Patterico's Pontifications

9/2/2009

Wild-Eyed Paranoia at Organizing for America

Filed under: Obama,Politics — DRJ @ 6:47 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Texas parents are joining the boycott of Barack Obama’s speech to students next Tuesday, and the Houston Independent School District has “directed principals to give parents a heads-up if they are planning lessons around Obama’s speech so parents can opt out their children.” Parents are concerned students will miss important lessons if they participate in related instructional activities or that they will be ostracized if they don’t participate.

But Obama does have his defenders:

“It’s hard to imagine anything more ridiculous than attacking the president of the United States for talking to students about the importance of getting a good education and being a good citizen,” said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which monitors public education in Texas.

“I wish our elected leaders were responsible enough to denounce this kind of wild-eyed paranoia,” Miller said. “But the problem is too many of them are actually feeding this kind of nonsense — like when the governor flirts with secessionists and State Board of Education members say the president sympathizes with terrorists.”

I feel your pain, Ms. Miller. It’s like when the official Obama website asks supporters to send out notices and wage a coordinated phone campaign against Americans exercising their First Amendment Rights:

“All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”

Now we know. Organizing for America = “wild-eyed paranoia.”

– DRJ

141 Responses to “Wild-Eyed Paranoia at Organizing for America”

  1. “It’s like when the official Obama website asks supporters to send out notices and wage a coordinated phone campaign against Americans exercising their First Amendment Rights:”

    I’m trying to figure out whether this was a user-generated content on the website or not. That makes a big difference. The heritage screenshot doesn’t have enough information to let us know. On the right it does have information related to the user-generated part of their website: my.barackobama.com

    Heritage says:

    “Update #2: Several readers have asked us whether this posting on barackobama.com was “user-generated” rather than a staff posting. From what we can tell, this may have been the case.”

    I think on this blog we’ve discussed laying blame on websites for the content submitted by users.

    imdw (16d56e)

  2. I thought I recognized the name and organization. These are the whackado’s who censor books and make sure that the contribution of women and minorities are equally represented with the ones who actually settled the country, fought the wars, died for the country.

    Sam Houston’s (led the defeat of Santa Anna and won the independence of Texas)contribution was actually secondary in the text books these people advocate to the contribution of the housewives who made quilts for the soldiers.

    I can just imagine where the Marionette President’s agenda stands on her list of priorities.

    MaaddMaaxx (b91eb0)

  3. I know this, beyond a shadow of a doubt … if Kathy Miller is involved in your child’s education, you have a right to be concerned. Supporters like that twat simply confirm the concerns of the wild-eyed kkkrazies.

    JD (274275)

  4. I think on this blog we’ve discussed laying blame on websites for the content submitted by users.
    Comment by imdw — 9/2/2009 @ 6:56 pm

    Knowing that open comments is different than being able to post material, that’s pretty dishonest. If I went to the my.barackobama.com site and tried to do the same thing, would I be able to? Of course not.

    Whether it was staff, or an authorized user, the blame falls on them and President Obama. The site bears his name after all. Next, they’ll probably try to claim the site was hacked by right-wing domestic terrorists, or some other outrageous lie to get people talking about that instead of why it was put there in the first place.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  5. imdw,

    This wasn’t a comment at Barack Obama’s website, it was an official post. The fact that the poster is a low-level minion doesn’t change the fact that s/he had posting privileges. It’s the difference between one of my posts and one of your comments except, unlike this website where I don’t speak for Patterico, the buck stops with Obama when it comes to things his agents post at his website and the actions of his appointees in his Administration.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  6. Stashiu3,

    Sorry for posting the same thing you did but at least we agree. (No surprise there.)

    DRJ (3f5471)

  7. Same timestamp DRJ, so JINX! You owe me a Coke. ;)

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  8. ” Knowing that open comments is different than being able to post material, that’s pretty dishonest. If I went to the my.barackobama.com site and tried to do the same thing, would I be able to? Of course not.”

    You can go to the website and create an account and create an event. Heritage says that people were invited to this event.

    Try it. Can you make their website have content inviting people to a big sale on truck nutz or something?

    I’m trying to find out the answer. Heritage says it may have been the case. But here we’ve already decided who to blame. Heritage says:

    “Anything under the ‘Organizing for America’ banner that is distributed en masse is accountable to those who run the President’s perpetual campaign.”

    So they’ve also found a way to wave away any distinctions between user generated content and what is on the “official obama website.” Should this be user generated content, it won’t get in the way of the narrative.

    imdw (513533)

  9. “Whether it was staff, or an authorized user, the blame falls on them and President Obama.”

    Obama doesn’t even run the thing, you know? It’s a project of the DNC.

    imdw (513533)

  10. barack’s not human
    he’s a dove

    he is Conscious
    he is Love

    and all he really needs is 2 know that u believe
    I think

    oh. Either that or the paranoia what Kathy Miller is so concerned about might just could be in direct proportion to the dirty socialist media’s hymns and exaltations what they sing for the dipshit piece of Chicago street trash what they foisted on our once great nation.

    It’s sick how Barack is using the children. What a pathetic desperate little man he is. He should leave them alone I think. When they say this is unprecedented they mean no president has ever been so desperate and grasping before.

    Apart from putting people on notice that effing with your children is very not cool it’s of such little consequence to keep your kids home that day that I don’t think I can think of any objection at all to it. Err on the side of freedom.

    I don’t think for example that you could expect someone like Allahpundit to understand what I mean by err on the side of freedom but people here are smart and unobnoxious almost all of them.

    [Rescued from the filter. — DRJ]

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  11. hi DRJ can you rescue my wayward little comment peas?

    [Absolutely, happyfeet. It’s now right above this comment. You could say they are two peas in a pod. — DRJ]

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  12. Obama runs OfA, not to mention the DNC:

    President-elect Barack Obama yesterday announced the formation of a group to continue the grass-roots engagement that was a hallmark of his presidential campaign, but lobbying now for his policy priorities in the White House.

    “As president, I will need the help of all Americans to meet the challenges that lie ahead,” Obama said in a video message e-mailed to supporters and reporters. “That’s why I’m asking people like you, who fought for change during the campaign, to continue fighting for change in your communities.”

    The new group, called Organizing for America, will be a “special project” of the Democratic National Committee, according to Obama transition spokesman Ben LaBolt, and it appears to be the primary vehicle for issue advocacy for Obama’s agenda. It will also be the keeper of Obama’s e-mail list, which has 13 million addresses.

    “President-elect Obama has laid the foundation to meet the great challenges facing our nation, but we can succeed only if we build grass-roots support for the administration’s agenda,” incoming DNC chairman Timothy M. Kaine said in a release.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  13. I’m trying to figure out whether this was a user-generated content on the website or not. That makes a big difference. The heritage screenshot doesn’t have enough information to let us know. On the right it does have information related to the user-generated part of their website: my.barackobama.com

    Heritage says:

    “Update #2: Several readers have asked us whether this posting on barackobama.com was “user-generated” rather than a staff posting. From what we can tell, this may have been the case.”

    I think on this blog we’ve discussed laying blame on websites for the content submitted by users.

    Or we could go for the easy answer, and say “flag@whitehouse.gov”, which certainly counts as “official”, and since it was from the whitehouse, by people Obama hired I would also call it “his”.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  14. imdw,

    You don’t get to assign homework. You try it and show your work, then you might have some credibility. I’d rather not have my IP associated with that site. If you can get something posted on there within 24 hours inviting people to a big sale on truck nutz, then you’ll have been proven correct. If you can’t… same old thing I guess… you pulling stuff out of thin air.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  15. The idea that Obama gets to hijack school time for his little nanny speech is annoying enough as Stephen Green points out.

    The President has better things to do than attempt to monopolize children to feed his narcissism.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  16. Obama doesn’t even run the thing, you know? It’s a project of the DNC.
    Comment by imdw — 9/2/2009 @ 7:16 pm

    Again with the dishonesty. How about quoting the rest?

    Whether it was staff, or an authorized user, the blame falls on them and President Obama. The site bears his name after all.

    Try again.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  17. I am so farking tired of imdw being either stupid, intentionally obtuse, or aggressively dishonest in every last damn comment.

    Racist terrorists

    JD (274275)

  18. JD, its just low rent, witless snark.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  19. “Obama runs OfA, not to mention the DNC:”

    According to your quote, Tim Kaine runs the DNC. Seriously this is how much you need to pin this user generated comment on obama? To say he runs OfA (which would probably be illegal) and the DNC? Why not just chalk it up to a nutcase user of the website? Because you really need this to be officially blessed? Or because you believed that once, and you can’t change your mind?

    ” Again with the dishonesty. How about quoting the rest?”

    You don’t know that it’s a project of the DNC? I mean, sure, the DNC is likely to do what Obama wants, but he doesn’t run it.

    “You try it and show your work, then you might have some credibility.”

    Some credibility? Here go search for events here:

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/search_simple?source=sidenav

    Once you find an event, compare the formatting to the screenshot on the heritage website and see where their screenshot cuts off.

    imdw (1635c7)

  20. imdw,

    Obama has run the DNC since June 2008:

    “In a major shakeup at the Democratic National Committee — and a departure from tradition — large parts of the committee’s operations are relocating to Chicago to be fully integrated with the Obama campaign.”

    DRJ (3f5471)

  21. It’s like IMDW isn’t even trying anymore…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  22. thanks DRJ … here is a link I think SPQR meant to link.

    And it’s true, what Mr. vodkapundit person says. It’s like what I said already about how Barack Obama’s creepy little child pornoganda experiment is supposed to work.

    Barack just reads his usual empty-headed babble off his prompter. Done. Then what happens is his dirty socialist media fill in the rest over the period of a week or so – looking at amazing ways our sleazey president has touched the children, how black children were especially touched and touched. Ick. But that’s the way it’s designed to work.

    Creepy.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  23. Thanks happyfeet that was my intended link.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  24. Go do imdw’s homework. Now, bitches. It has given you your orders.

    JD (274275)

  25. “Obama has run the DNC since June 2008: ”

    My god man. That was during the campaign. And notice he wasn’t Chairman. Dean was. Now, as scott jacobs has noted, it is Tim Kaine.

    Do you not know how the DNC/RNC work? You think the president gets to run them?

    imdw (9811a2)

  26. Happyfeet – There is no doubt that it will be the bad touch …

    JD (274275)

  27. I don’t know that imdw is as much a Obamapologist as he is a contrarian.

    What I know is that if the same actions were taken by a Republican president, his response would not be so mild and forgiving and filled with relativist perspective.

    Eric Blair (a88004)

  28. The president is the traditional head of his party.

    Chairmen/women of the party merely deal with the day-to-day stuff, the president sets tone/message.

    And imdw is clearly retarded. I was willing to assume he was young, but at this point the only excuse for his behavior/statements is a severe case of mental retardation.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  29. What could be possibly wrong with the President politicking before falsely imprisoned school children. I hope there’s a lot of outrage over this.

    Terry Gain (f3f8a5)

  30. imdw,

    You don’t get to assign homework. Not to me anyway. I learned that about you long ago when attempting to discuss things with you in good faith. You have no credibility with me (or many others based on the comments) and until you establish some, find another sucker to do your research, which you then dismiss. It has his name on it, he owns it… my original statement was that it was both the staff or authorized user who posted it AND President Obama… as far as I’m concerned, President Obama can own it all now. Just in your honor.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  31. Here’s a better screenshot

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19327076/2-PHONE-CALLS-ON-911-Illinois-Health-Care-Organizing-Event

    The host is someone called “like-mind”

    Still the “official Obama website ask[ing] supporters to send out notices ” ?

    imdw (9811a2)

  32. Yup. Come September 8 it’s stranger danger all over America like our little country has never seen before, JD.

    It’s unprecedented they tell me.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  33. imdw,

    You don’t read links, do you?

    DRJ (3f5471)

  34. “The president is the traditional head of his party.”

    Traditionally the RNC and DNC are run by someone who is not the president. But I do admit they are likely to do what he wants.

    “What I know is that if the same actions were taken by a Republican president, his response would not be so mild and forgiving and filled with relativist perspective.”

    If a president, republican or not, posted something this poorly edited on a website, I would indeed be unforgiving.

    imdw (803b85)

  35. Scott, this guy is just followed Teh Narrative™.

    He knows in his heart that his Leader is good and kind and clean and intelligent. So anything that looks otherwise MUST be ignored, contradicted, or subject-changed.

    All I think is “Chicago Business as Usual.” I particularly like the Boss blaming things on underlings. Over and over and over again. We even have a name for it: throwing X under the bus.

    But this guy won’t admit it, and you are right to move on (so to speak).

    He isn’t mentally retarded. This man has a choice, and he is choosing to be this way. Completely different.

    Eric Blair (a88004)

  36. No further comments could ever dream of competing with that one, happyfeet. Bravo.

    Douchenozzle of the Day is hereby presented to imdw, by unanimous consent.

    JD (274275)

  37. Do you not know how the DNC/RNC work? You think the president gets to run them?

    Comment by imdw

    I think that a policy by the DNC that did not support Obama’s agenda would last about 10 seconds. Does that help ?

    Mike K (2cf494)

  38. Traditionally the RNC and DNC are run by someone who is not the president.

    No, you ignoramous, they are chaired by someone who isn’t the president. The president is always the head of his party.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  39. It’s ok DRJ. You believed what heritage told you. You can just shift and hedge it like they do.

    imdw (803b85)

  40. Douchenozzle of the Day

    Day?

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  41. DRJ, feel free to drop the loathsome thing into moderation.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  42. “I think that a policy by the DNC that did not support Obama’s agenda would last about 10 seconds. Does that help ?”

    Well, this event did get deleted. So I guess you’re right.

    imdw (803b85)

  43. I think you all are missing the point.

    If the President’s speech on Tuesday were insparational rather than partisan for our children, then PUBLISH THE SPEECH IN ADVANCE SO WE CAN READ IT NOW! If the Whitehouse won’t do so, then it IS partisan. Why not otherwise tell us parents in advance that it’s not partisan?

    I have no objection to my child being inspired by the President. [I don't like his politics, but that's another issue.] So why won’t the Whitehouse tell me in advance??? We all know the answer.

    So my child will not be prelivedged to hear the President speak on Tuesday.

    This President has to stop injecting himself into our daily lives; but more importantly, into the lives of our children.

    Mike H. (023e3e)

  44. I can’t believe it. This imdw person actually wrote, to DRJ:

    “…You can just shift and hedge it like they do….”

    What is it with projection and these TLEs?

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Eric Blair (a88004)

  45. imdw,

    My comment links were to the Washington Post and Politico. The links in the post are to the Houston Chronicle and Heritage, but the only Heritage link was to a screenshot of Organizing for America — previously known as Obama for America — that was, is and probably always will be located at the BarackObama.com URL.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  46. I agree that the contrarian is likely a good asessment. But its douchebaggery extends well beyond that, as it has exhibited quite well here in this thread. Mental gymnastics, leaps of faith, logical contortions, and asspulls are its stock in trade. Mock and scorn, people. Point and laugh.

    JD (274275)

  47. “If the President’s speech on Tuesday were insparational rather than partisan for our children, then PUBLISH THE SPEECH IN ADVANCE SO WE CAN READ IT NOW! If the Whitehouse won’t do so, then it IS partisan. ”

    I had a boss like this once. Would come up with these “tests” like this. Either they do X, or it means they’re really intending Y! Total asshole maneuver.

    imdw (de7003)

  48. So who decided you two would part company?

    DRJ (3f5471)

  49. “The only Heritage link was to the screenshot of Organizing for America, previously known as Obama for America, that was, is and probably always will be located at the BarackObama.com URL.”

    I know DRJ. You linked to heritage hosting a screenshot of user-generated content at the barackobama.com website. They didn’t call it user generated till updated two, where they said it may have been that, but the waved away that detail. As some have done here.

    I linked to an even better screenshot of the same content so you can have more information as to whether it is user-generated or not. So what do you think? Do you think it’s user generated or not? You still characterize it as the “official Obama website ask[ing] supporters to send out notices ” even though it appears to be user generated content that admins have removed?

    imdw (de7003)

  50. So who decided you two would part company?
    Comment by DRJ — 9/2/2009 @ 8:09 pm

    I swear I was just going to ask that. Seriously. Either imdw got fired, or quit before getting fired. Toss-up as to which it was.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  51. Well, to hear imdw tell the tale…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  52. I got a better job.

    imdw (de7003)

  53. imdw, It is Obama’s content. His alone and he alone is responsible for it being there. His decision. In your honor.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  54. Astrotwoofing pays about $33K/year.

    JD (274275)

  55. imdw,

    OfA does not guarantee the accuracy of information posted on its website and the moderators have taken that post down. Good for them. But OfA isn’t a civilian blog. It’s the President’s organizing website and now that Obama is President, he and his Administration are responsible for what people post in his name at a website that bears his name. If they can’t stand the heat, they need to get out of the kitchen require that posts be moderated. Is that inconvenient? Sure, but that’s the breaks when you are the President of the United States.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  56. This one made me aspirate a root beer:

    “…Total asshole maneuver….”

    Ironic self-projection, thy name is imdw.

    Amazing.

    Eric Blair (a88004)

  57. “It’s the President’s organizing website and now that Obama is President, he and his Administration are responsible for what people post in his name at a website that bears his name.”

    I see why this thinking is so attractive to you, as that is probably why this was taken down. It looks bad, and is not the kind of event the DNC or its agents want to have run off their website.

    But that doesn’t change the fact that it is user generated content — posted by that user “like-mind” and under their name. Similar to how you post as DRJ on patterico’s blog. Actually even more distance exists on the OfA site — as anyone can get an OfA account and make events which people think are ‘official.’ But not everyone is a guest poster here.

    We have discussed on this blog (though I think it was patterico that posted this stuff, not a guest poster) the differences between was is posted by users on say, Bill O’reilly’s website and what is posted by Bill O’reilly and his agents, all under his URL and name. Have you read those posts? That might help you sort out what the objection to your line of thinking is.

    imdw (f74515)

  58. We should be letting these people speak directly to our children, and make decisions about our healthcare. No thanks.

    JD (274275)

  59. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is user generated content — posted by that user “like-mind” and under their name. Similar to how you post as DRJ on patterico’s blog. Actually even more distance exists on the OfA site — as anyone can get an OfA account and make events which people think are ‘official.’
    Comment by imdw — 9/2/2009 @ 8:29 pm

    Prove it. You still have about 23 hours to get your “truck nutz” aired.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  60. DRJ, more seriously, this is the Chicago Way. Play the “above it all” leader, while accepting no blame for “underlings.”

    Real leaders take full responsibility for the actions of her or his staff. Heck, this President even blames things on TelePrompters from time to time.

    But so long as the Faithful keep burnishing his image, he thinks all is well. As the polls drift slowly down.

    As another poster or renown once wrote: let it land. I wonder where those polls will end up?

    We’ll see.

    Eric Blair (a88004)

  61. ” Prove it. You still have about 23 hours to get your “truck nutz” aired.”

    But that boss wasn’t this much of a moronic asshole.

    imdw (7ae49a)

  62. At best this is very creepy. Report to the White House if something is “fishy.”

    Now a brown shirt mobilization of the youth. Very creepy.

    Alta Bob (e53677)

  63. Ah, now he is getting nasty. Stashiu, I think you hit a nerve.

    Eric Blair (a88004)

  64. But that boss wasn’t this much of a moronic asshole.
    Comment by imdw — 9/2/2009 @ 8:34 pm

    Is that really something you want to start imdw?

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  65. Imdw is going for Douchenozzle of the Week. It is your assertion/asspull that anyone can do that. Your words. Your phrase. Your construct. Stashiu called you on it. Now it is your burden of proof. You like to flip that and make it incumbent on others to do the work for you. And, you are a Massengill heir, who advocates for the Bad Touch.

    JD (274275)

  66. Apparently Utah is pulling a Texas in this, too.

    Utah school districts are taking precautions.

    Granite, Jordan, Salt Lake City and Davis districts are sending letters to principals saying that if they plan to broadcast the speech, they should warn parents and provide alternate activities for students who don’t want to watch it. Canyons is sending home letters to parents today along with waivers they can sign if they don’t want their children to watch the speech. Canyons only plans to show the live speech to secondary students because of district-wide testing in the elementary schools, said Jennifer Toomer-Cook, district spokeswoman.

    One parent addressed what I find particularly disturbing about the entire matter – that of making pledges about what they may not understand and/or that their parents object to.

    Suzanne Walker, Midvale Elementary PTA president, said Obama’s address doesn’t worry her. But she says last week’s “I Pledge” video exemplifies why parents should be involved in schools.

    “I agree with a lot of what Obama has planned. But asking my kids to pledge and do things that I don’t support, I have a problem with that,” Walker said.

    Dana (863a65)

  67. It’s ok stash. The website has links to ‘create an account’ and ‘host an event.’ But till I do it just like you say, you won’t believe it. So I guess you won’t. I think DRJ has changed their mind, but won’t really come out and say it or edit the post. You though, you won’t change your mind till your little hurdle is jumped. That’s a moronic asshole maneuver, and that’s ok.

    imdw (5bb4d0)

  68. No imdw, until you do it just like you said, I won’t believe it. There’s a difference. Once more, are you sure you want to start that?

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  69. JD, take a look at some of hte events, and tell me whether you think they’re user generated or not. And take a look at this page:

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/create?source=sidenav

    “Anyone can create an event. It’s a quick and easy way to get other people involved in the things you care about. To get started, just fill out the form below.”

    C’mmon. You’re getting desperate here. The whole point of it is to be a user generated site. And of course mods will delete things.

    imdw (b62539)

  70. “No imdw, until you do it just like you said, I won’t believe it”

    I know. Though to get technical, ‘just like I said’ was to ask if you would do it. Not to say that I could. Like I said. You don’t have to believe the content on the site is user generated. You can hang on to this little nugget i’ve given you, and keep on believing that Obama invented this event.

    imdw (b62539)

  71. Your burden of proof, not ours. But typical of you.

    JD (274275)

  72. Well, as imbw wrote, someone IS certainly getting desperate. Cue Inigo Montoya, please.

    Eric Blair (12ebb1)

  73. imdw,

    You frequently assign things for others to do. I merely turned it around and said you should prove it through your own efforts. How does that justify you calling me a moronic asshole (twice)? Do you stand by that, without reservation?

    If you don’t want to prove your assertion, despite how easy you claim it is, that’s fine. I will continue to disbelieve you. But whether it was “user-generated” or not, President Obama owns it. In your honor.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  74. If it’s my burden of proof — because I used it as an example, I guess — why does it matter to you? What does ‘anyone can create an event’ mean to you? Does that meet your burden of proof? Or are you stuck on what you’ve decided is mine?

    See, because I’m convinced. I think DRJ is too. Are you? Or are you just playing hard to get like stash because it is user-generated content that was removed by an admin?

    imdw (490521)

  75. “I merely turned it around and said you should prove it through your own efforts.”

    I didn’t know it was user generated at first. So I went out and found that that this was hosted by a user account, that onecan sign up for an account, and how ‘anyone can make an event.’ Those were my efforts. It’s ok if you don’t want to believe this. I guess the website will remain not user generated, for you.

    “But whether it was “user-generated” or not, President Obama owns it”

    See, that’s another moronic one, and really shows what I could tell when you first set your little test: it doesn’t even matter if it is met. Lucy always removes the football.

    imdw (490521)

  76. Stop speaking for me, imdw. And are you sure anyone can post whatever they want at OfA? Here’s what the Terms of Service provides:

    We have the right, in our sole discretion, to edit, refuse to post or remove any material submitted to or posted on our Website including, but not limited to, material that is unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, graphic, or otherwise objectionable.

    It sounds to me as if the posts are moderated. If they don’t moderate and anyone can post whatever they want, why else would OfA have the right to “refuse to post” an author’s content?

    DRJ (3f5471)

  77. It is a site that is run by Barcky, for Barcky. But again, we know that people just get thrown under the back of the bus with Teh One.

    JD (274275)

  78. imdw, again you leave out the full quote. “In your honor.” As far as it being moronic, you’re the one who proposed it as proof.

    Now, are you standing by, without reservation, what you called me?

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  79. These are the people that want to be in charge of your healthcare, and they wonder why a majority of Americans don’t want that.

    JD (274275)

  80. DRJ,

    imdw is convinced because he wants to be, yet is unwilling to conduct his “easy” experiment to prove he is right. I believe you’re right and he’s wrong. He could easily prove his assertion by doing what he wanted someone else to do, but he refuses and begins name-calling. As EB said earlier, I seem to have touched a nerve. I contend he pulled it out of thin air and can’t back it up, although I will readily admit I was wrong if he can accomplish his own “easy” proof.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  81. “It sounds to me as if the posts are moderated. If they don’t moderate and anyone can post whatever they want, why else would OfA have the right to “refuse to post” an author’s content?”

    So they can ban people and “refuse to post” any more of their content. Of course they edit their site. Of course they ban people from it. That still makes it user-generated content. And of course they’re going to remove events they don’t like. That’s what they officially do.

    Face it. This was a user post and it got removed.

    “As far as it being moronic, you’re the one who proposed it as proof.”

    What’s moronic is you thinking it is the only proof simply because I mentioned it. I’ve also mentioned other reasons why this is user-generated content, but then again, you said that doesn’t matter.

    imdw (b62539)

  82. Here’s how I see things flowing:

    imdw introduces a postulate.
    imdw declares said postulate a definition, thereby skipping straight past experiment and theory stages.
    imdw demands others do his work for him (a la Teddy).
    Others demand empirical evidence from imdw.
    imdw refuses and doubles down on “imdw postulate == definition” mantra.
    Others say “imdw, prove your postulate.”
    imdw says “no, you people prove my postulate for me.”

    Is there anything I missed?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  83. imdw,

    I’m not convinced that what you say is correct but if it is, I reiterate what I said earlier: It’s the President’s organizing website and now that Obama is President, he and his Administration are responsible for what people post in his name at a website that bears his name.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  84. What’s moronic is you thinking it is the only proof simply because I mentioned it. I’ve also mentioned other reasons why this is user-generated content, but then again, you said that doesn’t matter.
    Comment by imdw — 9/2/2009 @ 9:31 pm

    So much wrong with this. Let’s see… I didn’t say it was the only proof. It was the one you said you wanted from someone else, why isn’t it good enough for you to do yourself? I don’t accept your other reasons because you have no credibility and you’ve made assumptions that I don’t accept on your word. Finally, I never said it didn’t matter. You do this kind of thing all the time, I don’t understand how you can be frustrated by it.

    Do you stand by what you called me, without reservation? You still haven’t answered.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  85. Hey, stash, could you tell me where morons like you live? I would very much love to move there and be enlightened by morons like you on a day-to-day basis.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  86. “It’s the President’s organizing website and now that Obama is President, he and his Administration are responsible for what people post in his name at a website that bears his name.”

    Yeah that’s what I advised you to do above:

    “It’s ok DRJ. You believed what heritage told you. You can just shift and hedge it like they do.”

    [note: fished from spam filter]

    imdw (50eb29)

  87. Hey, stash, could you tell me where morons like you live?
    Comment by John Hitchcock — 9/2/2009 @ 9:45 pm

    Nowhere special JH, but I’m thinking of moving now. ;)

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  88. “Finally, I never said it didn’t matter.”

    Oh I see. You said “President Obama owns it. In your honor.” Because THAT’s what matters.

    “Do you stand by what you called me, without reservation? You still haven’t answered.”

    Is anthony bourdain on your TV or something?

    imdw (5de326)

  89. imdw,

    No, “In your honor” means that while I originally believed that responsibility was shared between the site admins, the poster (whether staff or “user-generated”), and President Obama, you were being so dishonest that President Obama should have full responsibility based on your efforts.

    I don’t get cable, so I don’t know who anthony bourdain is. You still haven’t answered. I am just drawing attention to that until you do. Why is that a problem? Don’t you think you should own your words? Either you stand by them or you don’t. Should be easy.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  90. Until Obama comes out and specifically condemns this posting in the strongest possible terms, he owns it. Until he states that anyone who would write this does not belong in his party or anywhere near it then he needs to be considered as in total support of this position.

    And he will not, any more than he will be honest about the comments of Van Jones or Jerimiah Wright.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  91. I hope Mr Hitchcock was kidding.

    Imdw has an excuse. It’s brain is as pickled as Kennedy’s liver.

    JD (274275)

  92. imdw,

    You are making (one assumes) a claim that user-generated content has no relation to the official policy of the administration. Even though it is hosted on a site, which you must agree, that administration officials monitor fairly closely.

    Very well.

    Show that the particular page was not generated by any individual in the administration, a stooge, a J-list devotee or ( Heavens forfend) the big guy himself.

    Puppets of the sock variety are not tremendously uncommon, you know. With your special knowledge and certainty of the presumed malefactor, you could enlighten us all.

    Do so, or stop spinning hypotheticals.

    This is, naturally, in response to your demand proof of counter-factual evidence from everybody else.

    Prove it.

    Show your work.

    Uncle Pinky (e4d7c2)

  93. JD,

    John Hitchcock was absolutely kidding. I have great respect for him and he is welcome to have me as the subject of his satire anytime. His joking was a jab at imdw, not me.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  94. I’m flabbergasted to see that imdw can write comments consisting of more than two sentences when she wants to. Her panties must really be in a bunch over this one.

    I goes illustrate the deliberate trolling style of her regular commenting, though. Real moronic asshole maneuvering there, imdw. For shame.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  95. JD – Ted Kennedy has been sober for a week now!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  96. “No, “In your honor” means that while I originally believed that responsibility was shared between the site admins, the poster (whether staff or “user-generated”), and President Obama, you were being so dishonest that President Obama should have full responsibility based on your efforts.”

    And that’s being a moronic asshole. Face it guy, the site says ‘anyone can create an event.’ Dishonest is those who think the president is responsible for something some idiot puts on the internet. There’s a whole lot the president is responsible for. But this? That’s a stretch.

    “You are making (one assumes) a claim that user-generated content has no relation to the official policy of the administration. Even though it is hosted on a site, which you must agree, that administration officials monitor fairly closely.”

    I actually do not know how closely OfA or the administration monitor the site. I’m guessing the administration has other more important things to think about. Not the least of which would be their own websites.

    “Show that the particular page was not generated by any individual in the administration, a stooge, a J-list devotee or ( Heavens forfend) the big guy himself.”

    Uncle Pinky knows how to play the game, but is a bit slow at it.

    [note: fished from spam filter]

    imdw (fae129)

  97. And then there’s this little nugget where ‘the stars shine bright, and too the right’- Texas State Law Requires Teaching Of Bible In Public School – source, stoptheaclu.com, 8/17/09. Perhaps Gov. Perry is on to something after all fer y’all. Secede.

    [Here’s a link for DCSCA’s off-topic story. And the word is spelled “for” not “fer.” — DRJ]

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  98. This is the first half of the message I got today from Mitch Stewart at barackobama.com on behalf of Organizing for America:

    “Opponents of health insurance reform have power. Some reap huge profits from the status quo. Others take large campaign contributions from those who profit.

    So they’ll do anything to keep the current system in place. When fact-based arguments don’t work, they attack President Obama with outlandish lies about a government takeover and euthanizing the elderly. And once that doesn’t work, they’ll go even further.

    We don’t know what they’ll do next. What we do know is that we’ll have to be prepared for anything — ready to set the record straight, ready to make sure the media and Congress see the overwhelming support for reform, and ready to pass real reform this year.

    But we’ll need the resources to do it — to pay for rapid-response ads in key districts and states, organizers to put together large rallies and grassroots events throughout the country, and the best technology available to empower volunteers — all at a moment’s notice. Please chip in $5 or more to help us pass real reform, this year.”

    daleyrocks (718861)

  99. imdw,

    You say the DNC is responsible for the site. President Obama is the leader of his party. At least, that is what C-span says. The site bears his name, is run by the organization he leads, and requires registration before posting. I think you’re wrong about being able to post without review and that you know it, or strongly suspect it. That’s why you won’t put it to the test you yourself suggested. You said more than once that it was “easy”. I again invite you to prove it.

    Arguing by assertion proves nothing. You haven’t provided a definitive link (not just my opinion), nor have you conducted your “easy” experiment which would absolutely prove you correct. It’s easy to see why… you can’t.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  100. I dunno, stash. French fries (pommes frites) are okay on occasion but I’m not interested in eating snails. So if you move there, I’m gonna have to passe on that one.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  101. How is #97 not threadjacking troll-action?

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  102. #30 — Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/2/2009 @ 7:48 pm

    imdw,

    You don’t get to assign homework. Not to me anyway. I learned that about you long ago when attempting to discuss things with you in good faith. You have no credibility with me (or many others based on the comments) and until you establish some, find another sucker to do your research, which you then dismiss.

    That is exactly what happened to me; good call Stashiu3 (you know this one well) !!

    Pons Asinorum (39c941)

  103. #36 — Comment by JD — 9/2/2009 @ 7:54 pm

    Douchenozzle of the Day is hereby presented to imdw, by unanimous consent.

    Congrats imdw; you are truly deserving ! (I guess all that practice finally paid-off).

    PS: Nice touch — when you failed to prove your assertion, you just start name-calling; a classic Obama tactic — he would be so proud of you (except for the fact that you are getting spanked).

    Pons Asinorum (39c941)

  104. And, JD, you should know me better than that. While my wit is obtuse and can be mistakenly read, the body of my work is very clear. I am very much the racist, mysogynistic, homophobic, Obama-phobic, reactionary, anti-progress type who frequents echo-chambers such as this evil site.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  105. Uncle Pinky knows how to play the game, but is a bit slow at it.

    Uncle Pinky also has a nasty end of Summer cold, and less time than he would prefer. He does, however, regret any inconvenience that his inexplicable lacunae in response time has caused your person.

    Was there an answer in your response? A proof? Any particular reason to (golfwise) handicap the game?

    Uncle Pinky suspects that you are invested, somewhat, in a game. There is a frivolity to your comments (not posts, peeve of mine which is somewhat relevant) that indicates the type of behavior that would make Uncle Pinky call for the third billy-goat.

    Uncle Pinky is about to slip into the blessed Nepenthe of NyQuill, but does question your inadequate response to his queries. The question ( not Vic Sage, in this instance) does remain; who is the author of this foolishness? You maintain that it is some anonymous radical ( would Pelosi call Him/Her a domestic terrorist? Oops that wasn’t her . She might call them a Nazi though.) who wrote an abysmally stupid opinion piece/call to action.

    You also seem to believe that no individual connected with the current administration would be so stupid as to allow their true agenda to be known

    Uncle Pinky finds this somewhat less than comforting.

    Uncle Pinky (e4d7c2)

  106. I am skeptical that a group of people that are so immune from the responsibility of accurately monitoring a website can be trusted to ensure compliance with the life and death decisions necessary in providing health care.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  107. So if you move there, I’m gonna have to passe on that one.
    Comment by John Hitchcock — 9/2/2009 @ 11:00 pm

    Well-played Sir, well-played. ;)

    EB, ignore him until he sobers up… IOW, forever.

    Pons Asinorum,
    imdw thinks he’s smarter than any ‘ole “wingnut”. He actually believes that he’s never lost an argument here and holds his own. He invites the abuse by being so dishonest, as surely as if he was saying, “Thank you Sir, may I have another”, never realizing that they are spanks and not dollar bills. I won’t accommodate his request for abuse anymore though, if only to demonstrate to him that you can disagree without name-calling or lying. The sad thing is, the lesson will continue to be lost on him, but as I’ve told JD… Hope springs eternal. One day he’ll realize how fair I am to him.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  108. Do we really need the cache on at midnight?

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  109. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt to imdw when reading this thread again this morning, and after a second read, he/she/it is still a mendoucheous twatwaffle.

    Did DSCSA wake up from a bender, puke out a comment, and then immediately pass out again?

    JD (a67da8)

  110. “You say the DNC is responsible for the site.”

    Not just me. The site says the DNC is responsible. It was formerly a project of Obama’s campaign and it was absorbed by the DNC.

    “A proof?”

    There is none. You and stash don’t think this was user generated content. That’s ok.

    “Arguing by assertion proves nothing. You haven’t provided a definitive link (not just my opinion), nor have you conducted your “easy” experiment which would absolutely prove you correct. It’s easy to see why… you can’t.”

    I’m not just asserting things though. I’m showing you the website. And note, I didn’t say it was easy. I quoted the website saying:

    “Anyone can create an event. It’s a quick and easy way to get other people involved in the things you care about. To get started, just fill out the form below.”

    That’s the kind of evidence I’m providing. The kind that has convinced me. Not just assertion. I’m showing you things.

    But like I said, it don’t matter. Heritage and DRJ found their out by saying the president is responsible for what someone posts on this website and then an official admin deletes. You will too.

    imdw (d54c8c)

  111. See, even after it wakes up, it is still just. Being the same old. I guess it is aiming for back-to-back Douchenozzle of the Day awards.

    JD (ac4a62)

  112. “Anyone can create an event”

    Anyone can be president in this country.

    Convince us. Create one. Link it. Then pull it down.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  113. You can go to the website and create an account and create an event. Heritage says that people were invited to this event.
    Try it. Can you make their website have content inviting people to a big sale on truck nutz or something?
    Comment by imdw — 9/2/2009 @ 7:14 pm

    That was your challenge. You stated it could be done. You quoted the site as saying it was easy. If you’re taking their words as authoritative on what happened, it’s reasonable to expect you accept their characterization of how difficult the process is, if you’re not a hypocrite or something.

    I’m saying you cannot just go to the website and create an account and create an event and get it published in that manner. I’m saying you’re wrong and they will not allow it to post because they will review it before it reaches the site. If you try to create an event inviting people to a big sale on truck nutz, it will never get posted because they exercise more control than you assert, but have not proven.

    If the challenge was reasonable for you to make, it should be reasonable for you to take. I contend you are wrong or are willfully lying, but will gladly admit I was wrong if you can do what you say can be done. But you won’t, because you know you can’t. You should either admit it, or prove your assertions by meeting your own challenge. Get it through your head. I didn’t make this up, you did. You just wanted someone else to do the work to prove you right or wrong as you usually do. When you’re proven wrong, you ignore it and talk about something else. Do you see now why people get upset with you?

    Try it and see what happens. Then, come back and report it honestly or show you were successful. You want to be taken seriously? Try doing just one thing that you so casually assign others to do.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  114. Racists

    JD (00684b)

  115. After reading through the tedious comments on this thread and commiserating with you good people flailing away at the grandiose obtuse that is imdw … and watching him make the same argument over and over and over again … I think I’ve had a pot smoking experience.

    Not a dreamy THC high, mind you, but a moment that reflected the long lost days of my misspent youth when millions of my brain cells screamed and died, albeit blissfully numb.

    The horror … The horror …

    BJTexs (a2cb5a)

  116. Lost in the whole irrelevancy over a website posting (a website that is apparently either poorly moderated by the administration or is serving as a vehicle for commie-style agit-prop) is the sheer ridiculousness of Obama doing a national “Address to Students” in the first place.

    Lefties are defending him based on the speculation that he’s going to tell students that learning and education are important and that they should stick with it. 1) He is being praised to the skies by the left for telling students something that is blatantly flipping obvious; and 2) it’s yet another example of government officials trying to take over an aspect of children’s education that should be handled by parents.

    The man’s deep-seated need to constantly be in front of a camera making a speech is an addiction. He should get Hugo Chavez to set up a daily “Alo, Presidente” TV show for him and just get it over with. He’ll be able to do his Chicago street-trash soliloquies a lot easier that way.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  117. Staying in school and getting an education is unpatriotic.

    Ignorance is Strength.

    David Ehrenstein (2550d9)

  118. TOTUS has the whole thing nailed:

    “The program will go like this: after the students sing Big Guy’s song, he will talk to them about the importance of health care and how if we don’t have universal, government-managed care, all of their parents will die and the kids won’t have any candy or allowance. This isn’t a scare tactic. It’s an age-appropriate and verifiable fact from the Office of Management and Budget. And just to perfectly clear, this won’t come off as overly threatening, because Elmo will be sitting on Big Guy’s desk signing the speech.”

    MTF (17058c)

  119. Becuase we all know telling kids to stay in school is BAD! BAD! BAD!

    And becuase no other president has dared – dared, I say – address students!

    For homework you can all look up the definition of ‘brouhaha’.

    JEA (0ccd61)

  120. I pledge allegiance to President Obama, and vow to write letters about what I can do to help him succeed with his dirty little socialisms.

    JD (14b6c9)

  121. Have I got it right: O’s website isn’t O’s responsibility and Rush Limbaugh runs the Republican Party?

    EBJ (2fd7f7)

  122. Heh. Well said, EBJ.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  123. JEA has the transcript but isn’t sharing. Timeout!

    EBJ (2fd7f7)

  124. DRJ- The hilarious irony of zealous, reactionary parents in Texas (or any place else for that matter) boycotting a brief, scholastic pep talk from the President of the United States, while making mandatory Bible study state law in Texas public schools for the scholastic year, is inescapable.

    And then there’s that broadcast by Dubya to the youth of America to donate a dollar for kids in Afghanistan. (source- http://www.edweek.org) Shades of Soupy Sales -source,www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Soupy_Sales.

    And that 1986 Reagan indoctrination speech where he spoke pointedly to school kids who saw Challenger blow up while sitting in class. Bad Ronnie telling kids to persevere in the face of catastrophic adversity!

    Kids! Rock ‘n roll is evil, too! Good golly, Miss Molly!

    “It’s hard to imagine anything more ridiculous than attacking the president of the United States for talking to students about the importance of getting a good education and being a good citizen,” said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which monitors public education in Texas.

    “I wish our elected leaders were responsible enough to denounce this kind of wild-eyed paranoia,” Miller said. “But the problem is too many of them are actually feeding this kind of nonsense — like when the governor flirts with secessionists and State Board of Education members say the president sympathizes with terrorists.”

    Bravo, Ms. Miller.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  125. Does it ever quit yammering about Nixon and Reagan while claiming others are living in the past? And the copy and paste wall o’texts are getting kind of tiresome, IMP.

    JD (f4934f)

  126. DRSCA misses the fact that a lot of voters in this country are beginning to see that this President is dedicated to lying and disseminating in order to get what he wants.

    They simply don’t trust Obama to not make his talk to schoolkids political, as he has managed to politicize just about everything else.

    Trust is lacking.

    BJTexs (a2cb5a)

  127. “It’s hard to imagine anything more ridiculous than attacking the president of the United States for talking to students about the importance of getting a good education and being a good citizen,” said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which monitors public education in Texas.

    So Ms. Miller wants to praise Obama for pointing out something that’s been self-explanatory and obvious since the dawn of time? What’s her next big idea, gold stars instead of grades for all students?

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  128. “I’m saying you cannot just go to the website and create an account and create an event and get it published in that manner.”

    And the evidence that you have for this is….that I don’t do it? So if I had never said ‘try it’, you’d have no evidence at all? Meanwhile, my evidence is that, well, a user created this posting, and the website says ‘anyone can create an event.’

    But it doesn’t really matter right? because you and DRJ have decided that it is Obama’s responsibility what some user puts on this website. Do you remember these threads here:

    http://patterico.com/2009/05/28/bill-oreilly-hypocrite/

    and

    http://patterico.com/2009/05/27/smear-bill-oreilly-takes-silly-hot-air-comment-and-calls-it-blog-posting/

    “I didn’t make this up, you did. You just wanted someone else to do the work to prove you right or wrong as you usually do. ”

    You know. I did go and do work digging up evidence that this was a user posting. If you’re still incredulous, there’s one last thing you can do. Me? I’m convinced.

    imdw (017d51)

  129. imdw – Please review the difference between “COMMENTS” (which may be specifically unmoderated) and “POSTS” (which on this Obama run site the Terms of Service state will be moderated.)

    This is strictly Obama’s issue and his position. Until he personally repudiates this it is his, written by his people and published under his name, by him, for him.

    The scary part is that the people who put this out are so far in the tank they do not even realize how bad it looks.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  130. imdw – I will have to learn to read your complete comment before I reply.

    Your last was, “You know. I did go and do work digging up evidence that this was a user posting. If you’re still incredulous, there’s one last thing you can do. Me? I’m convinced.”

    Every thing you said here is a lie. You have shown NO evidence that this was a user posting. You HAVE speculated that it MIGHT be a user post. You have not produced even one iota of evidence that this is a user post.

    The people who run this web site (who all work for Obama) could show the IP that published this right now. They have is in thier power to prove it one way or another. Have they? Will they?

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  131. Oh, this is funny:

    “I did go and do work digging up evidence that this was a user posting.”

    Another version of “I work here is done.”

    To quote him: ” Me? I’m convinced.”

    So are a number of other posters here, about his line of argument.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  132. As for DCSCA, keep in mind the long list of silly lies about his own greatness in history. I’m starting to think that the guy is certifiable. And I believe he has stated before that he doesn’t have health insurance (I hope he does, actually).

    But if he doesn’t, that might explain some of his endless silliness on this topic, and why he reveres his Fearless Leader.

    Who, by the way, does not support manned space flight. Watching that cause DCSCA’s head to explode will be an experience in the coming months.

    But no worries. He’ll find a way to blame it on GWB, while explaining how he personally warned von Braun about the coming crisis in his college dorm.

    If that was the timeline, anyway.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  133. Eric – I’m starting to think that the guy is certifiable.

    Also, it’s starting to look like OJ killed those two people, and that Joseph Stalin wasn’t really interested in ‘the little guy’.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  134. Yeah, I know, Apogee. But many of his ilk who post here are playing contrarian games, to speak “Troot to Powder.” Which is fine, a game. I think that this guy has issues.

    The snobbery he displays (while, amazingly, calling other people condescending) is pretty evident. The snide comments about Texans above is typical—he likes to see how close he can get to insulting the hosts without getting put back in moderation (and when called on, will deny any such intention).

    Not your typical pot-huffing undergrad gamester.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  135. “I did go and do work digging up evidence that this was a user posting.”

    Eric – We also went over this even if you accept that line of reasoning. Who was the user? Prove it wasn’t an administration flunky. Circles, endless circles.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  136. #132- Rest easy. Condescension and ‘wild-eyed paranoia’ may very well be covered when the Obama Administration passes health care reform.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  137. Actually, terminal diseases will be covered by a suggestion to buy generic aspirin-like substances to ease your journey into the afterlife.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  138. “Condescension and ‘wild-eyed paranoia’ may very well be covered when the Obama Administration passes health care reform.”

    DCSCA – Help may be at hand for you at last!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  139. You know what is funny about DCSCA?

    Yeah, I know: not much.

    But actually, the fact that he repeats that silly business over and over again….well, the whole conceit of this silly pretentious prat calling anyone at all condescending is actually funny.

    I’ve always wondered if the fellow is a performance artist, or a trollbot.

    Maybe he is angling for coverage for this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythomania

    But what else is knew with this guy? Not much.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  140. Organizing for America = “wild-eyed paranoia.”

    Obama is generally an ultra-liberal, a tricky SOB who cavorted with a “goddamn-America” extremist along the lines of Jeremiah Wright for something like 20 years.

    Nothing paranoid about assuming the guy currently in the White House and those around him are in love with ultra-liberal thinking, ultra-liberal preferences, ultra-liberal policymaking.

    When I consider the dragged-out, cynical approach of Obama and his fellow leftists to the small, put-upon nation of Honduras, I think the only people who are paranoid are the ones who believe their and Obama’s humanity and compassion — actually supposed humanity and compassion — are being stymied and attacked.

    Mark (411533)

  141. [...] the way, I blogged about Ms. Martin [...]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Silly Stuff (Updated) (e4ab32)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5175 secs.