If You Don't Know Michelle Malkin....

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
If you call what's going on in this thread "hero worship", and you recognize that many are not fond of lies and those that tell them, you must really think the obama drones are something!!
Yup, you could take that to the bank - indeed I do.

She did indeed issue a retraction and if you read it, I think you'll be hard pressed to call this an out and out lie as much as perhaps she mis-spoke. I know you'll have a laugh at that one
No DD .... not really laughing at it ... since I don't view it as at all funny.

You are (or would be) correct to say though that I do think her retraction is disingenuous to say the least - "true believers" may see it differently of course.

If she indeed had any journalistic integrity, she would have just done a mea culpa .... and let it go at that .... or maybe if she had enough personal integrity she would have done a couple of other things:

1. actually called Ron Paul and apologized for falsely maligning him ....

2. insisted to Fox News that as a precondition of her appearing again on their network, she be allowed to issue a formal retraction on camera, in the same manner that she had made the false accusations.

..... instead she spent most of her "retraction" attempting to justify what she had done .... and continuing to try to further marginalize Ron Paul by painting him as some kind of kook, by rather condescending and inflammatory statements, the accurateness of which could said to be somewhat dubious .....

As one who listened to innumerable hours (in the hundreds) of 9/11 commission testimony on C-SPAN, I can certainly state - with no reservations whatsoever - that it was a flawed process - largely because it was a political process.

Just take a look at who the members were ..... Jamie Gorelick ? .... Richard Ben-Veniste ? .... Slade Gorton ? Gimme a break .... partisan hacks and shills on both sides, tasked with covering the hiney's of those in power (from both sides of the aisle) who had screwed the pooch and dropped the ball on domestic security .....

The above is not to say to somehow the US was behind the attacks, just that the process was flawed - which was the entirety of Ron Paul's point.

so I'll post this LINK that was missing from your post so the folks can decide for themselves.
By all means - if one looks at what Ms. Malkin says there, it only lends more credibility to the analysis I linked to on

LewRockwell.com (which certainly ain't a liberal site .....)

I should add that at LEAST she DID retract....many don't bother or if they do, you'll find it buried on the last page.
Yeah - the latter would be pretty much the functional equivalent of what Ms. Malkin ultimately did .... accusing a ten-term Texas congressman of stuff he never did or said on national TV ..... and then issuing a retraction on ..... her website ....

"The incident I was referring to was an exchange that took place at a campaign house party, not during an on-campus joint appearance, as I mistakenly stated. I regret the errors and am forwarding this post to The Big Story producers so that they can air these corrections if they wish to do so."

Perhaps the above is your idea of the level responsibility one is required to exercise after having made false statements on national media - it isn't mine. One can only wonder at the extent of the damage done by such reckless conduct .... and sadly Fox personnel (Carl Cameron, Chris Wallace, and Sean Hannity among others) were guilty of it repeatedly ....

Personally me, I'm not all too big of fan of those media types that attempt to tell me what the facts are (only what they say) and then tell me what to think about them, or where to look, or not to look - I'm happy to figure it out all by my lonesome. YMMV.

Like the video said, it was "YouDecide2008" ..... provided that the only choice you wanted was the ones they were going to allow you to have ......

Common sense, especially in these trying times but if this is the best you have against Michelle it's rather lame.
You are free to see it as you wish - my point is not that Ms. Malkin is always wrong, but simply that she too is merely a partisan political hack - willing to stoop to whatever level necessary to get the job done ..... in the same vein as say a James Carville, or a Keith (makes me wanna puke) Olbermann .... probably no better or no worse.

Should I wonder at your "truthiness" on Michelle as her book about lies and corruption in the Obama administration stands at #1 Bestseller on Amazon?
Only you can answer that - decide to the best of your ability, and then hope and pray that you were correct.

If one enjoys reading about lies and liars, especially those in high political places, this is the book for you!!
As would be another book I'm very fond of, and would highly recommend:

Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton

by Barbara Olson, the wife of our former Solicitor General, Ted Olson. She died on the plane that crashed into Pentagon on 9/11 (may God rest her soul)
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
The content in the LINK certainly puts things in perspective.
Wow, yeah - that certainly clears it all up .... despite the rather obvious fact that you reading and agreeing with something from someone who demonstrably and blatantly lied and misrespresented things on national TV ....

Too Funny .... yeah .... (neo) conservative "critical thinking" at it's finest I'm sure ....

Try reading the one I linked to if you dare (be forewarned: it will actually require that you think a little ..... and not just drink up what you are being spoonfed ...)

In fact, you might try poking around there a bit .... might broaden your horizons ....

Too bad about Ron Paul - he had some good positions in his campaign regarding limited government
Yes he did.

but some of his other ideas so far around the bend that he just wasn't mainstream enough to be electable.
What were they, exactly ? (feel free to take it to a PM if you wish - so as to not take this thread any further off-topic from the M. Malkin lovefest currently in progress ...)

The small groups of highly vocal wacko supporters that he seemed to attract didn't help him much either.
Fox News should put you on the payroll ...... :cool:

Interesting ..... as I recall I believe this sites owner commented at one point (dunno if that was before or after the rightwing media's hatchet jobs) ..... that he found Ron Paul's candidacy appealing .... just wondering - you count him as one of those wackos ?

BTW, you're good Pilgrim - you got that "Just-keep-repeating-the-lie-often-enough-and-people-might-believe-it" thing down to an absolute T ... anything for the cause i suppose ..... :rolleyes:

(BTW I had a reply for you for another thread all cooked up and ready to post but the digital gremlins ate it .... recomposing it will take some time so please be patient)
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
The small groups of highly vocal wacko supporters that he seemed to attract didn't help him much either.
Of course, if you don't find Lawrence McCord's incisive political wisdom to be of particular benefit (forgive me Lawrence :D), you could always consider what Sarah Palin thinks of Ron Paul:

"Sarah Palin was the only top-tier candidate in the 2008 Election who had anything good to say about Ron Paul. In an MTV interview (on August 29, 2008), Palin said Ron Paul was "cool." "He's a good guy," she added. "He's so independent. He's independent of the party machine. I'm like, ‘Right on, so am I."

Full article linked here:

Sarah Palin at the Switch

Paul and Palin in 2012 as the 3rd-party "vote-'em-the-hell-out" ticket .... now that is a ticket I'd definitely consider voting for .....

BTW, if it happens, expect the "long knives" to come out from both of the established political parties ..... with a ferocity and vengeance unlike anything you have ever seen before .....

And oh yeah ... BTW: ... small groups of wackos .... how utterly retarded .... but keep on trying there Pilgrim .... if you just keep repeating it long enough, people just might believe it ......
 
Last edited:

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Palin/Paul in 2012? I could support that ticket. It would drive the Establishment of both major parties into a tizzy.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Ronald Ernest Paul, M.D. (born August 20, 1935 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)

In 2012, he'll be 77! Sorry, but I'd rather see someone a bit younger; and that's coming from someone who mostly agrees with Paul. The fact is, most who don't know him will likely vote against him BECAUSE of his age. I don't want another Clinton v. Dole!
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Ronald Ernest Paul, M.D. (born August 20, 1935 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)

In 2012, he'll be 77! Sorry, but I'd rather see someone a bit younger; and that's coming from someone who mostly agrees with Paul. The fact is, most who don't know him will likely vote against him BECAUSE of his age. I don't want another Clinton v. Dole!

Note: the ticket is Palin/Paul....Paul would be vice on the ticket...a virtual non position...:cool:
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Ronald Ernest Paul, M.D. (born August 20, 1935 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)

In 2012, he'll be 77! Sorry, but I'd rather see someone a bit younger; and that's coming from someone who mostly agrees with Paul. The fact is, most who don't know him will likely vote against him BECAUSE of his age. I don't want another Clinton v. Dole!

OOPS... I wasn't aware of Ron Paul's age. I do like the man as he seems genuine and right-of-center. Palin needs to interview many potential running mates for 2012. Perhaps Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota or Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee? Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania? Newt Gingrich?
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
OOPS... I wasn't aware of Ron Paul's age. I do like the man as he seems genuine and right-of-center. Palin needs to interview many potential running mates for 2012. Perhaps Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota or Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee? Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania? Newt Gingrich?

Newt?? you gotta be kidding...he's old school...same garbage as now....
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
I really like Gingrich as he is a big-brained man, but his even bigger ego would probably not allow him to be subordinated to second place on a Palin/Gingrich ticket. Palin is the future face of American conservatism...
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Ron Pauls SON ,is considering running for Senate from Ky. now that Bunning isn't running... i don't know much about him...but one would think he would be of the same ilk as his dad and share the same ideals....
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
I really like Gingrich as he is a big-brained man, but his even bigger ego would probably not allow him to be subordinated to second place on a Palin/Gingrich ticket. Palin is the future face of American conservatism...

My wife thought Newt was great till he admitted to an affair while heading up the committee on Clinton's ethics...:(
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
I really like Gingrich as he is a big-brained man, but his even bigger ego would probably not allow him to be subordinated to second place on a Palin/Gingrich ticket. Palin is the future face of American conservatism...

So you are saying you want Palin to run in '12? Are you people serious? You know what, I do not blame you, I blame the news media outlets for giving her so much face time. How 'bout this ticket, Palin/Limbaugh or Palin/Beck how about Palin/Hannity? Before you answer I just want you to know that I'm being sarcastic. But I'm sure some of you here would be salavating at the chance to vote for one of those tickets. You do realize that the Republicans are trying to distance themselves from her?

The face of the American Conservative.......may God have mercy on our souls. If Paul (without Palin) runs I will vote for him, I don't care if he's 84 years old. I am sitting here in disbelief at the notion some of you would even consider Palin.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
The farther the Republican Party moves away from Sarah Palin, the farther I move from the GOP. The GOP is just a brand name, it isn't really conservative.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Of course, if you don't find Lawrence McCord's incisive political wisdom to be of particular benefit (forgive me Lawrence :D), you could always consider what Sarah Palin thinks of Ron Paul:

"Sarah Palin was the only top-tier candidate in the 2008 Election who had anything good to say about Ron Paul. In an MTV interview (on August 29, 2008), Palin said Ron Paul was "cool." "He's a good guy," she added. "He's so independent. He's independent of the party machine. I'm like, ‘Right on, so am I."

Full article linked here:

Sarah Palin at the Switch

Paul and Palin in 2012 as the 3rd-party "vote-'em-the-hell-out" ticket .... now that is a ticket I'd definitely consider voting for .....

BTW, if it happens, expect the "long knives" to come out from both of the established political parties ..... with a ferocity and vengeance unlike anything you have ever seen before .....

And oh yeah ... BTW: ... small groups of wackos .... how utterly retarded .... but keep on trying there Pilgrim .... if you just keep repeating it long enough, people just might believe it ......

I suppose I could take the time and effort to parse these multi-chaptered screeds of yours and insert cutsy, smart-a**ed comments along with insults to your intelligence and other personal remarks that lower the level of debate and exchange of ideas in this venue; but that would probably be crossing the line of the personal attack policy posted at the very top of the forum. Since you seemingly haven't read Dreamer's post or have chosen to ignore it due to your special type of hubris, I'll just insert the last sentence:

"Disagree if you want. Leave the personal insults, and background insinuations out of it."

Disagreeing with you or having a conservative viewpoint doesn't make me or anyone else a "mental midget" or "utterly retarded." However, I realize it's probably hard to keep your charming personality from bubbling over onto the keypad.

Now back to the subject at hand, a couple of points:

1. Paul was never a viable candidate, and his poll numbers never got above single digits. No sitting member of the House other than James A. Garfield in 1880 has been elected President of the US - and even then Garfield had already been elected to a position in the Senate before campaigning for President.

2. About those wackos:

American Thinker: The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Personally, I find use of the word "retarded" to describe the views of an EO member, or any human being, to be extremely objectionable. It is a very low form of insult.

Those unfortunate souls who are truly mentally retarded are innocent victims of chance and deserve compassion. To use the term "retarded" as a slur is just plain wrong.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
I see nothing wrong in calling an idea retarded....as in nutty, as in a stupid idea or just a plain silly idea....Or yet

" I think that idea is crazy!"

"hey, Mr Mod he just inferred I was crazy?"

I've seen worse on here...and nothing done.

Rlent never called anyone retarded just the idea presented....but just circle up guys and make a big deal of it like always....:eek:
 
Last edited:

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
I see nothing wrong in calling an idea retarded....as in nutty, as in a stupid idea or just a plain silly idea....Or yet

" I think that idea is crazy!"

"hey, Mr Mod he just inferred I was crazy?"

I've seen worse on here...and nothing done.

Rlent never called anyone retarded just the idea presented....but just circle up guys and make a big deal of it like always....:eek:

OVM... you are the first to "circle up" when I or another conservative makes a poor choice of words. Quit playing like you are above pettiness. It grows tiresome.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Note: the ticket is Palin/Paul....Paul would be vice on the ticket...a virtual non position...:cool:
Sorry, but an entirely incorrect analysis IMNSHO ..... it would, in fact, be Paul/Palin - and here is why:

He has held national office (repeatedly being re-elected for 10 terms ..... uhhh .... by all those "wackos" down there in Galveston, TX), and has actually run (repeatedly) for the Presidency - she has not.

In terms of years of experience, she is the weaker of the two (although she has held an elective office as an executive - but it is a position which she abdicated from ..... albeit for a very worthwhile purpose apparently)

Paul has authored a number of books on wide variety of relevant subjects - grassroots political action, foreign policy, freedom and the Constitution, and economics - he is a more substantive candidate from the philosophical/intellectual/policy perspective.

Ron Paul while up in his years, is a fairly vital and dynamic individual considering his age ... I suspect many who are much younger would be hard pressed to keep up with him. And he has a very strong appeal to a younger, idealistic demographic.

From that aspect, an older (and more wise and experienced) candidate at the head of the ticket, with a fresh young face as the VP, who can be tutored and mentored on a large variety of things - including free market economics, limited government, and the practical aspect of existence and getting things done inside the beltway and on Capitol Hill, and who could step in, in the event of his untimely demise would have broad appeal.

It would be a wise strategic move on Sarah Pailn's part (to take the vice-presidency) - it puts her on the national stage for a long and protracted period, as part of what could potentially be a hugely popular presidency (one that could indeed change the fundamental direction this country is headed), one which has a broad appeal, across traditional party lines.

She could potentially be in a very, very sweet spot for 2016.

(It would indeed be interesting to what possible justification the parties, the Republicans in particular, could come up with to try and exclude her from any political debates, as they did to Ron Paul)

It would drive the Establishment of both major parties into a tizzy.
It absolutely would - as I said before: if this occurs, expect the long knives to come out in a very big way - look around you in this thread ..... they are already out.

I do like the man as he seems genuine and right-of-center.
Well, yes .... on the one hand that is entirely true - he is so far right of center that some folks, who actually believe that they are true conservatives don't even "get it" .....

But yet, on the other hand, he isn't at all extreme as some people (who are willing to sacrifice the actual ideals and philosophy of true conservatism to meet their own personal agendas and who are often largely single-issue voters) - it is this last aspect that in particular allows Paul to draw across a broad political base, from both sides of the aisle.

He is about what America itself is about ..... and most people get it.
 
Last edited:
Top