Dedicated to the advancement of the State of Indiana by re-affirming our state's constitutional principles that: all people are created equal; no religious test shall be imposed on our public officials and offices of trust; and no special privileges or immunities shall be granted to any class of citizens which are not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Advance Indiana, LLC. Copyright 2005-16. All rights reserved.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
People Who Live In Glass Houses
If my long-time career as a columnist for the state's leading newspaper came to an end after one too many mistakes, I don't think I would be quite so judgmental about others. Something to think about, Ruth.
17 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Gee, Gary, all Ruth said was that she wondered about your obsession with Obama and your willingness to report rumors as if they were established fact. Instead of addressing the substance of her observation, you simply launch into a personal attack. I'm sorry, but you owe her an apology.
Ruth talks out of both sides of her mouth. What she chooses to write is based upon the last person to whom she spoke. I don't know how to deal with a person who says one thing when speaking to you and then turns around and says something the complete opposite a few hours later. Ruth is seeking acceptance from people she should have the fortitude to rise above at this juncture in her lifetime, but like the school teacher who wants so badly to be liked by her students, she throws all caution to the wind and joins in the party, booze, sex and all.
You call it an Obama obsession. Last year, I was accused of being obsessed about Julia Carson's health. Guess what, they were lying and I was the one trying to get the truth to you all along. Last year, I was accused of being obsessed about Bart Peterson and taxes. Guess what, people agreed with me and threw him out of office. People complained that I wrote too much about SJR-7. People were listening and asking tougher questions about it, including many in the business community. The same goes for Indianapolis' HRO. And yes, Andre Carson. The media whitewashed his gross inexperience and the under-handed way in which he was installed as our congressman. Call it an obsession if you want. I'm just a man in search of the truth and what's right. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. People keep coming back here whether you like it or not. More than double the people read this blog than the number who read it a year ago. When people are paid to try to discredit what I write about here, I must be doing something right.
I learned about the Larry Sinclair allegations on this blog. I now follow that story because of Gary. And never once did Gary say it happened that I recall.
I will say this, my gut tells me that Obama was in that limo and things went down pretty much as Larry Sinclair tells it.
I'm also very suspicious about the death of that choir director.
Thanks Gary for putting up with the crap you get dished to keep us informed on the more underground stories the very corporate controlled main stream media ignores. --Melyssa
Again with the personal attacks, Gary. Would you agree with the notion that reporting internet rumors implying that they might be established fact isn't really the most responsible thing to do? I mean, come on, Larry Sinclair? It's hard to take your other stuff as seriously when you actually post about Larry Sinclair? Or this birth certificate nonsense. Or the "whitey tape". Really WANTING something to be true isn't the same as ESTABLISHING that something is true. If you think that Obama is wrong on the economy or foreign policy, great. Argue your points from THAT point of view. But, so far from my point of view that's not what you're doing. Perhaps it's a sign that the Republicans are looking at a 1932 style of rout this fall if they already are moving into tinfoil hat territory. But, by all means, stay on this road, you'll be taken as seriously as Larry Johnson's No Quarter, or 9/11 Truthers, or people in Denver who insist that their airport is concealing a bunker with lizard aliens. You still owe Ruth an apology.
M - Thanks for proving my point. Simply WISHING for something to be true doesn't MAKE it true. So, even though there isn't a single solitary shred of evidence to back up Sinclair's story, you somehow just KNOW that it must be true. Considering the kind of smears Wilson used to hurl at you, I would think that you'd have more sense than to act like that.
So, I take you're not going to apologize to leaping to such hysterical conclusions about Obama's citizenship? Or the "whitey tape"? Or even apologize to Ruth for the personal attacks in both the original post as well as your first reply to me? The idea that people are being "paid to discredit" you is amusing, given that your own words and actions make such a paid position unnecessary.
Sorry, but I owe Ruth no apologies. If she wants to join the bashers at their party, she'll just have to suck it up. As to the Larry Sinclair matter, it is a fact that the man has provided a video-taped statement, provided sworn affidavits, spelled out what transpired in a publicly-accessible federal lawsuit and documented evidence of his presence at the time and place said events were claimed to have taken place. You can dispute his credibility. I never omitted the existence of his criminal record, nor has he. Interestingly, Obama admits to breaking laws governing illegal drug use in his book; he just never got caught. Is a person who gets caught breaking the law any less believable than the person who does it but manages to escape punishment? As for the whitey video, the story originated within the Democratic Party itself, albeit not fans of Obama. Long-time Democratic operative Bob Beckel was the person who announced on Fox News the story would be dropped on a date certain. Why would Democrats spread a rumor about a tape they claimed Republicans had on Michelle Obama when they now say they knew one didnt' really exist? And why did Obama bloggers seek to explain what was really said on a tape which we are now told never existed?
Didn't Obama appoint a new internet campaign team to comb the internet regarding any stories surrounding his relationships with criminals, drugs, and gay men to debunk the people writing the stories as whackos?
Exactly WHO is this "small question" coward that is posting on here that we have never ever seen before?
"Small Question", please step up, be a man, and post your name to your opinion of Gary and this blog! In otherwords, grow a spine.
Gary...you should start tracing IP addresses of the people that post here anonymously. In addition to being Wilson T. Allen, I wonder how many would point to a Chicago location and/or the DNC who I just heard is moving its HQ to the cesspool of corruption.
And Gary...get prepared because you are about to be target for a great deal of harassment. You'll be labeled everything under the sun to try to convince people that you are "mentally unbalanced.".
I did notice Larry Sinclair put your blog on his blog roll and he's enemy #1 of the Obama campaign. They are freaking out about his press conference next week.
If I was Obama and I were innocent, I'd take a lie detector test and produce my birth certificate and be done with it.
Dude, you clearly only see what you want to see regarding the "whitey tape". My goodness, even the National Review pointed out the many reasons why this was a hoax (including the similarities to a 2006 political novel). In fact, if you bothered to read Reason.com's blog about this, you would find out that the person discussing the "content" of the tape as a means of explaining it clearly stated that they were just thinking out loud about it. People overlooked that second part, and took the speculation as somehow validation that the tape must be real. Overlooking Larry Sinclair's mental history and the fact that there isn't a scintilla of documented evidence to back up his claims was a neat trick, Gary. In essence you're saying "prove that it didn't happen", and as a lawyer, you ought to know better than that.
Talk about a hyprocrite, small-question. You attack Sinclair's story at the same time you spread an unsubstantiated Obama blogger claim that Sinclair was in a mental institution at the time the alleged encounter took place. Sinclair turned over his medical records to a Chicago Tribune reporter--more than Obama has done. You are ignoring the entire point about the whitey video--the fabrication, if any, took place among Democrats. Instead of complaining about Republicans spreading the rumor, why don't you ask why Democrats started and perpetuated the rumor in the first place? And why don't you focus your attack on the Democrats who spread the rumors that Obama was Muslim. Yes, that originated within your party. Don't forget who created Willy Horton. It wasn't George H.W. Bush. It was Al Gore when he ran against Dukakis in the Democratic primaries who first raised the issue.
M - did you mean to say that Obama's campaign set up a group to debunk the internet smears with the truth and the facts? Again, if you feel that people should vote for McCain based on his stands on the issues, then argue your case that way. Your work on Peterson was based on facts and Ballard's stance on the issues, for the most part. However, with Obama, Gary has simply gone straight for the gutter with baseless smears and defenses of said smears that smack of a self-pitying persecution complex. It's a pretty feeble way to debate, a freshman level speech teacher would flunk you. As for M's Larry Sinclair suggestions, you do know that lie dectectors are notoriously unreliable and thus inadmissable as evidence in a court of law? The burden on proof is on Larry Sinclair, and frankly he has yet to provide any except for a YouTube video and self-referencing bloggers. It's pretty damn funny, M, that you are playing the anonymous coward card that Wilson played so often on other people. You two are more alike than you realize.
Yeah, Larry Johnson started the whitey tape rumor. And, judging by his blog, it's debatable that he's much of a Democrat these days. Again, you are missing my point. Do you find that it is responsible to breathlessly report internet rumors as if they were fact. I don't give a crap that some ticked off Hillary people played the racial card or the Islam card. YOU are the one trying to keep the story going. The longer we go with no whitey tape released, the stupider bloggers like you are going to look for insisting that it might be true. I'll give you points though, you're not one of those 9/11 truther twits.
I get you small-question, people on the other side peddle rumors that John McCain is having an affair with a lobbyist and it lands on the front page of the New York Times. Not a single person would put their name on the record and state what evidence they had to prove their claim. Every major newspaper in this country runs gossip columns which often print rumors which turn out to be completely baseless. Your favorite Democratic blogger had an entire post theme category devoted to "rumor has it". And don't patronize me now by saying you think my posts on Ballard and Peterson were based on facts and the issues. You were one of the very people out there calling me a "nut" and claiming I had suffered a complete mental breakdown. Who had the last laugh on that one? You people have been cracking up ever since because you can't stand the fact you can't control what I write here, and you know people of influence read it. Learn to deal with it. Bone up on your own facts and issues and worry less about what I have to say here and you might be a little bit more effective for your Democratic candidates.
I thought the McCain "affair" story was pretty low and baseless as well. As for what I may or may not have said about you, please find a specific quote you can attribute to me that says that you have had a mental breakdown or some such. Guarantee that you can't do that. Ok, you want some facts? The Democrats are poised to become the majority party for decades because they are coalescing around actual ideas and an actual vision for the future. Given that the Republicans have no accomplishments to run on and no ideas that anyone takes any stock in, they are going to get ROUTED in the fall elections. The kind of sleaze you seem willing to peddle in JUNE makes me worry about what you'll be writing about in November.
Did I say I think people should vote for McCain? I think we get a choice between evil and evil this election and must decide the lesser evil.
I'm voting for Barr and pray to God he's a changed man from his days as an anti-abortion War on Drugs Republican. I pray if he wins that the Libertarians will keep him grounded in libertarian philosophy.
Small question, publish your name and I won't call you an anonymous coward.
Fact remains that Obama has never done a damned thing to unify the Democrats, let alone America. No unification has been accomplished.
You know its bad when rogue groups of democrats plan to protest their own convention! I'd say that's the opposite of unification.
small-question is right..."The Democrats are poised to become the majority party for decades because they are coalescing around actual ideas and an actual vision for the future."
Their idea? Raise taxes, sit around the campfire with our enemy and sing Kum-Bay-Ah, legalize drugs, take money from those who EARN it and GIVE it to those who WON'T, etc.
17 comments:
Gee, Gary, all Ruth said was that she wondered about your obsession with Obama and your willingness to report rumors as if they were established fact. Instead of addressing the substance of her observation, you simply launch into a personal attack. I'm sorry, but you owe her an apology.
Ruth talks out of both sides of her mouth. What she chooses to write is based upon the last person to whom she spoke. I don't know how to deal with a person who says one thing when speaking to you and then turns around and says something the complete opposite a few hours later. Ruth is seeking acceptance from people she should have the fortitude to rise above at this juncture in her lifetime, but like the school teacher who wants so badly to be liked by her students, she throws all caution to the wind and joins in the party, booze, sex and all.
You call it an Obama obsession. Last year, I was accused of being obsessed about Julia Carson's health. Guess what, they were lying and I was the one trying to get the truth to you all along. Last year, I was accused of being obsessed about Bart Peterson and taxes. Guess what, people agreed with me and threw him out of office. People complained that I wrote too much about SJR-7. People were listening and asking tougher questions about it, including many in the business community. The same goes for Indianapolis' HRO. And yes, Andre Carson. The media whitewashed his gross inexperience and the under-handed way in which he was installed as our congressman. Call it an obsession if you want. I'm just a man in search of the truth and what's right. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. People keep coming back here whether you like it or not. More than double the people read this blog than the number who read it a year ago. When people are paid to try to discredit what I write about here, I must be doing something right.
I learned about the Larry Sinclair allegations on this blog. I now follow that story because of Gary. And never once did Gary say it happened that I recall.
I will say this, my gut tells me that Obama was in that limo and things went down pretty much as Larry Sinclair tells it.
I'm also very suspicious about the death of that choir director.
Thanks Gary for putting up with the crap you get dished to keep us informed on the more underground stories the very corporate controlled main stream media ignores. --Melyssa
--Melyssa
Again with the personal attacks, Gary. Would you agree with the notion that reporting internet rumors implying that they might be established fact isn't really the most responsible thing to do? I mean, come on, Larry Sinclair? It's hard to take your other stuff as seriously when you actually post about Larry Sinclair? Or this birth certificate nonsense. Or the "whitey tape". Really WANTING something to be true isn't the same as ESTABLISHING that something is true. If you think that Obama is wrong on the economy or foreign policy, great. Argue your points from THAT point of view. But, so far from my point of view that's not what you're doing. Perhaps it's a sign that the Republicans are looking at a 1932 style of rout this fall if they already are moving into tinfoil hat territory. But, by all means, stay on this road, you'll be taken as seriously as Larry Johnson's No Quarter, or 9/11 Truthers, or people in Denver who insist that their airport is concealing a bunker with lizard aliens. You still owe Ruth an apology.
M - Thanks for proving my point. Simply WISHING for something to be true doesn't MAKE it true. So, even though there isn't a single solitary shred of evidence to back up Sinclair's story, you somehow just KNOW that it must be true. Considering the kind of smears Wilson used to hurl at you, I would think that you'd have more sense than to act like that.
So, I take you're not going to apologize to leaping to such hysterical conclusions about Obama's citizenship? Or the "whitey tape"? Or even apologize to Ruth for the personal attacks in both the original post as well as your first reply to me? The idea that people are being "paid to discredit" you is amusing, given that your own words and actions make such a paid position unnecessary.
Sorry, but I owe Ruth no apologies. If she wants to join the bashers at their party, she'll just have to suck it up. As to the Larry Sinclair matter, it is a fact that the man has provided a video-taped statement, provided sworn affidavits, spelled out what transpired in a publicly-accessible federal lawsuit and documented evidence of his presence at the time and place said events were claimed to have taken place. You can dispute his credibility. I never omitted the existence of his criminal record, nor has he. Interestingly, Obama admits to breaking laws governing illegal drug use in his book; he just never got caught. Is a person who gets caught breaking the law any less believable than the person who does it but manages to escape punishment? As for the whitey video, the story originated within the Democratic Party itself, albeit not fans of Obama. Long-time Democratic operative Bob Beckel was the person who announced on Fox News the story would be dropped on a date certain. Why would Democrats spread a rumor about a tape they claimed Republicans had on Michelle Obama when they now say they knew one didnt' really exist? And why did Obama bloggers seek to explain what was really said on a tape which we are now told never existed?
Didn't Obama appoint a new internet campaign team to comb the internet regarding any stories surrounding his relationships with criminals, drugs, and gay men to debunk the people writing the stories as whackos?
Exactly WHO is this "small question" coward that is posting on here that we have never ever seen before?
"Small Question", please step up, be a man, and post your name to your opinion of Gary and this blog! In otherwords, grow a spine.
Gary...you should start tracing IP addresses of the people that post here anonymously. In addition to being Wilson T. Allen, I wonder how many would point to a Chicago location and/or the DNC who I just heard is moving its HQ to the cesspool of corruption.
And Gary...get prepared because you are about to be target for a great deal of harassment. You'll be labeled everything under the sun to try to convince people that you are "mentally unbalanced.".
I did notice Larry Sinclair put your blog on his blog roll and he's enemy #1 of the Obama campaign. They are freaking out about his press conference next week.
If I was Obama and I were innocent, I'd take a lie detector test and produce my birth certificate and be done with it.
Dude, you clearly only see what you want to see regarding the "whitey tape". My goodness, even the National Review pointed out the many reasons why this was a hoax (including the similarities to a 2006 political novel). In fact, if you bothered to read Reason.com's blog about this, you would find out that the person discussing the "content" of the tape as a means of explaining it clearly stated that they were just thinking out loud about it. People overlooked that second part, and took the speculation as somehow validation that the tape must be real. Overlooking Larry Sinclair's mental history and the fact that there isn't a scintilla of documented evidence to back up his claims was a neat trick, Gary. In essence you're saying "prove that it didn't happen", and as a lawyer, you ought to know better than that.
Talk about a hyprocrite, small-question. You attack Sinclair's story at the same time you spread an unsubstantiated Obama blogger claim that Sinclair was in a mental institution at the time the alleged encounter took place. Sinclair turned over his medical records to a Chicago Tribune reporter--more than Obama has done. You are ignoring the entire point about the whitey video--the fabrication, if any, took place among Democrats. Instead of complaining about Republicans spreading the rumor, why don't you ask why Democrats started and perpetuated the rumor in the first place? And why don't you focus your attack on the Democrats who spread the rumors that Obama was Muslim. Yes, that originated within your party. Don't forget who created Willy Horton. It wasn't George H.W. Bush. It was Al Gore when he ran against Dukakis in the Democratic primaries who first raised the issue.
M - did you mean to say that Obama's campaign set up a group to debunk the internet smears with the truth and the facts? Again, if you feel that people should vote for McCain based on his stands on the issues, then argue your case that way. Your work on Peterson was based on facts and Ballard's stance on the issues, for the most part. However, with Obama, Gary has simply gone straight for the gutter with baseless smears and defenses of said smears that smack of a self-pitying persecution complex. It's a pretty feeble way to debate, a freshman level speech teacher would flunk you. As for M's Larry Sinclair suggestions, you do know that lie dectectors are notoriously unreliable and thus inadmissable as evidence in a court of law? The burden on proof is on Larry Sinclair, and frankly he has yet to provide any except for a YouTube video and self-referencing bloggers. It's pretty damn funny, M, that you are playing the anonymous coward card that Wilson played so often on other people. You two are more alike than you realize.
Yeah, Larry Johnson started the whitey tape rumor. And, judging by his blog, it's debatable that he's much of a Democrat these days. Again, you are missing my point. Do you find that it is responsible to breathlessly report internet rumors as if they were fact. I don't give a crap that some ticked off Hillary people played the racial card or the Islam card. YOU are the one trying to keep the story going. The longer we go with no whitey tape released, the stupider bloggers like you are going to look for insisting that it might be true. I'll give you points though, you're not one of those 9/11 truther twits.
I get you small-question, people on the other side peddle rumors that John McCain is having an affair with a lobbyist and it lands on the front page of the New York Times. Not a single person would put their name on the record and state what evidence they had to prove their claim. Every major newspaper in this country runs gossip columns which often print rumors which turn out to be completely baseless. Your favorite Democratic blogger had an entire post theme category devoted to "rumor has it". And don't patronize me now by saying you think my posts on Ballard and Peterson were based on facts and the issues. You were one of the very people out there calling me a "nut" and claiming I had suffered a complete mental breakdown. Who had the last laugh on that one? You people have been cracking up ever since because you can't stand the fact you can't control what I write here, and you know people of influence read it. Learn to deal with it. Bone up on your own facts and issues and worry less about what I have to say here and you might be a little bit more effective for your Democratic candidates.
I thought the McCain "affair" story was pretty low and baseless as well. As for what I may or may not have said about you, please find a specific quote you can attribute to me that says that you have had a mental breakdown or some such. Guarantee that you can't do that. Ok, you want some facts? The Democrats are poised to become the majority party for decades because they are coalescing around actual ideas and an actual vision for the future. Given that the Republicans have no accomplishments to run on and no ideas that anyone takes any stock in, they are going to get ROUTED in the fall elections. The kind of sleaze you seem willing to peddle in JUNE makes me worry about what you'll be writing about in November.
Did I say I think people should vote for McCain? I think we get a choice between evil and evil this election and must decide the lesser evil.
I'm voting for Barr and pray to God he's a changed man from his days as an anti-abortion War on Drugs Republican. I pray if he wins that the Libertarians will keep him grounded in libertarian philosophy.
Small question, publish your name and I won't call you an anonymous coward.
Fact remains that Obama has never done a damned thing to unify the Democrats, let alone America. No unification has been accomplished.
You know its bad when rogue groups of democrats plan to protest their own convention! I'd say that's the opposite of unification.
small-question is right..."The Democrats are poised to become the majority party for decades because they are coalescing around actual ideas and an actual vision for the future."
Their idea? Raise taxes, sit around the campfire with our enemy and sing Kum-Bay-Ah, legalize drugs, take money from those who EARN it and GIVE it to those who WON'T, etc.
Yea...they have a vision all right.
Post a Comment