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:


Two Paths for Desalvo

Michael Moeller's picture

As I have shown in my last post and here, Desalvo has no serious comprehension of the facts regarding the Ron Paul newsletter story. Yet, his ignorance did not stop him from smearing me. We have recently seen him apply his dirty tactics to others here; namely, taking a benign statements by Linz and Olivia and distorting them out of all proportion.

Now it strikes me that Desalvo has two choices. (1) He can be a man, admit his mistakes, and admit he unjustly smeared me, or (2) he can continue his rather steep descent into darkness and smear-mongering. His choice.

If he wants to actually deal with the facts of the newsletter issue, he must deal with what was laid out here and here. To give a recap:

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".

THEN, in 2001, Ron Paul said that his campaign told him that in 1996 the best course of action was to take ownership of the quotes, but he denied (in 2001) that he wrote them. When asked again in 2008, he denied writing the material and knowing who wrote the material. Keep in mind that Ron Paul promoted his newsletter in the media at the time it was written, and it was discovered that this newsletter was a big money-maker for him. If I recall correctly, he made $930,000 in 1993 off this newsletter. Let's also throw in the fact that Ron Paul acknowledges he wrote the economic material contained in those newsletters.

Now let me ask you: do you find Ron Paul's statement that he did not write and does not know who wrote that content to be a reasonable explanation? That is, in 1996 he evidenced knowledge of the material and took ownership of it, he promoted his newsletters in the media, he made big money from them, the newsletter probably had a small staff, and he acknowledges writing other material contained in those newsletters, yet he has no knowledge of who wrote the offending material? Tell me another.

But let's give Ron Paul every benefit of the doubt. At the very least, he has demonstrated extreme incompetence in letting a newsletter go out under his name, a newsletter that is making big money for him, and yet he can't be bothered to monitor its content. Is this the type of oversight you would exercise on something that was issued in your name, Goode? If that is how he runs an outfit, do you think he is fit to run the US federal government?

And THEN we had an astounding piece of evidence come to light that supports the worst possibility, i.e. that not only did Ron Paul KNOW about the content being published in his newsletters, he specifically sanctioned it. Here are some of the money quotes from the secretary who worked for the newsletters, an business associate, and more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael

Desalvo's Ignorance of the Facts and Despicable Behavior

Michael Moeller's picture

As I learned in law school -- and I assume Desalvo did as well -- one must have a ruthless grasp of the facts before arguing the case. Top to bottom.

History. When I first brought up the issues of Ron Paul's unsavory associations and his newsletters, Desalvo never disputed the evidence. He simply called me "scummy" for bringing them up. I asked him countless times, and every single time he said he could not be bothered with "research projects" or would get to it later (*see this thread starting on page 2). He kept evading, until finally he decided to take up the argument, and it became plain-as-day he did not even know the basic facts.

Then came a family issue for Scott in which he said these arguments were emotionally draining, and gave the same pathetic, ignorant-of-the-facts defense that he gave on this thread. I simply let the issue drop because of his family issues and I did not want a fractured back-and-forth where he appeared and disappeared. And what do I get for showing Desalvo some mercy because of his family issues? He just comes right back now and smears me without any sort of remorse.

Mercy no more. Let me dissect Desalvo's arguments that not only do not pass the laugh test, his arguments prove he is ignorant of the basic facts -- on an issue for which he leveled countless smears at me.

Desalvo Factual Ignorance #1: Ron Paul's statements were equivalent to a "gag".

Desalvo wrote:

Have you ever seen a Reagan or Bush or Clinton or Ford or Carter or Obama "gag" reel where they say the most preposterous things? For example, Obama, after a long day of campaigning, saying that he had been to 57 states on his campaign so far (America aint got that many)?

Or the more recent Obama gaffe where he "admits" that he was born in "Asia" (this is all over the internet right now.
[...]
And, I guess, that you would call these quotations, from Obama and the others, as evidence that they are all liars.

Bush: "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Obama: "'Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

Ron Paul (from the 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..."

Which one of these three is unlike the others? Oh my lord, that statement Ron Paul issued is a real knee-slapper, a real side-splitter. What a gag!!

And how do we know this was not any sort of gag? Well, that brings us to the next Desalvo factual falsehood.

Desalvo Factual Ignorance #2: That was one statement in 1996.

Desalvo wrote:

Some of the content was published in 1992. Some later in the 1990's. One statement from Paul on the issue was taken in 1996. Another from 2008. Now, it is 2011.

Again, Desalvo has no clue as to the actual facts. Ron Paul was asked about this REPEATEDLY during his 1996 congressional run, and the story was reported by multiple newspapers on a number of occasions from the spring of 1996 to the fall of 1996 (see here and here). Both Ron Paul and his campaign sent out multiple responses in 1996 in which Ron Paul claimed ownership of the racist material in his newsletter.

If Desalvo claims to have read my evidence, which includes the above link and my multiple quotes on the thread of the same material (see here and here, for just two of the times I quoted it), how the hell could he could he be pretending this is a one-off gag?. And this brings us to the next part of his "gag" defense.

Desalvo Factual Ignorance #3: Ron Paul spoke these words "off-the-cuff" and "extemporaneously".

Desalvo wrote:

These are oral statements, usually when Dr. Paul has to address these things, which are certainly uncomfortable, are are said extemporaneously, off the cuff, sometimes on live television or radio, sometimes with microphones shoved in his face.
[...]
And please note -- ORAL STATEMENTS. Not stuff that is written down.

This is blatantly false, and Desalvo would know these are NOT just oral statements and NOT just off-the-cuff if Desalvo had even a cursory glance at the evidence. As can be seen in the above links, Ron Paul and his campaign also issued written statements during the 1996 on multiple occasions. If he had mispoken in, say May of 1996, the campaign could have easily corrected when asked again by a multitude of newspapers on many occasions up to October of 1996. But neither Ron Paul nor his campaign changed the narrative, throughout the episode they were taking ownership of the racist content of the newsletters.

And what is the final piece evidence that this was not some one-off, extemporaneous gag? Unfortunately for Desalvo, it comes from Ron Paul himself. That's right Desalvo me boy, in 2001 Ron Paul said he took ownership of the racist content in 1996 because his campaign told him to
(again, see this article regarding his statement in 2001).

Ergo, Desalvo has facts wrong on every count. His statements were not gags, they were not off-the-cuff/extemporaneous, and he gave multiple statements where he took ownership. In fact, in 2001 he says he took ownership because his campaign told him to, thus negating each aspect of Desalvo's incompetent and factual ignorant defense.

One more factual falsehood to cover.

Desalvo Factual Ignorance #4: Desalvo's "not sure" about my summary of the 1996 and "pretty sure" that my summary of the 2008 statement is false.

Desalvo wrote:

Mistake #2: Here you [Michael Moeller] write: "Now, given that you are now aware that Ron Paul claimed in 1996 that he wrote the at least some of the racist content, and that in 2008 Ron Paul denied writing that same content and denied knowing who wrote it, which Ron Paul do you believe? Was he lying in 2008?"

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.

Absolutely unbelievable. He uses the newsletter episode to smear me, and he himself admits he "not sure" about my 1996 summary and "pretty sure" I am wrong about the 2008 statement?????

If he is going to call me "scummy" regarding this newsletter business, shouldn't he be damn well sure about the facts? Nope, Desalvo was simply out to smear me for bringing to light the inconvenient facts about Ron Paul -- and facts be damned for Desalvo. Defend Ron Paul at all costs, even if the cost is Desalvo's integrity and honesty.

As I have shown above, Desalvo has no fucking clue about the facts regarding the 1996 statements. Then Desalvo says he is "pretty sure" I am wrong about the 2008 statement. Well, if he bothered to read the umpteen times it was quoted on the other thread, in the links, and not just by me, but also by Goode, he would realize the summary is absolutely accurate. Ron Paul in 2008:

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).

Quite a distance from what he said in 1996, wouldn't ya say, Desalvo?

Summary: Desalvo has no serious comprehension or clue as to the actual facts surrounding the newsletters -- that much is clear. Yet, he has repeatedly and unrelentingly smeared me based on his ignorance.

Michael

goode you may be absolutely correct

seymourblogger's picture

however your facts have nothing to do with the problem. They are Deterrence.

Oh....

Michael Moeller's picture

Don't you worry about that, Goode. You are going to get what's coming to you.

Michael

What are you waiting for?

Richard Goode's picture

C'mon, Moeller.

I've repeated my two most recent questions for you, below. Could I make it any easier for you to continue to evade?

What are you waiting for? Christmas?

Michael...

Ross Elliot's picture

...you post speeches by Ryan, Breitbart and Rubio.

If these guys are the real meat in the sandwich, what does that say about Romney, Gingrich and Santorum?

I'm also wondering if it's why the likes of yourself and Lindsay are not willing to punch the apron for any of the current field.

lindsay I am an American

seymourblogger's picture

and I agree with you completely. Almost. It has already happened. At the present time the world is inflating to escape the consequences of what it has done. This is the fat lady singing. Once all the currencies of the world are inflated and "floating" we enter simulated reality.

The territory under the map has disintegrated.

None of them have a clue as to what they could do or what could be done. Not a clue.

Would you have any objections to telling me before you delete my posts and threads?

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

But let's focus our KASSness on the actual issues.

Ron Paul's flirtation with paleo-libertarianism in the 1990s is not an actual issue.

Scott

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I wish to extend an apology to Lindsay and you for my attack and harsh words. I was over the top, and there is no excuse for losing my temper like that.

I am very, very VERY worried about the end of this country, and I see it coming.

As Olivia has already said, there is no need to apologise for "harsh words" and losing your temper. The world is perishing for the want of harsh words and lost tempers, a situation exacerbated by Brandroid pomowankers within Objectivism who fixate on Rand's losing her temper. I hope you haven't become a Brandroid as well as a Ronroid, Scott!

No, it's the emptiness of those harsh words that's puzzling—for example, telling Moeller to "shut your useless hole" and the like, when he's painstakingly laid out a case that you have refused to look in the eye.

It's the dishonesty of attributing to me the view that one should vote on the basis of looks that is equally puzzling. I know you understand what I really said, so why misrepresent it in this way?

I too am "very VERY worried about the end of [your] country." Frankly I think it has already happened. I have warned of it often enough, and been dismissed by you among others as a foreigner who, by implication, is not entitled to comment, or at least should not be taken seriously. I tell you this, my friend: if there is to be salvation, it will not come from your view that Islamogoblinism is a "bee-sting on a cancer patient" or any other variant of a kumbaya foreign policy. I agree with you that misbegotten, altruistic nation-building is wrong, but that is not the only alternative to abject appeasement. In fact, as usual, it is just the other side of that coin. And of course I agree that economic catastrophe is just around the corner, or at the corner, or just months away. But is Paul offering the best chance of a last-minute stay of execution? I think Moeller has amply demonstrated the opposite.

I believe I have demonstrated the reality of the Gramscification of Everything—and with it, the Cretinisation of Everything—conscientiously and energetically in various articles in the past. You dismiss all this as a preoccupation with "pretty music." I have news for you: Uglification is part and parcel of what you are "very VERY worried about." Our battle is cultural, my friend. The best foul politicians can offer is breathing space. But your politician is a plastic bag over the head of western civilisation.

Now, what say we debate these things without such silliness as "shut your useless hole"? I don't mind your calling me Michael's "pompous girlfriend" since "pompous" is probably true and I wish "girlfriend" were! But let's focus our KASSness on the actual issues. Deal?

"Not true! The current crisis

atlascott's picture

"Not true! The current crisis makes Foreign Policy matter even more."

So we should invade and occupy Mexico, now, too?

The current crises mean there wil no longer BE an America. Or an America resembling What it is supposed to be.

Scott...

Olivia's picture

It is that, besides the fact that it is killing Americans to no useful purpose and to great economic harm, our foreign policy DOES NOT MATTER right now.

Not in the context of the current crisis.

Not true! The current crisis makes Foreign Policy matter even more. Fundamentalist Islam will use the current crisis (a weakened nation) to its advantage. Look at the Al Queda, Hezbollah terrorist cell groups infesting Mexico at the moment, united with the mafia cartels. America has many strategic enemies, which are uniting under any banner they can. To say it doesn't matter is a gross error and a luxury you just can't afford.

I wish to extend an apology to Lindsay and you for my attack and harsh words. I was over the top, and there is no excuse for losing my temper like that.

Thank you Scott, though to be honest, I wouldn't have your temper any other way. I just want you to quote us correctly.

BTW, Michael Moeller is one of the least "scummy" people I know. He's very thoughtful and considered when he condemns something or someone. I've never known him on Solo to just talk through a hole in his ass for the sake of a tactic to descredit. Richard Goode on the other hand ....

Well,,,

atlascott's picture

There has been some discussion of candidates, and their appearance, here, and elsewhere.

"I can't tell you how many times I've heard Ron Paul go on about "blow-back" and America being deserving of terrorist hostilites because of her foreign policy."

There is one problem with that sentence. It never happened. Ron Paul has never blamed America or Americans or said that any terrorist attack was deserved. He has, on many occasions, discussed that foreign policy MATTERS.

Logically, you either accept that actions have consequences, or you do not. If you do not accept this premise, there is no more discussion. Why would anyone take any action if not for the consequences, good or bad, right?

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. Radical students took over America's embassy. It is historically accepted that they did that in direct response to America's meddling in Iran. Just one example of a bad outcome as a result of a foreign policy with very little design or purpose.

Did you know that Iran, in the 50's and 60's was actually friendly to America, and photos of the citizens from that era -- these folks looked like suburbanite Americans. Women wore stylish dresses, went to University. The whole 9 yards. Being friends with a country is the best thing all-around.

Would we be friends with a country that has about 60 military bases all around our country? That runs incursions into our country? That places embargoes on us?

I do not support the current regime in Iran. And my foreign policy is more hawkish than Dr. Paul's. I do not agree with the details, but the broad strokes make sense. America should not attempt to base her economic prosperity on a war economy. I cannot think of a less ethic thing to do -- kill people to support a military-industrial war machine.

So, if our foreign policy can have good or bad, and intended and unintended consequences, ought we not choose a foreign policy that kills the fewest citizens and non-citizens, and grant the government use of the least amount of force necessary to do a job?

Even if you abandon the notion of respecting a people's right to run their country as they choose, and you reject the idea that a government should be careful with the lives of its citizens and the wealth of its citizenry, there is a final problem with rejecting Ron Paul because you do not agree with his foreign policy.

It is that, besides the fact that it is killing Americans to no useful purpose and to great economic harm, our foreign policy DOES NOT MATTER right now.

Not in the context of the current crisis.

Israel want to, has wanted to, and is on record as saying she can easily, completely neutralize Iran. AMERICA KEEPS STOPPING HER. Look it up - that is not a joke. Ask yourself WHY corrupt American politicans might want to do that.

The 4th Amendment is GONE. American is, essentially a sort of Parliamentary dictatorship now. Indefinite detention with no right to be charged, no right to notice to one's family, nothing. SECRET detention. And this is all legal now. Our government does NOT need these powers to "fight terrorism".

And, America is on the fast road to bankruptcy and ruin. This isn't a joke. Even the GAO (General Accounting Office) has copped to our government being dead, flat broke inside of 20 years. Many many private agencies peg that number much less optimistically - inside of a DECADE. Then, you will have rioting in the streets ala Greece unless something is done, RIGHT NOW. And you will see how quickly the lack of Constitutional protections qill use used against American citizens. Not a joke.

"Are you just being a contrary prick?"

Sometimes, evidently.

I wish to extend an apology to Lindsay and you for my attack and harsh words. I was over the top, and there is no excuse for losing my temper like that.

I am very, very VERY worried about the end of this country, and I see it coming.

Crikey, Scott...

Olivia's picture

I also do not like the Olivia/Linz criticism of "he looks like Mr. Magoo, therefore he cannot win" -- look, I get it -- looking good helps you in every corner of life. But he is an older man, who has DEMONSTRATED INTERITY and good ideas. Perfect? No.

That's a ridiculous notion. My criticism of Dr. Paul has NOTHING to do with his LOOKS! I cannot remember the exact conversation where Mr. Magoo was a comparison (wasn't me), but I do remember it being mentioned. However, it was to do with the way he answered questions by stammering and rambling onto other topics with longwinded analogies. He was practically incoherent in those early interviews before the Primaries kicked off.

What's all this nonsense you keep positing about any of us giving our support to someone based on their looks?? I think you've spent enough time on Solo to know that would not be a motive to lend support or admiration to someone seeking the Presidency. It annoys me that you would even think that... especially about our Lindsay. Marco Rubio is a hottie, no doubt about it, but to say so should not be construed by you - of all people - to be the number one reason to admire him. You know better than that. Are you just being a contrary prick?

I can't tell you how many times I've heard Ron Paul go on about "blow-back" and America being deserving of terrorist hostilites because of her foreign policy. The latest horror I heard him come out with was his idea that America ought to be a friend to Iran - I mean, how the hell does one do that with the current evil regime which rules it? It is these convictions which make me despise him as a future Commander-in-chief because it is MORALLY siding with the terrorists. Seems that Paul has the same sentiments in this regard to Obama.

And if Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities, which is looking highly likely this year, what view do you think Dr. Paul will take of it? Will he advocate supporting Israel against such a foe or will he think that Israel deserves to be "wiped off the map" because of blow-back?

Getting down to business

Richard Goode's picture

Stay tuned to this space, we get down to business tomorrow.

Business as usual, Michael? Here are my two most recent questions for you to continue to evade.

What are the inconvenient truths about Ron Paul you say you presented?

Goode earlier trying to malign me:

I took a good look, and there was nothing much to see. Supposedly, Paul has made comments such as "Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries out of all proportion to their numbers." If that's racism, what do you call comments such as, "White women are being raped by black predators in very large numbers and whites are being slaughtered by black savages in bulk... many blacks and Hispanics are rotten to their core ... I myself avoid blacks and Hispanics whenever possible." (see Goode comment on Sat, 2011-10-15 07:58)

How does this constitute an attempt to malign you?

See what I Mean?

Michael Moeller's picture

After Scott once again painfully shows absolutely no grasp of the **actual** facts, and when I ask him to deal with the **actual** facts of the case, the scumbag resorts to another personal attack on me.

How sad and how very, very pathetic. Nevertheless, starting tomorrow I will carefully and thoroughly dissect his earlier response and illustrate how he has ZERO grasp of the facts and ZERO desire to grasp the facts.

On top of everything, Richard Goode makes an astounding admission. I had to rub my eyes to believe what I was reading.

To see Desalvo lock arms with Goode -- the most notorious evader and bad faith promulgator on this site, if not on the entire web -- is just priceless. Any port in a storm, eh Desalvo?

Stay tuned to this space, we get down to business tomorrow.

Michael

Scott

Richard Goode's picture

Welcome back.

Ergo, it is a scummy tactic. Ergo, I will never apologize for calling such tactics "scummy" or people who use them "scummy" -- because they are.

Scummy sums it up.

Here's the answer, Dr. Goode

atlascott's picture

"Given that you do not find the evidence sufficient to claim that Ron Paul is a racist..."

He believes the newsletter discussion irrefutably demonstrates that Ron Paul is a liar, which is ridiculous on its face. It is a scummy tactic.

It especially ironic, given the immoral and deceptive tactics and behavior Newt has demonstrated over the years. That would be REAL lies and rottenness.

And he (Michael) does it for two reasons -- as long as we continually deny these smears against Dr. Paul, his name is associated with wrongdoing. Painted with guilt by proximity.

If you have 5 minutes to present yourself, what impression will people have if you have to spend half or all of the time defending yourself from such accusations?

It's called "controlling the dialogue" and its pure Saul Alinsky. Shame that an alleged liberty lover thinks its an acceptable tactic.

It also prevents us discussing real qualifications and real issues. The prospect of doing so ~terrifies~ those who cannot win on the issues.

It is a two-fer for people who understand that Ron Paul is the cleanest, most moral, and best candidate, but who want to "win."

Ergo, it is a scummy tactic. Ergo, I will never apologize for calling such tactics "scummy" or people who use them "scummy" -- because they are.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Speaking of integrity, will Desalvo ever apologize over the Ron Paul newsletter episode? ... No, Scott will just continue to smear me for presenting the inconvenient truths about Ron Paul ...

What inconvenient truths are those, Michael? You said

the evidence is insufficient to claim whether Ron Paul is or is not a racist. He's made statements on both sides of the issue of racism, and I do not find the evidence sufficient either way. Ergo, I do not make a claim either way, which is perfectly legitimate.

What inconvenient truths, Michael?

Given that you do not find the evidence sufficient to claim that Ron Paul is a racist, why do you continue to make such a song and dance about his newsletters? As you know, Ron Paul has stated

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.

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

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

Wow, Just WOW!!!!

Michael Moeller's picture

After getting done telling us that I falsely accused him of not knowing the facts, Desalvo goes ahead and shows us he has nary a grasp of the facts in the newsletter issue.

Desalvo, instead of absurd comparisons to "gag reels", go look at the Ron Paul traitor thread and my last few posts on that thread to Goode. That is a quick summary of the ***actual*** facts.

Michael

Ron Paul isn't perfect. He

atlascott's picture

Ron Paul isn't perfect. He is just substantially better than anyone else running.

As to whether Michael has ever settled any issue about Ron Paul and his qualifications, his comments fall into two categories.

First, actual criticism of his policies. This is legitimate. Sometimes, his tactics are rotten on these points, but this is still somewhat legitimate.

Second, smears without regard to a fair interpretation and being bogged down on minutiae which, frankly, do not matter.

Let's take the second, first.

On the Ron Paul Smear Thread, I did an okay job summarizing what Michael seems to accept as irrefutable evidence, reproduced below:

You wrote: "Now, given that you are now aware that Ron Paul claimed in 1996 that he wrote the at least some of the racist content, and that in 2008 Ron Paul denied writing that same content and denied knowing who wrote it, which Ron Paul do you believe? Was he lying in 2008?"

Mistake #1: 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. I know you have at least scanned it, and instead of addressing it, you simply gloss over it, stating that my position on these things are not arguments supported by evidence, and that I was ignoring the quotes.

For the final time: I have read your "evidence" for what you accuse Dr. Paul of here (lying) -- quotations taken out of context over the period of years as to whether he wrote the offending newsletter bits or not. I did so before you ever accused me of not doing so.

I believe that it is all vague, and sort of patched together. These are oral statements, usually when Dr. Paul has to address these things, which are certainly uncomfortable, are are said extemporaneously, off the cuff, sometimes on live television or radio, sometimes with microphones shoved in his face.

Have you ever seen a Reagan or Bush or Clinton or Ford or Carter or Obama "gag" reel where they say the most preposterous things? For example, Obama, after a long day of campaigning, saying that he had been to 57 states on his campaign so far (America aint got that many)?

Or the more recent Obama gaffe where he "admits" that he was born in "Asia" (this is all over the internet right now.

Well, it turns out that he was addressing Asian leaders while in Hawaii, and was referring to his being "from" Hawaii. Which is still not technically correct, since I am not sure that Hawaii counts as "Asia" but he was, in part, what you would call "pandering" to the Asian leaders.

And, I guess, that you would call these quotations, from Obama and the others, as evidence that they are all liars.

And it may be true that they ARE all liars.

But your "evidence" is evidence of no such thing, and is motivated by the same dark motivations as those who parse and pick and choose and shuffle through interviews and spoken words to find what they are looking for.

Michael, ANYONE can do what you are trying to do to Paul using this technique to ANYONE who speaks in public regularly. The more political opponents one has, the easier it is to aggregate these quotes, because the faulty thinking is repeated ad nauseum.

I do not think your evidence here proves much, other than the fact that you seem to leave no technique or strategy in the cupboard when it comes to popping the Ron Paul balloon.

Mistake #2: Here you write: "Now, given that you are now aware that Ron Paul claimed in 1996 that he wrote the at least some of the racist content, and that in 2008 Ron Paul denied writing that same content and denied knowing who wrote it, which Ron Paul do you believe? Was he lying in 2008?"

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.

And this brings us to false dichotomies. False alternatives. And that's why these questions are not particularly fair, and your call for an answer does not carry much weight.

Besides, rather than a "Yes or No" I have already answered them.

Some of the content was published in 1992. Some later in the 1990's. One statement from Paul on the issue was taken in 1996. Another from 2008. Now, it is 2011.

You think the most likely reason for what you see as different answers (upon which we cannot agree since the answers may refer to different passages in the newsletters, and for other reasons previously addressed) is that he is purposely lying?

I think you overestimate human consciousness and memory. I think that if you applied this same standard to your personal life, you would conclude that you, yourself, are a "liar" because I can guarantee that you uttered things in 1992, 1996 and 2008 that you do not remeber or will certainly mis-remember.

And please note -- ORAL STATEMENTS. Not stuff that is written down. Not Ron Paul being handed a transcript of what he said in, say, 1996, refreshing his memory, and THEN addressing it. These quotes, including the video which we cannot agree upon, are largely "gotcha" moments with the media or during interviews. ("Gotcha" moments refer to media interviewers applying the "tall poppy syndrome" during an interview to cut down a notable and thereby enhance their own reputation as a big-shot interviewer).

There was something else I wanted to write about on this, but I do not remember right now. I will come back to it if I can recall.

So, who is YOUR candidate, Michael? I ask because I am sincerely interested in who you think a better choice would be. Also, I could demonstrate pretty quickly how easy it is to attempt to do what you do to any public figure with a history of public speaking, though that is really not necessary. I'd rather move this to a discussion of the issues rather than continue to watch you spend your time trying to convince me or anyone else that you have any reliable evidence of Dr. Paul's dishonesty.

And Ron Paul shows the best grasp of the issues, though I would like to see him a bit more hawkish culturally and generally, so that those who are concerned that he would allow America to become a punching bag could be quickly disabused of that notion."

Well, so much for "Ron Paul is racists" -- which is a serious charge in American politics, or is a liar. These charges are utter nonsense.

As to Michael's criticism of Paul's economics, it amounts to criticizing WHAT he cuts initially, and ignoring Paul's other statements about how and when entitlements would be cut. Entitlements cannot be immediately ended. Giant government branches which, for example, do not educate children at enormous social and financial cost, can go quicker.

As to foreign policy, I can respect someone disagreeing with Paul's foreign policy, even though history will show that his position was the correct one. But when the criticism devolves into suggestion that Ron Paul hates America, is dangerous, etc., well, that is just preposterous nonsense. Rotten, scummy crap.

I also do not like the Olivia/Linz criticism of "he looks like Mr. Magoo, therefore he cannot win" -- look, I get it -- looking good helps you in every corner of life. But he is an older man, who has DEMONSTRATED INTERITY and good ideas. Perfect? No.

But compared to the Texas governor who cannot remember his own platform? Could there possibly be a less-honestly-held political platform than one you just came up with and cannot remember?

Setting the issues aside, what most of you are missing is that without integrity, it doesn't MATTER who you like. If you vote for Romney or Newt or Perry, you are voting for status quo, and the status is most definitely not quo. America is no different, legally, than Russia or China now. We narrowly averted a law which allows our American Dictator to shut down the web at will. He can already detain a citizen for any reason, indefinitely, no right to be charged, no lawyer, at will. And TORTURE them.

Who has even addressed this other than Ron Paul?

Who has addressed the size and scope and power of the government, other than in a cursory, "me too" manner?

Who has addressed the deficit, WHICH EVEN OUR OWN GAO HAS SAID WILL BANKRUPT AMERICA inside of 20 years?

Who has addresses RESISTING the movement towards a world government -- and keeping America independent and free, especially in light of the bureaucratic monster the EU is?

Who has addressed a different foreign policy that would bring troops home and surgically destroy our enemies without my countrymen coming home without legs, or dead, to NO PURPOSE?

Who has addressed the illegality going on at the DoJ?

Ron Paul has written very sensible books on some of these topics -- topics that it becomes manifestly obvious that most of the other candidates do not care about, or do not understand.

Listen to Santorum on individual liberty, or Gingrich on his plans to expand this program or that to solve this social ill or that, or Romney on RomneyCare or expanding the govenrment to "help" people -- and oxymoron if ever there were. These men do not understand the Constitution. They do not revere individual rights.

None of them can carry Ron Paul's jockstrap on economics.

And none of them have ever shown anything approaching the integrity Ron Paul has.

Support them if you will, but understand that you are voting for the end of America. It is LITERALLY that serious, now.

Americans are no longer free. Case law has unleashed police. People can be searched how ever and whenever cops want, without a warrant. Police departments are being armed with military grade assault hardware. Returning veterans and those with differing viewpoints are being labeled by the government as "domestic terror threats" -- WHERE do you think this is leading?

And WHY are none of the other candidates discussing this?

You people are the best and the brightest -- certainly brighter and better people than the average. people who on some level have indicated they revere individualism and understand the dangers big government present.

If nothing else, it is just disappointing and disheartening to see you fall, in majority, for the bullshit "Islam scare tactics" of "fight them there so we don't fight them here" when we don't have to.

As I have said before, the majority SOLO-sycophants' position of willingly putting on the chains of slavery to be lead by a corrupt and/or brainless puppet in the name of "safety" is understandable if you accept the notion that, somehow, with no nukes, no airforce of consequence, no navy of consequence, a place like Iran, which we could decimate in a weekend without a drop of American blood being spilled, is a real and present danger. So, we must accept a giant government that treats a formerly free people like guilty cattle here, and our service men and women as fodder and world cops?

Well, I say "no" -- I say "No" here, and everywhere.

And I will tell you something else: Ron Paul is a patriot. He addresses these issues when no one else does. He has for 30 years. He has never voted for an imbalanced budget. He shared 90% of the professed values of people on this site. Yet, he can garner no support here. And it is through the scummy efforts of people like Michael that it is so.

These Ron Paulbots...

Michael Moeller's picture

Are truly something to behold. Aggressive and bold, but at the same time dimwits who have little use for any facts.

I mean, I find it extraordinary that I present facts in October about Ron Paul and his newsletters, Desalvo calls me "scummy" for it, then in December all hell breaks loose on the newsletter story that not only supports what I presented, but shows much, much worse re Ron Paul than I presented.

THEN Desalvo has the nerve to reappear and REPEAT the "scummy" charge without remorse, apology, or even explanation.

Desalvo has gotta lotta nerve, not so much with integrity or brains.

Michael

scott yes Santorum

seymourblogger's picture

is definitely the worst. Thank you.

You Know You're a True Believer...

Michael Moeller's picture

When you accuse somebody of lying/distorting before they've even presented any evidence!! Oh man, that one really takes the cake.

Or maybe a close second to:

When you call somebody "scummy" for presenting facts the whole world acknowledges, except for mindless Ron Paulbots.

Just look at Desalvo's integrity, he is so blinded by his True Believerism he can't even apologize for calling me scummy for presenting facts the whole world acknowledges as facts.

Dissembling Desalvo is a very, very small and pathetic little man. Never expected Desalvo to sink to such a treacherous and duplicitous level, but he has and it is what it is.

Michael

Integrity II

atlascott's picture

Classic!

Showing his trademark lack of the above, Michael ignores his Newts actual status quo whoredom, but will soon contort and lie to suggest Paul is the corrupt status quo candidate.

Scummy.

Best to worst:Ron

atlascott's picture

Best to worst:
Ron Paul
(huge, cavernous drop)
Romney
Gingrich
Santorum

I might abstain if either of the bottom 2 ends up with the nomination.
Or I might vote Obama, do we get the 2nd Revolution over with sooner. We'd get there, likely, under Romney, but slower and more time wasted.

I sure wish Brad Pitt would run, cuz he is so handsome and charismatic!

Great!!

Michael Moeller's picture

Nothing like another worthless fact-free analysis from Desalvo. Oh yes, let's admire the integrity of Ron Paul who first claims entitlements are unconstitutional and he'll reduce them to zero, then his budget comes out and he increases them at a good clip and claims they can be preserved by cutting overseas spending (a blatant falsehood). And go to the Ron Paul Traitor thread and examine his integrity re his newsletters. Yes, when judging a candidate on not pandering, integrity, and shaking up the status quo, Ron Paul is the perfect candidate -- if you are a deluded Ron Paulbot with eyes wide shut.

Speaking of integrity, will Desalvo ever apologize over the Ron Paul newsletter episode? You know, the one the world knows by now and agrees with me and Desalvo called "scummy"? No, Scott will just continue to smear me for presenting the inconvenient truths about Ron Paul, thus exposing his purblind True Believerism.

And speaking of Ron Paul and the status quo, I got another interesting tidbit on how Ron Paul is selling out to the status quo in the most pathetic way. Will be posting that soon.

Michael

scott so who is the very worst one

seymourblogger's picture

because that's the one I am going to vote for.

The very very worst.

Pfft

atlascott's picture

Intellectual dilettante.

Integrity

atlascott's picture

If you understood the importance of integrity, then Newt could not possibly be anyone's first choice.

This, of course, leaves aside the actual issues, and the fact that Newt has no acceptable answer to any issue. He will do what he will based on back room deals. He is a Progressive Republican parroting Tea Party verbiage for political gain -- his only consistent motive.

You are scummy, intermittently.

"Shut your useless hole"?!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

What's happened to you, Scott? You seem to have adopted the Billy Beck style of (non-) argumentation. Is this de rigueur among Ronroids?

It's true that Michael outlined his preferences from a field of candidates we all acknowledge to be abysmal, some time back. And made a lengthy and thoughtful case against Paul based on economic policy, foreign policy and the infamous newsletters—a case you have never answered.

Exactly as I Thought...

Michael Moeller's picture

No apologies, no nothing. Duplicitous Desalvo proceeds as if nothing ever happened in the interim.

Say, Desalvo, remember that newsletter debacle for which you called me "scummy", how did that work out? You still stand by that?

Michael

If you could read....

Michael Moeller's picture

I said who it was a long time ago on one of the threads. I originally sided with Perry and gave my reasons, and of the candidates left I would rank them Newt, Romney, And Paul just barely above Santorum. A dismal field, and Paul ranking near the bottom shows how dismal he is. Personally, I am hoping for a brokered convention in which a better candidate gets drafted, somebody along the lines of Paul Ryan or Mitch Daniels.

So no apologies for your smears, I take it?

Michael

?

atlascott's picture

So who was your candidate, again, pal?
Still afraid to say?

More name calling and lies, Michael?
Scummy sums it up.
Stop defending your pompous girlfriend and take a stand on your better alternative to Ron Paul or shut your useless hole.

?

atlascott's picture

So who was your candidate, again, pal?
Still afraid to say?

Waddaya Know!!

Michael Moeller's picture

Desalvo, having never backed up anything re Ron Paul, resurfaces with another fact-free analysis of Ron Paul. Yes, Desalvo mysteriously disappeared when the Ron Paul newsletter episode blew up in the media -- things I said two months earlier that were validated by every media outlet in the country. The same things for which Desalvo accused me of being "scummy".

Any apologies from Desalvo? Nope, and this highlights who is truly "scummy".

No, Desalvo's time is better spent reconstructing his strawman of "nation-building" against those who never advocated any such thing. The Desalvo Defense of distraction from the fact that Ron Paul's foreign policy is Blame-America-First suicide. Good luck with that.

I find it highly amusing that Dissembling Desalvo leaps on Linz calling Rubio a "hottie", as if that is the only reason he likes Rubio. It was just a description, and Desalvo rambles on as if that is the main reason.

Yet, Desalvo had Ron Paul lies pasted on his eyelids, and he excused or denied them 10 ways from Sunday.

Desalvo is a hopeless Ron Paulbot True Believer -- that much is painfully obvious.

Michael

You Need A New Epithet

atlascott's picture

Saddam is long-dead and was a secular dictator.

Calling someone a Saddamite suggests that they would support a secular dictatorship.

Ron Paul is the exact opposite of that, of course. We know YOU think his foreign policy makes his candidacy a non-starter.

You are usually very creative with your clever turns of phrase. Come up with something new.

He sure is dreamy.

atlascott's picture

Great criteria to decide on a President.

Just as empty an analysis as those in the media who swooned over Obama's magnetism.

Disappointing

atlascott's picture

I find it very disappointing that anyone wants to support a candidate based on whether they are "pretty" or not.

"Pretty" is esthetically pleasing, but ideas are what matter.

The economy, the size, cost and scope of government and the erosion of freedom are what matter right now.

Gingrich is an utterly corrupt insider who has been caught profiteering on the backs of taxpayers, and he is desperate for power. He is not stable. There is something crazed in his eyes.

Romney is an empty-headed empty suit who is a big government Republican. Big government means he gets to enrich his friends like Bush II did. Recall, please, that the deficit grew under Bush II almost as much as it has under Obama. Bush has done the exact same things, economically, as has Obama -- QE, bailouts, special deals for special interests. He is the status-deadly-quo. America will be over in the next decade under his leadership.

Santorum is a huge government social conservative/fiscal liberal. No greater opponent of liberty exists in the Republican Party, and he has not clue one about economics.

One can "want" a candidate they'd like to warm a bed with, but if that is the criteria, then one has joined the ranks of Airhead America.

The chickens are coming home to roost. The Constitution lies, shredded, under the Marxist-in-Chief's feet. The deficit soars, while candidates talk about more government to solve the problems of big government. And useful idiots choose from amongst the pool of America's destroyers-in-waiting.

When given the choice of a candidate who understands the Constitution better than any other, and understands the dangers of big government and the Fed and deficits, they turn up their noses in favor of a pretty face.

Disappointing.

Likely

atlascott's picture

It is likely to be an expose of how radical he was, how he hung around with folks who advocated the overthrow of the government, etc.

That sort of thing was already disclosed in his first run for the Presidency, during his time in Chicago. And it had positively ZERO effect. I love Breitbart, and support his decision to use the information tactically, but I am skeptical that ANYTHING would shake the Left's support of Obama.

That would include evidence of murder, evidence of being a spy for the former Soviet Union, you name it.

The ends justify the means, remember?

And because movie stars and rap music artists support him, he is "cool" and will get some share of the vote based on that, and the race issue will continue to get him at least 80 to 90% of the black vote. All Unions will mobilize voters, too.

It would not matter to rabid Lefties or those who vote based upon race. They would call Breitbart's evidence shoddy and wrong. All major networks would ignore it. 80% of America would discount it as political dirty tricks.

Lindsay...

Ross Elliot's picture

...you really must declare yourself.

Who's getting your vote? Paul's out for you. Is it the narcissist Gingrich, the true-believing Santorum, or the steady-as-she-goes, maybe-I-will-maybe-I-won't Romney?

Time's getting short.

Lindsay...

Ross Elliot's picture

...you really must stop choosing candidates based upon sexual magnetism.

"Hottie Marco would be a good counter to Obama's rock-star status in this, the Age of the Airhead."

Eye

Ditto...

Olivia's picture

and mine. Please just piss off Janet. You're incoherent.

You..

Jules Troy's picture

You took the words right out of my mouth Michael.

Jesus Seymourblogger

Michael Moeller's picture

Do you have to pollute just about every thread with your imbecilities? Nobody, or at least not many, give a shit about your foodfights, or your incoherent pomo palaver for that matter. Why don't you take your skirmishes with the OL people over there.

Michael

Janet

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I so desperately wish you were right about Obama. But the current polls show him beating any Republican challenger. As I argued often, before you arrived here, the reason for that in part is that Airhead America thinks the presidential race is just another version of American Idol: the mindless in pursuit of the talentless.

As for the rest of your post—again, I've no idea what you're talking about. I'd been away for a couple of days, and came back to find some crappy new thread of yours, which appeared to consist of copy-and-pastes from O-Lying, had thrown the whole front page spastic. So I deleted it without even absorbing its content.

Janet, it's true that this is the most open Objectivist forum you'll find anywhere, but I'd urge you to read the posting guidelines nonetheless. If someone like Scherk, who thrives on viciousness, is accusing you of viciousness, then it's possible we have a problem.

Paul Ryan Rips Obama Budget

Michael Moeller's picture

The Obama Budget is such a cynical ploy and political disgrace, it leaves me without words. At the opening of a hearing, Paul Ryan had some great words for it, though.

sorry lindsay but NObama's rock star

seymourblogger's picture

status is in the toilet now. He is not going toshne at all. I think anyone can beat him now. Scumbag that he is.

Which reminds me............ you have made MSK happy. For awhile until I decide whether to post it on mine. I do like the mystery of its disappearing though when the searchers go looking in a few years. Broken links. I'll have to make sure thee are breadcrumbs.

Jean Baudrillard: It is the terrorist model to bring about an excess of reality, and have the system collapse beneath that excess. - Baudrillard

MSK sure got an excess of reality. That's all they talked about all day. Hope I didn't cause you too much of a headache. If I did I am sorry.

Ross

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Hear the joke on Hannity today? A liberal, a moderate and a conservative walk into a bar, and the bartender says, "Hi, Mitt!."

I did, and I thought it was very a propos. But you didn't mention the sequel: a Saddamite, a Saddamite and a Saddamite walk into a bar, and the bartender says, "Hi, Ron!"

I hope ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... whoever becomes the Republican nominee selects Marco as his running-mate. Then he (the nominee) will acquire the "electability" the pundits keep blathering about. Hottie Marco would be a good counter to Obama's rock-star status in this, the Age of the Airhead.

Michael

Olivia's picture

I love Marco Rubio - he'll make a fine President one day, I'm sure.

He comes across as calm, convicted and thoroughly decent. When he speaks, it's as though he's not trying too hard to make a great speech but rather just talking about the things which really, really matter to him. He has natural confidence and substance written all over him.

Thanks for posting this darlink.

C'mon what?

Michael Moeller's picture

Rubio and Ryan are conservatives, not Objectivists, but their primary direction is in favor of freedom (as opposed to statism-lite). I think both would make good candidates worthy of support.

Ron Paul doesn't even measure up to the current dismal field, much less these two.

Michael

Oh, c'mon...

Ross Elliot's picture

...if this is the measure, then Santorum is the sine qua non.

No, maybe it's Gingrich, the emotionalist-narcissist.

No, maybe Romney. Hear the joke on Hannity today? A liberal, a moderate and a conservative walk into a bar, and the bartender says, "Hi, Mitt!."

Michael I really liked

Jules Troy's picture

I really liked Marco Rubio he nailed it when he said Obama cant make it in the next election based on his track record.  He got everything he wanted yet unemployment grew, debt grew, he made everyt5hing worse.

What really drove it home was how he points out that now Obama is pitting Americans against Americans, that somehow the new creed is to tear down those that are successful by those that are less so.  That whole speech was great.  That man would make a good candidate.

troy hard to say about left profs

seymourblogger's picture

Surely she must have been exposed and micro lending was leftish labeled. Actually it was a damned fine capitalist strategy and while not making any huge profits, as the money was plowed back into the lending process, the Geneen banks were solvent, just not the way the Bank of Boston was for awhile during the 90's.

troy don't knock O mother to me

seymourblogger's picture

she was an amazing woman. Hot tho. Beautiful super smart girl from Kansas her classmates had her headed to Wellesley Vassar, Smith etc Then after the war her father thought there would be opportunities in Hawaii and at the same time the US was bringing in Africans for higher studies. Probably because the Soviets were recruiting them in droves. so she met O's father, got knocked up and a few months later married him. I think her father was a handsome run around and her mother worked in a bank all her life. O's father got a scholarship to Harvard but his mom didn't want to go there with him. She knew that a white woman at that time,l married to a black grad student, pushing a baby carriage around, living in a cold climate on little money wasn't going to be so great for her. She didn't go and then they divorced and then her next husband was a muslim Indonesian O didn't want to go live with them so he stayed in Hawaii with his grandparents. He was 10, made the choice, it was respected, and he and his mother parted.

O's mother divorced him and then began her serious education getting a PhD. Her doctorate was in micro lending, but someone elose got the Nobel on her original work. You know, the Geneen banks. Now the idea has spread and there are web sites where you can put in $25 with hundreds of thousands of others so women in third world countries can open little businesses. Very successful.

Personally I think he is just a very pretty glib bum with a talent for bs. I am ashamed I ever voted for him and for getting others to vote for him. I still have the bumper sticker on my car with a big capital N in front of the O: NObama it says. He disgusts me even more than Bush II and I thought I hated him.

Wasn't

Jules Troy's picture

Is it true that during her school years Obama's mother was known to have studied under some of the most left thinking anti intellectuals to ever teach a class?  If true it would explain alot.

fine Michael I am just mirroring you

seymourblogger's picture

One insult deserves another eh.

NObama has the radical rhetoric down perfectly. Whatever you want to hear from him, that's what he will try to give you.

As to action, he's a non-performer. His advisors decide as he was a community college student in Hawaii, and affirmative action got him into NYU (Columbia?) and Harvard. For once I have to side with Cloarence Thomas on this issue. That is if I bothered myself with these issues anymore.

I don't.

don't come looking for me and I will ignore you. Agreed?

Janet

Michael Moeller's picture

If you actually listened to the speech, you would realize Breitbart was talking about "radicalism" during Obama's college years.

But that's all beside the point, isn't it? You're an attention-seeker who is about as intelligent --and intelligible -- as my shoe, so you disrupt threads with your lunacy.

A small request -- just try and keep your derangement away from me. Thanks.

Michael

lindsay please let me keep it

seymourblogger's picture

darren made it just for me. I love it. It's special.

Janet

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Whom he fucked, please!

I travelled from Peka Peka to Wellington this morning and kept seeing your avatar every which way I looked. It was most disconcerting. Just as well I was not driving. You're a Bendon billboard!

Yeh MIchael me too

seymourblogger's picture

I mean I would just love to know how much pot he smoked every day, who he fucked, how slutty he was. That is really important stuff to know about my president. That is really what I am going to base my vote on.

Did he date girls of color or white girls or a combo? Did he go bi? Not bye-bye, bi, as in bisexual. I want all the dirt. That will make my day.

On second thought I'd rather read more Foucault, Virilio, Baudrillard and ZIZEK!

Sexy Sarah

seymourblogger's picture

I haven't watched her for a few years. Is she still as vivid as she was. Very charismatic.

You mean you'd rather listen

seymourblogger's picture

to these people than stretch your mind with post modern thinking?

Yeh. I guess you would.

Breitbart

Michael Moeller's picture

I'm anxious to find out what Breitbart has on Obama from his college years -- almost to the point of wishing he would release it now. However, I think it is a smart move to wait until closer to the election -- Swiftboat-style where the media can't bury it.

This one ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... packed a punch too. Shame about the screechy voice and all that Gobby guff:

If only!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"America has finally awoken to your Saul Alinsky bullshit tactics, and we're coming to get you."

—Breitbart

If only!

Comment viewing options

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