Obama Wants Federal Contractors to Pay Their Taxes
[Guest post by DRJ]
From TaxProf via the Instapundit:
WITHOUT A HINT OF IRONY: President Obama Blocks ‘Tax Cheats’ From Government Work.
“President Obama today issued a presidential memorandum directing the Office of Management and Budget, the Treasury Department, and other federal agencies to block contractors who are delinquent on their taxes from receiving new government contracts. The memorandum also directs the IRS to review the accuracy of companies’ tax delinquency claims and asks Congress to enact enforecement [sic] tools.”
The Presidential memorandum covers entities that are delinquent in paying their taxes so it seems to me the Administration is banning deadbeats. Cheats may still be fine.
— DRJ
Maybe the guy doesn’t define the word “hypocrite” the way we do.
Or just: “…that’s different™,,,”
Eric Blair (20b3a8) — 1/20/2010 @ 6:05 pmUn.Frackin.Believable.
Pleasepleaseplease let him put Timmy (akaTurboTaxNoob) Geithner in charge of collecting those taxes personally. Please!!!! I want Rangel to accompany him.
Vivian Louise (643333) — 1/20/2010 @ 6:08 pmThis takes tone deaf to new heights.
These clowns are really unbelievable.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/20/2010 @ 6:08 pmThe good man has huge brass balls.
Old Coot (d2bd0f) — 1/20/2010 @ 6:36 pmGee, and everyone warned against calling him “arrogant”, because that’s perceived to be a racist code-word for “uppity”.
Well, sorry, but things like this are inescapable displays of arrogance. He isn’t tone-deaf; he just doesn’t give a shit!
Icy Texan (01c224) — 1/20/2010 @ 6:36 pmNot brass balls, just the classic definition of chutzpah.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/20/2010 @ 6:47 pmObama will find a contractor feeding people in Haiti that owes $10 in back taxes and cut them off.
Then he’ll blame it on Bush & Cheney both being truck drivers.
MU789 (514c52) — 1/20/2010 @ 6:52 pmHe was able to nominate all the tax cheats before he was against tax cheats. He was against surges before he was for surges. He was for lying and still lies.
highpockets (bb65bc) — 1/20/2010 @ 7:11 pmSo anyone think this shouldn’t be done?
imdw (c5488f) — 1/20/2010 @ 7:19 pmEveryone thinks it should be done … except Obama, who puts them in his Cabinet.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/20/2010 @ 7:26 pmimdw, anyone think leaders shouldn’t make rules they happily break, pointing out clearly that the laws are for the little people and they are above the law?
Hell yeah, pretty much everyone I know is against this administration’s position on tax enforcement. Oh, you mean just this little bit of the policy right here? Of course not. But then, you are once again playing a game.
Why is this special policy even needed? If democrat big wigs were consistently forced to obey the tax laws, paying the full penalty and fired from serving the treasury as soon as such a failure was identified, I don’t think they’d need a special policy.
It’s kinda like having a special speed limit sign right after the normal ones saying that “Attention, for you guys in Japanese cars, we REALLY enforce the speed limit of 55 mph”
The special policy underlines the me not thee attitude.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2010 @ 7:28 pmI’ve worked for federal as well as state contractors, and believe me, government agencies rank right up there with the worst deadbeats. I don’t support anyone skipping their tax bill, but there are a whole lot of folks doing business with the government that take a bit hit waiting for payment. This looks like another pseudo-populist gimmick to assuage the One’s sagging political fortunes to me.
trentk269 (3f3db7) — 1/20/2010 @ 7:34 pmDoes this mean that Medicaid might start paying doctor’s bills in less than two years ?
MIke K (2cf494) — 1/20/2010 @ 7:36 pmI believe Acorn is delinquent in payroll and other taxes in every story I’ve read.
j.pickens (8b5ad5) — 1/20/2010 @ 7:40 pmI know for sure the LA and MD branches are delinquent.
So, is Acorn funding off again, since Holder “reinterpreted” the congressional blockage to reinstate funding?
pseudo-populist gimmick to assuage the One’s sagging political fortunes
Comment by trentk269
You have a gift with language. But it’s amazing he didn’t realize this would help prolong the narrative about the man running the IRS being a blatant tax cheat. It’s about trust. What if a huge democrat lobbyist becomes or is related to a federal contractor. Will they really be held up to this rule? Of course not. We’ve seen proof that the ruling class can skirt any of these laws. Making more rules they will never enforce equally is just a trick.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2010 @ 7:46 pmLets go a bit further and deny organizations whose employees have been indicted from getting any federal money.
imdw (c5488f) — 1/20/2010 @ 7:47 pmLets go a bit further and deny organizations whose employees have been indicted from getting any federal money.
Starting with the United States Congress?
Subotai (a878b1) — 1/20/2010 @ 7:53 pmUm. imdw? Didn’t you get schooled enough for one day, with your pitiful comments about majority rule that you don’t respect when your nutbag ideas are in the minority?
Such a flippin’ partisan hypocrite. Couldn’t you just, well, go somewhere for a couple of days rather than sourly scratch your bitter mental hemorrhoids here? Maybe you won’t be so completely grumpy then.
Eric Blair (20b3a8) — 1/20/2010 @ 7:54 pmEric Blair,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 1/20/2010 @ 8:00 pmNow have some sympathy for imdw. It has to meet the quota or no check from Axelrod.
“Um. imdw? Didn’t you get schooled enough for one day, with your pitiful comments about majority rule that you don’t respect when your nutbag ideas are in the minority?”
Majority rule isn’t what the founders wanted.
“Starting with the United States Congress?”
I know one got indicted and lost his leadership post. But that’s not enough for you is it?
imdw (f7b257) — 1/20/2010 @ 8:06 pmI don’t even know what #16 is supposed to mean.
imdw has learned not to actually make his arguments anymore. Just some conclusion-less snarky question that takes some strange leap of faith, or some half baked vague criticism.
This is the best imdw has when we point out the Obama administration allows tax cheats and criminals to run the treasury? That’s right, imdw, you don’t have to back up your claims if you don’t actually claim anything. Glad we all agree that tax cheats and those who abide them should have no place in the administration
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2010 @ 8:12 pmimdw, take your discussion of other issues into their own threads. Kick them if you have to. It’s annoying how every single thread you enter you wind up arguing about something that isn’t relevant, like that rape thing yesterday (That you never really answered for).
People don’t trust you. That’s all they mean when they point out that they had a prior example (they vary wildly) of dealing with you that tells the same tale.
You could explain why you think indicted people should be bared from getting “federal money” whatever the hell that means, or deny you argued that, or explain why that proved whatever you think it did, but I would personally really appreciate it if you didn’t take people laughing at your prior antics as an opportunity to change the subject.
I think this one is about tax cheats and lame tricks from insincere politicians (about tax cheating).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2010 @ 8:22 pmHe is just so bitter, Dustin, clinging to his former snazzy certitude and just sneering at those teabaggers.
Fact is, it was Tuck’s Medicated Pad Boy (tmpb) here who was spouting off about majority rule in areas that Croakely won.
He just didn’t seem to think that principle was, well, important when he disagreed with the majority who voted Brown in.
Bitter clinger that he is. It’s actually sad to watch him try to wrap himself up in the Constitution. But it’s just more game playing by a braggart who lost.
Hmmm. “imdw” could stand for “I‘m mad I didn’t win”?
Even though calling this troll “Tuck” fits the whole hemorrhoid thing.
Eric Blair (20b3a8) — 1/20/2010 @ 8:24 pm“This is the best imdw has when we point out the Obama administration allows tax cheats and criminals to run the treasury? That’s right, imdw, you don’t have to back up your claims if you don’t actually claim anything.”
There’s plenty I got against tim geithner. Obama moving against tax deadbeats ain’t one of htem.
“It’s annoying how every single thread you enter you wind up arguing about something that isn’t relevant, like that rape thing yesterday (That you never really answered for).”
Rape thing? There was a letter which i still don’t know if you read. That’s it right? You had some bit with dates, but you didn’t really explain it.
imdw (c5488f) — 1/20/2010 @ 8:29 pmand just sneering at those teabaggers.
He and little David Shuster.
# I love the teaparty faithful who defend Rush. They are not the most literate, articulate, or thoughtful bunch… but that’s okay. 12:18 PM Jan 19th from web
Dana (1e5ad4) — 1/20/2010 @ 8:32 pmThat is why he can’t use the caps key reliably. He needs to use those medicated pads.
Eric Blair (20b3a8) — 1/20/2010 @ 8:34 pmThere are some actions that defy a proper reaction, does one consider it so absurd as deserving of being ignored totally, or of girding up one’s mental facultiesd in an attempt to respond in an adequately outrageous manner?
When it comes from a child you can send them to their room, and when they ask “How long?”, just give them a look that says, Don’t bother asking”.
Does this mean that Medicaid might start paying doctor’s bills in less than two years ?
Comment by MIke K — 1/20/2010 @ 7:36 pm
I once worked for an office that was about to shut down for lack of cash flow until Sen. Santorum banged on doors in Harrisburg to get a check sent for the long overdue payments.
and believe me, government agencies rank right up there with the worst deadbeats. I don’t support anyone skipping their tax bill, but there are a whole lot of folks doing business with the government that take a bit hit waiting for payment. This looks like another pseudo-populist gimmick to assuage the One’s sagging political fortunes to me. Comment by trentk269
And I knew a contractor that stopped doing work for City of Philadelphia because he’d starve waiting to get paid.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/20/2010 @ 8:37 pmI don’t think you understood what I said, imdw, which explains your #24. I guess you didn’t follow yesterday’s debate either, but I’m happy with what I argued, and I have no problem with people reading our respective sides and deciding for themselves.
Anyway, I know why you change the subject, and so do you. Fear.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2010 @ 8:39 pmInherently
Mentally
Deficient
Writter
just a swag on my part, but it w*rks. %-)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/20/2010 @ 8:39 pmOn the other hand, Ol’ Tuck likes the attention.
Eric Blair (20b3a8) — 1/20/2010 @ 8:56 pm“I once worked for an office that was about to shut down for lack of cash flow until Sen. Santorum banged on doors in Harrisburg to get a check sent for the long overdue payments.”
Isn’t medicaid state run while medicare federal? It would be quite significant if we changed that.
“I don’t think you understood what I said, imdw, which explains your #24”
There was something about dates? I looked at the properties on the pdf file but nothing stood out. There was a letterhead and Isaac Eiland-Hall’s name and signature on it? Something else missing?
“. I guess you didn’t follow yesterday’s debate either, but I’m happy with what I argued, and I have no problem with people reading our respective sides and deciding for themselves.”
What I’m not following is the whole “sides” and “argued” part. It’s just a letter I linked to. There’s what to argue about that?
imdw (f7b257) — 1/20/2010 @ 9:02 pmimdw at 31, I notice you again avoid the topic of this thread, which is how Obama’s admin is hypcritical about tax cheats.
You make something kinda like the argument you lost yesterday that has nothing to do with this thread. Even if you were right in that thread, which is preposterous (And it’s clear you know that by the way you evade the actual argument with some phony argument that is incidental to what you said yesteday) even if you were right on that, it’s totally irrelevant to this thread. That’s why you are bringing it up. You don’t want this thread to be about tax cheating democrats in our white house, showing us they are above the law by doubly outlawing the crap they routinely do.
You repeatedly prove me correct. You know, I mentioned this yesterday… you clearly know you’re wrong about this stuff or you wouldn’t bother arguing like that. Why don’t you reconsider the Republican party? A lot of democrats are doing just that, and believe me, it won’t be the end of the world. You can’t enjoy the horrible stuff you’ve been defending. Like that pdf you mentioned… you can’t enjoy defending that and be a human being.
So go ahead and join the righteous side. Help send Obama and his band of crooks by making a donation to SarahPAC!
I think you want to.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2010 @ 9:10 pm# I love the teaparty faithful who defend Rush. They are not the most literate, articulate, or thoughtful bunch… but that’s okay.
I’d looooove to see Shuster match his feeble wits against Rush or any of the Tea Party leaders.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 1/20/2010 @ 9:16 pmWhat does “teaparty faithful” mean? Sarah Palin and Scott Brown? Literate, articulate, thoughtful?
According to who? According to the voters of the bluest state, they articulated their thoughts well enough to get the Tea Party candidate elected. Do we want to convince a big-government stooge? Not really.
When someone calls you stupid and ignores you entire argument, for example calling the Tea partiers stupid without explaining why the deficit is not out of control, you might as well just go to junior high and call girls fat all day. Same kinda thing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2010 @ 9:21 pm31 Isn’t medicaid state run
Comment by imdw
Yes, you’re correct in recognizing that US Sen. Santorum didn’t have any official chain of command over the situation, but his asking the folks in harrisburg was more helpful than our asking the folks in harrisburg
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/20/2010 @ 9:27 pmMD, he wasn’t making an argument, so you can’t win.
Of course you never said anything about who runs which entitlement program anyway. He put those words in your mouth to avoid your point. Your point that the government (whatever level) is unfair about money, paying you whenever they get around to it even when it has serious repercussions for health care providers.
imdw didn’t even know what your point was. He didn’t think you mistook anything and everyone knows a Senator has tremendous clout to get bureaucrats motivated. Didn’t matter. He just wanted to pretend he was keeping up while avoiding the actual discussion.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2010 @ 9:37 pmIf imdw is working for the Sunstein plan, Axelrod needs to
Icy Texan (01c224) — 1/21/2010 @ 12:40 amask fordemand his money back.“You don’t want this thread to be about tax cheating democrats in our white house, showing us they are above the law by doubly outlawing the crap they routinely do.”
Tim Geithner should go and tax cheats and deadbeats should be cracked down on. Is this something you disagree with?
“What does “teaparty faithful” mean? Sarah Palin and Scott Brown? Literate, articulate, thoughtful?”
Tea Party faithful don’t vote for RomneyCare. Or maybe they do. Who knows.
“Yes, you’re correct in recognizing that US Sen. Santorum didn’t have any official chain of command over the situation, but his asking the folks in harrisburg was more helpful than our asking the folks in harrisburg”
Oh it will help yeah. But up above someone asked about medicaid changing. I don’t think that’s affected by the topic of this thread.
“If imdw is working for the Sunstein plan, Axelrod needs to ask for demand his money back.”
Damn that SSRN!
imdw (de7003) — 1/21/2010 @ 5:33 amOh it will help yeah.
imdw- I apparently made a mistake when I thought you were making a good faith request for clarification. I’ll try to see it doesn’t happen again.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/21/2010 @ 5:55 amimd-dummy = Democrat hypocrite.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 1/21/2010 @ 6:03 am#38
The reason for this blog post was to highlight Pres. Obama’s hypocrisy of going after contractors who aren’t or haven’t paid their taxes while at the same time hiring people to his cabinet and/or administration who aren’t or haven’t paid their taxes.
Do you get the connection?
Hypocrisy, double standards, two-facedness, insincerity, disingenuous, deceitful…
Corwin (ea9428) — 1/21/2010 @ 6:13 am“The reason for this blog post was to highlight Pres. Obama’s hypocrisy of going after contractors who aren’t or haven’t paid their taxes while at the same time hiring people to his cabinet and/or administration who aren’t or haven’t paid their taxes.”
I’m saying this hypocrisy should end by: getting rid of Geithner AND going after tax deadbeats. Though only getting one of those things would be good too, I prefer both.
imdw (89ba95) — 1/21/2010 @ 8:38 amDid you say “hi” to Sunstein for me, imdw?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/21/2010 @ 8:41 amSo how much does SSRN say I should get paid for saying that Geithner is a tool of the banks and should be let go? I want to go into that conversation well prepared.
imdw (b37ee6) — 1/21/2010 @ 9:03 am“Though only getting one of those things would be good too”
Corwin (ea9428) — 1/21/2010 @ 9:17 amNo. Only getting one would not be good too. It is what highlights the frustration. Going after all the tax cheats that vote Democrat while not going after tax cheats that vote Republican is not a good thing.
Don’t you just love reflexive partisan contrarianism masked as nonpartisan equivalence? Too bad there is a LONG list of remarks by that person that demonstrate the latter.
Eric Blair (332142) — 1/21/2010 @ 9:22 amyeah. Geithner out. partisan and contrarian.
“No. Only getting one would not be good too. It is what highlights the frustration. Going after all the tax cheats that vote Democrat while not going after tax cheats that vote Republican is not a good thing.”
Yeah but getting rid of geithner is much more than just getting rid of someone who didn’t pay their taxes. So it’s got quite a bit of good there.
imdw (017d51) — 1/21/2010 @ 9:27 amThe mistake you make, imdw, is that you presume no one here remembers your prior hosts. Perhaps you don’t, but you fool no one with your silly trolls.
I hope you are not still grumpy over Massachusetts voting Republican. You really did make a fool of yourself.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 1/21/2010 @ 9:45 amLest we forget, this is the same imdw that has no problem with Harry Reid saying that Obama could win because he’s half-white & doesn’t speak jive.
Icy Texan (d9d97d) — 1/21/2010 @ 11:46 am“Lest we forget, this is the same imdw that has no problem with Harry Reid saying that Obama could win because he’s half-white & doesn’t speak jive.”
Definitely don’t forget I’m down with this.
Also I don’t know if Larry Summers has any tax problems, but it would be good for him to be let go too.
imdw (7c85b9) — 1/21/2010 @ 11:50 amI’m for letting go of all of them, come January 20, 2013
Icy Texan (d9d97d) — 1/21/2010 @ 11:54 amSame IMDW who claimed someone he disagrees with is a rapist and a killer, and then lied about their effort to remain anonymous, showing a backdated document where they added their name. He actually promoted a libel before challenged on it, and then justified it because his target asked too many questions of Obama.
Democrat imdw is a brownshirt fascist. If he knows the name of Obama critics, he will tell vicious lies to destroy them. And then justify it.
I know there are a lot of examples, but that’s about as bad a thing as a person can do on the internet aside from al qaida style stuff.
Even if he’s a conservative trying to make democrats look disgusting (more likely than an actual person being that sociopathic), he’s a real piece of work.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2010 @ 11:57 am“Same IMDW who claimed someone he disagrees with is a rapist and a killer, and then lied about their effort to remain anonymous, showing a backdated document where they added their name.”
Ok so now you DID see the name on there, but it is ‘back dated’? To what date?
But Wait. Do you think *I’m* Eisaac Eiland-Hall?
imdw (8f8ead) — 1/21/2010 @ 1:46 pmCan’t he start with Geithner and any other appointees who haven’t paid their taxes? Why pick on the contractors? Unless the contractors haven’t donated enough to the DNC or something. It’s not as if Obama has a history of rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 1/21/2010 @ 2:43 pmimdw, I notice you not only ignore the topic of the thread, but also the meat of my criticism of you in that episode. It’s like OJ saying he didn’t shoot Nicole Simpson.
Anyway, of course you deliberately mistake what I said repeatedly, skipped over the part that matters, and defend yourself from strawman charges.
Now, you aren’t guilty of spreading vicious smears against people if you aren’t this Isaac psycho. You’ve moved the goalposts to the moon! In every way that matters to me, you are the same as that pervert Isaac Hall. Same exact person? Why would that matter, and why would I try to debate that point? Who cares? The only thing I know about him is that he thinks raping and murdering kids is funny, and that it’s OK to smear Obama critics with lies… same as I know about you. Sadly, there’s probably a few dozen of you out there.
This is how you defend Obama from charges that he tolerated tax cheats in his ruling class while outlawing it for the rest of us? Of course it is. You are admitting defeat on every point anyone cares about.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2010 @ 2:54 pm“In every way that matters to me, you are the same as that pervert Isaac Hall”
Oh. Weird.
Now what about this back date thing?
“This is how you defend Obama from charges that he tolerated tax cheats in his ruling class while outlawing it for the rest of us? Of course it is. ”
It is not Obama that has outlawed tax cheats. It is congress. I do think we should go and collect taxes from people who owe them. Has geithner payed his back taxes? Even if he has. He should go. My beef with him goes beyond whether he payed his taxes.
imdw (7c85b9) — 1/21/2010 @ 3:05 pmWhat you need, my friend, is an emoticon for “hey, look over there!”
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/21/2010 @ 3:06 pmIt was just your use of pronoun “he” and “their” which got me confused here:
“Same IMDW who claimed someone he disagrees with is a rapist and a killer, and then lied about their effort to remain anonymous, showing a backdated document where they added their name.”
And I still don’t know what this “backdate” is about. Can you tell me what dates you’re seeing?
imdw (9af31a) — 1/21/2010 @ 3:30 pmHello, Dustin. I remember your name from previous threads. Oy.
I have a several Google alerts set up based on my name, and my name and Beck – I just like keeping up with what’s said on the topic. But I remember seeing you here before.
You keep calling me names, but you haven’t taken the time to understand the entire point of the Glenn Beck meme. So let me explain a little for you:
The entire point is that Beck uses the technique that I was parodying. If you’ll go to http://gb1990.com/ (where the site still lives), scroll down to the bottom, then back up to the third-from-the-bottom video – the one about Ellison, you’ll see the exact technique that I skewered him for. Representative Ellison, our first Muslim representative. Beck indicates that some would question Ellison’s patriotism; Beck indicates that he doesn’t want to say that Ellison is ‘working for our enemies’, but them expects Ellison to respond to that exact accusation. Or rather, an anti-accusation.
That is *exactly* what I did. I made an ANTI-accusation. But unlike Beck, I clearly labeled mine as such.
Now, there’s one difference between what I’ve said about Beck, and what you’ve said about me. What I’ve said about Beck is protected parody speech. What you’ve said about me is unprotected libel. If I wanted to pursue you, there’s a fair chance I could win damages against you in court. I’m not interested in doing so, but I just wanted to point out that while you accuse me of doing something I’m NOT doing, it is highly ironic that you are ACTUALLY engaging in that behaviour yourself.
I don’t mind if you disagree with me. That’s what makes our country great. But I do mind if you willfully misrepresent what I did. I wouldn’t do that to you, so please show enough respect for the intelligence of the readers here and don’t do that to me.
If you’d care to converse with me further, my email address is wut@gb1990.com – as listed on the site. I’d be glad to answer any questions you have.
And I’ll also be glad to answer them here, if you’d prefer — but you might need to email me to let me know you’ve responded.
Isaac Eiland-Hall (87f0f7) — 1/22/2010 @ 9:48 amBeck accused people who liked Mao of being sympathetic to Mao. He’s just asking questions that are kinda reasonable.
In exchange, you accuse him of being a murderer and a rapist?
Now you’re telling me it’s disrespectful to misrepresent what someone did? You knowingly did that, to a degree that is awful, and you tried to stay anonymous about it. I know imdw claims you didn’t attempt to remain anonymous, but you did. The court forced your name out in the open.
That’s why the name “Isaac Eiland-Hall” is now synonymous with fantasies about raping and murdering children.
I have worked with victims of rape. Not kid’s THANK GOD, but it’s not funny to me. I don’t respect you or your faux civility.
Your website didn’t seem all that satirical to me. Beck’s a bit of a fruitloop who vaguely talks of his massive mistaken past, so it was believable enough that he may have actually done what you accused him of.
If you disagree with Beck, speak out! Start your own show or website. You apparently have the skills. Answer his questions if they bother you so much. Don’t pretend for one second that this kind of thing is OK.
I realize you have backdated and falsified what you did on your site and on your documents, and that you won’t own that reality, and I really don’t even care. You think child rape is funny, and that it’s OK to associate critics of Obama with that kind of crap. You never attacked bush’s ridiculous critics, such as people saying bush planned 9/11. that’s because you are simply a partisan brownshirt.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/22/2010 @ 10:05 amAlso, people who follow my comments here (and I hardly blame them if they don’t) will know that I can’t stand Beck and am a vociferous critic of his.
I simply point out flaws in his reasoning or disagreements I have with him, though. I don’t anonymously start a series of websites asking if he killed and raped children. That’s not funny or intelligent… it’s wrong.
I’ve looked up Isaac Eiland Hall now, and I’ve decided he’s simply a psycho who cares far too much about defending Obama from any critic. I encourage others to do the same. I could easily make a uglier and funnier attack against Mr Pizza Hut Fan Club.
BTW, there’s no way in hell I’m going to email a psycho like you. I would never trust you with my full name. Do you understand why someone who disagrees with you would not trust you to play fair?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/22/2010 @ 10:11 amSorry for the delayed reply – I only see these when Google gets around to alerting… 🙂
“He’s just asking questions that are kinda reasonable.” So asking a United States Congressman if he’s working with “our enemies” (meaning Muslim terrorists) is reasonable to you? Wow.
“In exchange, you accuse him of being a murderer and a rapist?” No, as I repeatedly have explained, and as the website makes clear, I don’t accuse Beck of either of those. You choose to ignore what is in front of your face.
“I know imdw claims you didn’t attempt to remain anonymous, but you did.” I’ve never claimed otherwise. IMDW is wrong on this point. Although there was no “court” involved – the action was filed with WIPO. Basically, if I hadn’t allowed my name out there, I would have instantly lost the domain. So I chose to go ahead and allow my name to be put out there in lieu of losing the domain – so you’re not quite right on that point, either.
“That’s why the name “Isaac Eiland-Hall” is now synonymous with fantasies about raping and murdering children.” Only with morons.
“I don’t respect you or your faux civility. ” That’s your right. I’m just letting you know that previous comments you made about me *are* defamation, as opposed to the statements I made about Beck. I’m sorry you just don’t seem to get that… but I have to think that, since the answer is clearly outlined on the site, AND that I jsut explained it to you AGAIN, that you are willfulling being a dolt. Which is also your right.
“Your website didn’t seem all that satirical to me.” Well, thank goodness for me that you’re not the ruler of the land, then, eh? Because there’s plenty of precedent to back me up.
“it was believable enough that he may have actually done what you accused him of.” Even if it was, I clearly labelled it as parody right there on the site. If you’re going to read one part and not another part and accuse me of doing things I’m not because you’re just reading one part and not even the paragraph that follows – well, I really don’t feel badly at all about that.
“If you disagree with Beck, speak out!” Amazingly enough, I did that. You just didn’t like what I had to say.
“I realize you have backdated and falsified what you did on your site and on your documents,” Uh, not sure where that’s coming from, but you are wrong. The only falsification I did was in the HTML comments, where I put comments that looked like they were from ACORN, just to mess with the minds of Freepers. So I honestly don’t know what you think you have, but I’d be glad to try and clear whatever it is up for you.
“You think child rape is funny” Not at all. I didn’t originate the meme, I just ran with it. You do realize the wording of the meme comes from Gilbert Gottfriend, in the roasting of Bob Saget? No, if you can’t even read the word “parody” on the website, I could hardly expect you would have taken the time to read any of my links on the site. Or if you have, you wouldn’t acknolwedge it.
Don’t suppose you saw the thread on Fark where it all started, either? Yeah, didn’t think so. You’d much prefer to distort the truth for your own ends.
“You never attacked bush’s ridiculous critics, such as people saying bush planned 9/11” Well, if you *had* been stalking me, you would have seen otherwise. But you go ahead and make your factless assumptions if it helps you sleep at night.
“Do you understand why someone who disagrees with you would not trust you to play fair?” Typically I find that people tend to project themselves onto others. It’s why I generally assume that everyone else is smart and generally friendly, and why you apparently think everyone else is dumb and shifty.
I prefer my worldview.
Isaac Eiland-Hall (87f0f7) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:31 pmIf you’re happy with a world view that has led to a world wide web that associates you, quite accurately, with fantasies about child rape and murder and political hatred, that is your business.
I don’t really care. I told the truth about you, which you seem to recognize in some way, but it’s not really something this blog has ever covered, so just slither back to wherever you animals come from. While I do pity you very sincerely, having googled you a while back and seeing what you are, I will not be dialoguing with you again.
Thanks for attempting to explain yourself, and I’m not the judge of you.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/30/2010 @ 12:32 am