Wednesday produced a newsletter in which his Republican opponent, Ron Paul, called the late Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and an "empress without clothes." [...]

Paul said he was expressing his "clear philosophical difference" with Jordan. [...]

Here is a direct quote from Ron Paul that evidences he KNEW about the Barbara Jordan statements in the newsletter and is taking credit for writing it. This quote is also relayed by the Dallas Morning News. Is it Desalvo's position that Ron Paul is lying? That would be counter to Ron Paul's interests, not to mention deflate Ron Paul's credibility. IF he lied then, could he being lying in 2008? Especially when he has a much, much greater motive to lie by denying the statements?

Here's another:

Oct. 11, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday. But his spokesman, Michael Quinn Sullivan, accused Morris of "gutter-level politics."

Sullivan said it was "silly" to try to make a political issue of something written in an "abstract" sense. [...]

So 5/6 months from when the issue blew up, Ron Paul was still claiming he the newsletters. Is it Desalvo's position that the Houston Chronicle is also making up this later statement? As we can see, the campaign spokesman is still trying to deflect by calling it "abstract".

Plain-as -day, both Ron Paul and his campaign are saying that Ron Paul wrote the material -- in both direct quotes and summarized statements. This is one hell of a coordinated fabrication going on by all these newspapers.

Or is Desalvo still trying to make the laughable claim that these quotes reported by Reason and a bazillion other places, including some of the papers that quoted him in 1996, are making it all up? Do tell us, Desalvo.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

BTW, did you know that hearsay is inadmissible as evidence?

Stop being delusional and

atlascott's picture

Stop being delusional and accept that this:

"he...says he wrote the material"

has utterly no support. Because he never said he wrote it. You lied.

THAT you lied or were mistaken is supported by your prior statement explaining that Paul DID NOT DENY or directly address the issue.

On another occasion, you go on about whether he EDITED them, and that, too, was nonsense, because all you have there is a source quoting an source, some of them anonymous, saying, yes, he did edit newsletter in a vague time period. Nothing to support your contention that he DID in fact write or even edit the precise newslettter articles we are discussing.

So did he write it? Did he merely NOT DENY or not address the issue of authorship squarely? Or did he merely edit it?

You position here changes as often and is as outrageous as Lady Gaga's outfits.

Desalvo....

Michael Moeller's picture

We know you cannot read other sources, but are you able to read your own words? I mean this as a serious question.

Here are YOUR words:

"Please provide links to these , rather than asking me to take your word for your extensive paraphrasing."

Where is this "extensive paraphrasing"? There is none because you never read the links in the first place. That much is obvious.

I provided the link to Reason magazine at the very outset.

Is it your contention that Reason, and the multitude of other sources reporting these SAME QUOTES, are making them up? Is it your contention these sites are misreporting them from the papers? Are you fucking kidding me?

Desalvo again:

Presumably YOU read them, right? Or provide the secondary wource your cribbed them from.

Yes, I did read them. And you just asked for the secondary "wource", you dumbass, which I just gave to you. NOW you are trying to change your story by saying you asked for the original newspapers.

Now please point me to my alleged "cribbing"? Again, if you had bothered to read the links in the first place, which you said you read, you would know that I took those quotes directly as is.

Desalvo wrote:

Michael: "-In 1996, he takes ownership and says he wrote the material."

Desalvo: "This is a bald-faced LIE."

Are you now going to admit you don't know what you are talking about? That you are making things up and have no clue as to the actual facts?

You said I "paraphrased" and "cribbed" the sources. I just proved I did no such thing.

You said I lied about the 1996 statement. I then rubbed your grubby face in quotes from Reason taken from a host of newspapers.

What is your excuse now, Desalvo? That Reason magazine, The New Republic, Washington Post, New York Times, a bazillion blogs are lying about these quotes taken from the 1996 newspapers?

Is this your last refuge? Your last pathetic defense?

Michael

So, which is it?

atlascott's picture

Does Ron Paul ever clearly or affirmatively state that he wrote the articles? Because none of your quotations found in your secondary source are actual quotations from Ron Paul where he says "I wrote such and such"

Or, based on campaign advice in 1996, does he follow his campaign manager's advice and NOT DENY OR ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF AUTHORSHIP and stand by the statements because it is the ethical thing to do, as he explains here:

""They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them ... I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'""

Because you YOURSELF seem confused about the facts.

You write "...but Ron Paul did not deny writing them."

and later "three named sources who said he proofed the offending content"

and then "In 1996, he takes ownership and says he wrote the material."

So which is it, Michael? I think the above shows that you are LYING. These are direct quotes from your posts on this.

Did he admit to writing the material?

Did he not squarely address it and not DENY writing the material?

Or did he proof the material?

Or is it more likely that it happened EXACTLY as he says it does, namely:

""They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them ... I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'""

Hmmm? These are direct quotes -- your words -- better "evidence" than you have of Ron Paul, where in many of the articles, they pepper ina few out of context quotes and then provide COMMENTARY, which you rely upon, not upon the primary source but as quoted through a secondary source.

I think you have described Paul's involvement here in 3 different ways. Which is it? Were you lying the first time, the second time, the third time, or all three?

Huh?

atlascott's picture

1. Re-read what I wrote, and stop trying to put words in my mouth. You like to do it, but it is scummy. About what I'd expect.

2. You are citing a SECONDARY SOURCE, not the original sources, just as a suspected. EXCERPTED SOURCES. Which is not what I wanted. The Texas Monthly primary source can only be accessed by subscribers.

None of of the other PRIMARY SOURCES of the quotes listed in your SECONDARY source are linked.

So in other words, you DON'T have quotes from primary sources.

How Odd!! How Strange!!

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott wrote:

Please provide links to these , rather than asking me to take your word for your extensive paraphrasing.

Well, that is strange you should ask. Here is the link. As you can see, there is NO "paraphrasing".

I call your request strange considering I provided the link when I first brought forth this issue (**see my very first post on the issue on Page 2 of the Ron Paul Traitor thread). I provided the link on the other thread, and exerpted these DIRECT QUOTES multiple times. I provided the same link in my post to you on this thread.

How did you miss these various links?

Desalvo wrote:

Assuming that I had not read or reviewed your prior postings regarding your Ron Paul quotes on the issue. I had and I explained what I very reasonably perceived as happening.

You see that bolded quote of yours?

Please explain to me how you said you read my links, yet missed this link. Further, please explain how you did not know these quotes were taken directly from the newspapers, NOT "paraphrased".

Thanks.

Michael

Of course not.

atlascott's picture

And he paraphrases the statements in these supposed sources.

Ridiculous.

Provide cites

atlascott's picture

Please provide links to these , rather than asking me to take your word for your extensive paraphrasing.

"Dallas Morning News:
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

AND

Houston Chronicle:
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...]
Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.

AND

Washington Post:
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context."

Presumably YOU read them, right? Or provide the secondary wource your cribbed them from.

Thanks.

Tall Poppy

atlascott's picture

Is THAT what this is about?

Fact check

Richard Goode's picture

If he read the quotes from the papers contained here and here that I've linked to and directly quoted many times, Ron Paul is directly quoted.

Did Moeller link to both those pages before today? No.

Many times? No.

How about more than twice? No.

Is Ron Paul directly quoted? Yes! And he has this to say about one of Moeller's ilk.

Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people ...

Now I'm losing my temper!

Olivia's picture

You still believe that fighting Islam conventionally (occupation, nation-building abroad) and America's military having a world footprint ("fight them there so we don't have to fight them here") is the threshold issue. So, you support candidates over Ron Paul who: are demonstrably corrupt; who change their positions based on political expediency; who have demonstrated that they are Republican Progressives (more government is the answer to every ill). Even if you DO NOT support nation-building and perpetual war, every candidate other than Ron Paul supports foreign policy status quo.

Scott, Michael has demonstrated that Paul is just as capable of bullshitting as any other of the candidates in the field.... and Paul's an idiot when it comes to wanting to befriend enemy nations. And this is exactly one of the things that you hate about your country's foreign policy. In other words, what you accuse other American Presidents of doing!!!!!!

You don't get the significance of the term "Blow-back" and the moral back-foot that puts you on to deal with this issue.

Wake the fuck up!!!!!!!!!!!

Is Richard Goode Severely Retarded???

Michael Moeller's picture

Yes, yes he is. Goode wrote:

Say what? You linked to an article containing a quote about the quotes in question on another thread?! Why not simply copy and paste the quotes in question? (As I've asked you to do several times already.)

The 2008 statement Goode is quoting, and implies I am evading, was first quoted by me on the other thread. Not only did I link to the article containing the quote, I was the first to quote it directly!! Why? Because I wanted to show the discrepancy between what Ron Paul said in 1996 and 2008.

The imbecile is now acting like I am trying to avoid that quote. **I** was the first one to use the quote to illustrate Ron Paul's inconsistent statements. What a severely retarded dumbass, Goode is.

Goode wrote:

What did Ron Paul say in 1996? Any chance that you will copy and paste Ron Paul's actual words? No, didn't think so.

If he read the quotes from the papers contained here and here that I've linked to and directly quoted many times, Ron Paul is directly quoted. His campaign spokesman is directly quoted. In other cases, the multiple newspapers -- over a period of six months -- questioned Ron Paul and then summed up his response that he wrote the content.

Is it Goode's position, in the parts that are summary and not direct quotes, that those newspapers were making it up when they claimed Ron Paul said he wrote the material?

Is it Goode's position that when Ron Paul, in 2001, said his campaign told him to claim ownership that Ron Paul himself was lying?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Michael

True.

Olivia's picture

And, so America has had a very contradictory, violent, and ultimately very bad-outcome-producing foreign policy, which has been very costly. A government should not spend the life of a single citizen unless it MUST. There must be a very defined purpose, a logical in and out strategy, and the risk must be a "MUST." America has propped up a dictator in Iran - and not a nice one - in the Shah. What in God's name are we doing going into other countries and propping up dictators for? Bloody one, who brutalize their people

I agree. But America *has* done that and so the consequences tell us. Get over it.

Now, foreign policy needs addressing and a great deal of thought has to go into the morality of wars and any benefit of resources from those places. But if the premise is Blow-Back-Bullshit, you can't take a moral stand and you have to with this one (and you should; America has done far more good for every other nation on earth than it's ever done ill - even just by existing). Dr. Paul heavily glosses over this. Being a friend to Iran is not even a proper option. Fundamentalist Islam has to be put in its place precisely because other Presidents have failed to do so.

Twisted Truth

Richard Goode's picture

Hey, Michael. I found you another death metal theme song.
(To go with Napalm Death's "Smear Campaign" which I posted previously.)

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Yeah, too bad I was the one who linked to the article containing that quote AND I was the first one to provide this quote (2008 statement) on the other thread here.

Say what? You linked to an article containing a quote about the quotes in question on another thread?! Why not simply copy and paste the quotes in question? (As I've asked you to do several times already.)

Oh, that's right. Ron Paul already explained why. Heaven forbid that you should avoid misrepresentation!

I did so to illustrate how his 2008 statement contradicted what he said in 1996.

What did Ron Paul say in 1996? Any chance that you will copy and paste Ron Paul's actual words? No, didn't think so.

Goode is Just a Plain Fool, As Well As A Scoundrel

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode wrote:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.

Ron Paul explains why Michael Moeller does not simply copy and paste the quotes in question.

Yeah, too bad I was the one who linked to the article containing that quote AND I was the first one to provide this quote (2008 statement) on the other thread here. I did so to illustrate how his 2008 statement contradicted what he said in 1996.

True scoundrel and dumbass.

Michael

Scoundrel Goode Can't Read Either...

Michael Moeller's picture

Goode wrote:

In 1996, he ... says he wrote the material.

As you rightly point out, the latter is a bald-faced LIE. (This morphing process is otherwise known as "Moellerisation of the truth".)

Really, then explain this:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

AND

Houston Chronicle:
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...]
Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.

AND

Washington Post:
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context.

I've given this to Goode a number of times already, and the guy has to be the biggest scoundrel on the web.

He's a guttersnipe, but he'll get his shortly.

Michael

Ron Paul explains

Richard Goode's picture

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.

Ron Paul explains why Michael Moeller does not simply copy and paste the quotes in question.

Lastly...

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo wrote:

"-Former associates come forward and testified not only to Ron Paul knowing of the content, but also stating how it is generating good business for him."

Bald faced LIE. No one identified the content. The "sources" are anonmymous, do not identify the content in question.

Holy smokes!! Is Desalvo totally incapable of reading or what? I just quoted the sources and three of them are NOT anonymous. Let's take another look: at the testimony given in this Washington Post article:

“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.
[...]
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.

Far from being anonymous, three of the sources are named. Desalvo can't read even when I give him the direct quotes.

Secondly, the secretary said he ALWAYS proofed the final product, which must include the offending material. The former associate witnessed Ron Paul signing off on the newsletters, and said the big money rolled in from racial material. Crane notes that Ron Paul knows that people with "extreme views" are more likely to respond and the best response came from the anti-Semitic and racist newspaper.

So much for Desalvo's "bald-faced lies". Now we see what happens to Desalvo when he actually has to debate the facts. Whooosh, down the toilet.

Michael

Scott

Richard Goode's picture

Observe how

During his 1996 Congressional run ... Ron Paul did not deny writing them.

morphs into

In 1996, he ... says he wrote the material.

As you rightly point out, the latter is a bald-faced LIE. (This morphing process is otherwise known as "Moellerisation of the truth".)

the truth is, Michael is doing everything -- and I mean EVERYTHING -- to contort and twist and assume and misrepresent his OWN "FACTS" to try to put together a case here.

Scummy is as scummy does.

Next Two...

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo wrote:

"-Ron Paul admits editing other material and writing other content, such as economic content."

True.

Well, at least you acknowledge one fact. Now, is it strangely convenient that he was able to write and edit other material, and somehow -- magically -- missed all of the offending material? How convenient!!

Desalvo wrote:

"-Ron Paul made lots of money from his newsletters and publicly bragged about it and promoted his newsletters."

You, like Gingrich, would make and excellent Marxist.

What is that supposed to mean? Are you disputing this? They have him on youtube as just one of the places he is promoting his newsletters.

Michael

Taking Desalvo's Ignorance of the Facts

Michael Moeller's picture

One at a time. These each deserve separate posts. Desalvo wrote:

"-In 1996, he takes ownership and says he wrote the material."

This is a bald-faced LIE.

Now check this out:

Dallas Morning News:
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

AND

Houston Chronicle:
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...]
Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.

AND

Washington Post:
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context.

And guess what? Ron Paul himself acknowledges taking ownership in 1996, but blames his campaign for bad advice. From the Reason Magazine link:

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them ... I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

So we have multiple newspapers that show Ron Paul claiming he wrote the material (in 1996). We have Ron Paul in 2001 saying his campaign told him to do so. Yet, Desalvo claims this is a "lie". Under what evidence? None.

Desalvo has no evidence and is trying to run cover.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

During his 1996 Congressional run, Ron Paul's opponent made an issue of these quotes and he was asked about the quotes by multiple newspapers. The articles containing these quotes did not have by-lines, but Ron Paul did not deny writing them. In fact, he showed knowledge of what the quotes stated and said what he wrote was "taken out of context" and "misrepresented".

Please copy and paste the quotes ("these quotes", "the quotes") in question.

Ok, you asked for it...

atlascott's picture

"-In 1996, he takes ownership and says he wrote the material."

This is a bald-faced LIE.

"-Ron Paul admits editing other material and writing other content, such as economic content."

True.

"-Ron Paul made lots of money from his newsletters and publicly bragged about it and promoted his newsletters."

You, like Gingrich, would make and excellent Marxist.

"-In 2008, he denies he wrote the content and knowing who wrote the content."

Not 100% true.

"-Former associates come forward and testified not only to Ron Paul knowing of the content, but also stating how it is generating good business for him."

Bald faced LIE. No one identified the content. The "sources" are anonmymous, do not identify the content in question.

That better?

Desalvo

Michael Moeller's picture

You are evading. All the things you named are contradicted by the evidence.

Just deal with one piece of evidence -- the testimony of the three named sources who said he proofed the offending content and even acknowledged it was generating business for him.

Now, instead of cherry-picking the one unnamed source, what say you about those witnesses?

Are you going to deal with that evidence or not? Yes or no.

Michael

Right!

atlascott's picture

Because the truth is, Michael is doing everything -- and I mean EVERYTHING -- to contort and twist and assume and misrepresent his OWN "FACTS" to try to put together a case here.

And it is just preposterous.

Scott's Assertions and Evasions

Michael Moeller's picture

First notice that Scott focuses on the unnamed source, and then simply evades what the other three named sources have said. He clearly cherry-picked.

Scott wrote:

You are misstating and omitting the evidence, Michael. That alone gets you a serious demerit.

Well, why don't you name the evidence that is misstated and the evidence that is omitted? You can't, because you are ignorant of the facts. You are just asserting because you have nothing. Period.

Scott wrote:

Second problem is, even taking this "evidence" as it actually is, instead of as you MISREPRESENT IT, it still proves absolutely nothing. It DOES NOT prove Ron Paul is a liar or dishonest.

Not only is Scott ignorant of the facts, he can't follow logical argument. In 2008 he said he did not write or know who wrote the offending material. Well, he said the complete opposite in 1996.

You've heard of the law of non-contradiction, correct? You know those both can't be true, correct?

So what does all the evidence point to, hmmm? Testimony from former associates that Ron Paul proofed the material AND stated that it was generating good business for him is not evidence?

Not only have you evaded the other testimony, you clearly need a refresher regarding evidence and the law of non-contradiction.

You got caught with your pants down not only being ignorant of the facts, but also smearing me for rubbing your face in the facts.

Clearly you are a Rondroid and Paulbot who has absolutely no concern for facts and will pull out every dirty tactic in the book. Get a grip.

Michael

Pobbilities

atlascott's picture

Is it possible that Ron Paul signed off on hundreds or thousands of newsletters, and cannot remember the dates for each?

Is it possible that Ron Paul signed off on some, but not all, newsletters, and doesn't remember which?

Is it possible Ron Paul signed off on thousands of articles over decades, and cannot remember the contents and dates and authors for each?

Is it possible that Ron Paul reviewed some newsletters more closely than others? And that as time went by he became less stringent in reviewing everything?

Is it possible that, over the course of hundreds of newsletters over decades, WHEN he was closely reviewing newsletters became foggy?

Is it possible that a man may not remember or misremember one answer given several years ago, once?

If a man gives one answer once, misremembers a fact and his prior answer, and answers differently, he is merely doing the best he can based upon memory?

Isn't it possible -- in fact, entirely plausible and LIKELY -- that a man does not often keep details like this straight when they are Senators and are involved in giving interviews and reading bills and reading books and writing books over the course of decades?

I tell you, you are not credible here, Michael.

And who is the world-league name caller now, hmmm?

You

atlascott's picture

You got every fact wrong.
You have no comprehension.
You are a smear-monger.
You are a villain.
You are a cherry-picker.
You make up facts.

Does the above help you understand the absurdity of your accusation? Eh, probably not.

You just are not getting it.

Full of it

atlascott's picture

Here is your nice, concise summary of what YOU THINK the evidence is:

"-In 1996, he takes ownership and says he wrote the material.
-Ron Paul admits editing other material and writing other content, such as economic content.
-Ron Paul made lots of money from his newsletters and publicly bragged about it and promoted his newsletters.
-In 2008, he denies he wrote the content and knowing who wrote the content.
-Former associates come forward and testified not only to Ron Paul knowing of the content, but also stating how it is generating good business for him."

First problem? You are misstating and omitting the evidence, Michael. That alone gets you a serious demerit.

Second problem is, even taking this "evidence" as it actually is, instead of as you MISREPRESENT IT, it still proves absolutely nothing. It DOES NOT prove Ron Paul is a liar or dishonest. You have uncited sources who say he makes more money from a provocative newsletter! Wow. What a shocker. You caught him red-handed! You have a source that says that Ron Paul signed off on some articles and newsletters "in the mid" 1990's? Wow. No one can identify which articles and which newsletters. Want to know why? For the same reason Ron Paul cannot remember who wrote every line of every article of every newsletter spanning decades.

We discussed this. You think the human brain should record everything with instant recall, but it doesn't work that way. That doesn't make anyone dishonest.

Your antics here may be evidence that you are, however.

I Did Quote You...

Michael Moeller's picture

And you got just about every fact wrong and proved to us all that you have no comprehension of the facts and are nothing but a smear-monger. You are clearly a villain.

Anybody can read this and see who has a grasp of the facts, and who does not. And now you've resorted to cherry-picking.

What's next? You start making up facts?

Michael

Scott Is Clearly Cherry-Picking Now

Michael Moeller's picture

If you want to put the unnamed source aside, that is fine by me. What about the other named sources and their quotes? You dismiss those as well? Here's a snip of what they said:

“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.

His named secretary saying he always proofed the final product. What say you, Desalvo? Why are you ignoring that?

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.

A longtime aide says he witnessed Paul proofing the material. What say you, Desalvo?

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.

Ed Crane, president of Cato, affirms that Paul knew of the content and was generating much interest, and presumably money, for Ron Paul.

These testimonies are strangely consistent. What say you, Desalvo?

Desalvo:

He doesn't remeber or know who wrote the offending stuff.

Well that's damned convenient!!!!!!!!!! At the very least, wouldn't this make him incredibly incompetent to let such filth go out under his name? Especially stuff that's making him a lot of money? And if he can't manage to monitor a small staff publishing under his name, he is going to be the Executive of the federal government?!? Good grief.

-In 1996, he takes ownership and says he wrote the material.
-Ron Paul admits editing other material and writing other content, such as economic content.
-Ron Paul made lots of money from his newsletters and publicly bragged about it and promoted his newsletters.
-In 2008, he denies he wrote the content and knowing who wrote the content.
-Former associates come forward and testified not only to Ron Paul knowing of the content, but also stating how it is generating good business for him.

Now tell me, Desalvo, which one of those does not fit? Do tell.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

But let's give Ron Paul every benefit of the doubt.

Tell me another.

Please review the "gag reel" discussion

atlascott's picture

You are under the mistaken belief that I believe that any of the concentrated smear efforts, of which you are a part, regarding the newsletters are equivalent of "gag reels" of presidents misspeaking.

Please re-read that portion of my post again. If you try really hard, you will be able to easily see that I did not such thing.

So desperate is your desire to make me into a villain, you are not seeing straight. You are likewise afflicted with this mania with respect to Ron Paul. A shame.

Alinsky was a master

seymourblogger's picture

at political maneuvering.

Carnage by Roman Polanski

seymourblogger's picture

who has had plenty of experience with this schlock. He did, he said, versus e did, he said, on and on unendling into the sunset.

Masses of people don't give a hoot about the facts. They are irrelevant. This is why the political process is antiquated.

Explain?

atlascott's picture

"I think I will enjoy seeing Desalvo try to excuse or explain this away."

Sigh. We have been through this at least twice already.

Yes, Ron Paul made money selling newsletters. Yes, there is some borderline content in the newsletters.

Yes, Ron Paul accepts responsibility for the content, because they are "his" newsletters. That's the honorable thing to do.

He doesn't remeber or know who wrote the offending stuff. And the "offending stuff" really 'aint that offending.

But exactly who are these mysterious "...people close to Paul’s operations..." -- maybe Gingrich supporters making shit up? or Obamas?

Or how about this one: "A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer" -- yo, dummy (not you, Michael, the author of the quote you excerpted)-- the 'anonymous source' -- oldest trick in the book, and being anonymous DOESN'T NEGATE THAT YOU ARE CRITICIZING YOUR FORMER EMPLOYER. It just means it is either made up or you are too cowardly to stand behind your supposedly "true" words.

This "smoking gun" quote is not very impressive and does nothing to support your rather deluded interpretation, here, Michael.

None of this proves a damned thing. But it does strongly suggest that you need a refresher on evidence, and some other hobbies.

Hey Scott

Michael Moeller's picture

Love your non-analysis of the facts, and the basis of which you called me "scummy". Your ignorance of the facts is one thing, but to accuse me of "scumminess" when you are ignorant of the facts is beyond the pale, pal.

Yes, one would label the person dishonest because both his 1996 and 2008 cannot be true. Either he did, or he did know about the racist, anti-semitic and homophobic content. It can't be both.

Now we have the testimony of associates who either worked with him on the newsletters, or discussed the matter with him at the time, saying that not only did he know about it, he thought that publishing the filth would be good for business.

Are they liars as well? Are they using Alinskyite tactics? Do tell.

You run on with your own bit of smearing. You do know that Newt's and his first wife's daughters dispute the story, don't you? Not sure why you are repeating that, unless you have better information than his daughters. Besides, he did not leave his second wife when she was sick.

And Rand Paul was not named after Ayn Rand. Rand is short for "Randall", and Rand Paul has made it clear many times that he was named after Rand.

Michael

You Are Wrong

atlascott's picture

Plainly and simply. You are maybe too close to this, Michael.

This "evidence" does not prove that Ron Paul is a liar or even dishonest.

You are wasting keystrokes. Those who already hate Ron Paul will side with you, because they are predisposed to not liking him.

A fair reading of all of this, at most, giving YOU the benefit of the doubt, is that it was not as clear as it could have been, but certainly, no one would label a man dishonest or a liar based on the above.

Just because I and others do not agree with you DOES NOT mean that we haven't read every regurgitated post on this subject.

Not if I can help it

seymourblogger's picture

I've got your back goode.

Well allow me to retort...

atlascott's picture

"...he's painstakingly laid out a case that you have refused to look in the eye. "

That's nonsense. I disagree with Michael's sniping APPROACH. That approach could be applied to anyone in the public eye to nit-pick. If he merely used his style to misrepresent Ron Paul's views and then attack them (straw man, which he does), that'd be wrong. But it is a difference species of rotten to use this sniping deluge technique to call a good man a LIAR and to otherwise impugn his character.

"But your politician is a plastic bag over the head of western civilisation."

That is utter, complete nonsense. Yes, "all" politicians are "bad" -- but those whom you support are miles and leagues worse in every way which matter. They are ANTI-INTELLECTUAL, anti-conceptual, fake Conservatives. The objections to Ron Paul are economic: but that is crazy talk. What other candidate has 1/10 of the understanding of economics as Ron Paul does? Answer: NONE. Michael criticizes Ron Paul's economic because he doesn't like the Departments Ron Paul would cut FIRST. No criticism of any of his actual economic acumen or plans. Not so much as a concession that a 1 trillion dollar reduction in actual spending is a good step in the right direction. This, in light of the crisis and in light of the fact that none of the others have demonstrated the first clue of even being aware of the challenges. For example, Michael's "favorite" candidate, Perry, was run out of the race for, in part, not being able to REMEMBER "his" economic plan. What's Romney's plan to shrink the government? Oh, right, he has none. Newt? every time he opens his mouth, out one side falls capitalist rhetoric, and out the other side, plans to EXPAND government to solve this ill or that. Santorum? he is the biggest big-government Republican since George Bush II, who has laid the foundation of our imminent bankruptcy more effectively that any President BUT Obama.

Civil Rights? 4th Amendment? NDAA? Patriot Act? No one but Ron Paul discusses these.

So I can only conclude that it is YOU wearing a brown paper bag over YOUR head, to avoid seeing that the person you think will strangle western civilization is, in fact, its protector. It's only protector on the GOP debate stage. The rest of these clowns are status corrupt quo. And status corrupt quo is going to be the end of America. You cannot RESTORE liberty by electing candidates who do not even ADDRESS the need to do so. You do not right the economic ship by electing candidates who DO NOT ADDRESS OR DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND economics or the crisis.

"Our battle is cultural, my friend."

Yes, it IS. And IDEAS MATTER. And we have lost. ARI, TOC, Ayn Rand, blah blah. We lost. We got our asses kicked because free stuff is easier and more fun than personal responsibility. The candidates you have left to choose from are a sorry lot. On that much, we agree.

It is not surprising that we disagree on candidates, since I see the existence-level threats being: (1) economic, and by extension, a government in service to the military industrial complex; and (2) Constitutional crisis/civil liberties. Ron Paul, hands down, is the only guy who seriously raises and addresses these.

You still believe that fighting Islam conventionally (occupation, nation-building abroad) and America's military having a world footprint ("fight them there so we don't have to fight them here") is the threshold issue. So, you support candidates over Ron Paul who: are demonstrably corrupt; who change their positions based on political expediency; who have demonstrated that they are Republican Progressives (more government is the answer to every ill). Even if you DO NOT support nation-building and perpetual war, every candidate other than Ron Paul supports foreign policy status quo.

I think your view is deluded, and I think that this is obviously so. I will admit that I become very angry when others breeze right by what I see, based upon a lot of reading and study, as obvious and critical. It could not have been obvious since I have only come upon these conclusions and views but for that reading, studying and thinking, so that is my error. But I can accept it.

What I will not, now, or ever, accept, are "Saul Alinsky" tactics of raising the racism issue, or the character issue, or the honesty issue. Whatever Ron Paul may or may not be, he has integrity and is an honest man, and a good man, who reveres Ayn Rand and is deeply influenced by Objectivist thought. Fucking Gingrich leaves 2 wives who are sick and wants an "open relationship" with another, and profited from Fannie Mae as it duped everyone and contributed to an economic collapse, and was run out of his Speaker position due to his ethical violations, joined government service poor and has become a multimillionaire as a result -- and we are seriously discussing RON PAUL's moral character and honesty? Does his 30 year marriage, military service, professional standing, and 30 years in Congress with a squeaky-clean record buy him not one whit of the benefit of the doubt?

Call him profoundly wrong if you must. But the man named his Senator son RAND, in the name of, well...Rand. This is a man who has been trying to keep this government within the bounds of the Constitution for 30 years -- a lonely and lone fight much of the time. Perhaps, he will never be President. But certainly, he deserves better from his detractors than to be called a liar based on 30 year old bullshit, tangential "evidence" which Michael takes as water-tight, but which I have considered and rejected, and have said why. If held to Michael's standards and scrutinized using Michael's tactics here, YOU and I are both liars. Everyone reading this is.

I am not dishonest, or a liar. Nor am I a "Randroid" or a Paulbot. Paul is a man. Not a perfect one, but a good one. I am afraid I will need real evidence to convince me of the contrary, not an expert internet deluge smear job, which is scummy, every time it happens, no matter who the target.

Comment viewing options

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