There is a very timely post at KPBS.org which asks the question “when do political attacks become libelous?”
Before I get into the essence of the article, I call it timely because just yesterday, I added an additional page on this blog on which I re-published a review of Larry Sinclair’s book Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex Lies & Murder?
For those who do not know about Larry Sinclair, there is much written on the internet, pro and con. Rather than give my personal view of the man, I suggest those not familiar with Sinclair research his name.
The problem with Larry Sinclair’s declaration that Barack Obama had homosexual sex and did drugs with Sinclair, as well as having some part in the murder of a gay choir director who attended the same church that Obama attended at the time is this: Sinclair has not produced one iota of evidence that such events occured. Back to the KPBS article.
Here is an exerpt of the conversation about Sinclair’s book and libel:
Cavanaugh, and you’re listening to These Days on KPBS. Which of these words do not belong together: murder, cocaine, sex, the White House? If you said the White House, then you have not read the new book by Barack Obama-nemesis, Larry Sinclair. The book expands on some of the most scandalous claims made by Sinclair during last year’s presidential race. For awhile, the Obama campaign debunked each allegation of homosexual activity, drug use and murder made by Sinclair, but then decided not to acknowledge the unsubstantiated claims at all. Now that Sinclair has published a book filled with allegations against the president of extramarital sex and illegal activity, including the murder of a former lover, it got KPBS political correspondent Gloria Penner wondering just how far can an author go in writing a defamatory book? If the accusations are not true, can the president sue? And when do statements made about public figures become libelous? Gloria is here now with the answers. Good morning, Gloria.GLORIA PENNER (KPBS Political Correspondent): Oh, good morning, Maureen. What an interesting subject we have.
CAVANAUGH: Well, tell us a little bit more about these accusations made in this book by Larry Sinclair. Is there a storyline? Does he have a whole tale to tell?
PENNER: Not really. I mean, there’s no storyline. It’s simply a chronology of what he considers charges against Obama and these include, as you said, that he used and sold cocaine, that he engaged in homosexual affairs, and he played a role in the December 2007 murder of his alleged former lover, Donald Young, the choir director of Obama’s Chicago church, just days before the 2008 Iowa caucus. So, I mean, if we would think of a storyline it would really be the storyline leading up to the election of the president. He explains how the Obama campaign, David Axelrod, for example, and Obama himself used David Young to contact and seek out information from Sinclair, who he had told of Obama’s crimes and actions. But interestingly enough, he also charges that Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Beau Biden, who is the Delaware Attorney General, issued an arrest warrant on fabricated charges in an attempt to discredit Sinclair’s national press club news conference, which Sinclair arranged and never took place.
There is much more to this interview, and I suggest that everyone read it in its entirety, here.
UPDATE:
In the interest of full disclosure, I have read the book and Ms. Penner’s account is not entirely accurate. The choir director’s name was Donald Young.
The NPC press conference that Ms. Penner says never took place, did in fact take place and Sinclair was arrested AFTER the press conference.
On the KPBS forum, Larry Sinclair called anyone who spoke up against him LIARS. Wow…pot…meet kettle. What a POS Larry Sinclair is.
This is what was written until they shut the forum down.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/nov/04/political-analysis-when-do-political-attacks-becom/#c1283
KStreet,
Not sure if you will allow this comment through, but I’m gonna try anyway.
First and foremost, I keep you and your son in my thoughts and prayers. Although I haven’t seen anything about how he is doing, I take that to mean he is still on the road to recovery. I hope I am right.
Second, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you. You have endured attacks from Sinclair that no human should have to go through.
With the comments disabled on the KPBS site, I thought I would respond to some of the more outlandish things that were posted over there.
I appreciate you allowing me to post my comment.
The first comment I would like to respond to is “Long Time Lurker” who posted this:
“He called the house of President Obama’s grandmother to harrass her as she lay dying.”
You posted the phone call, so people can listen and decide for themselves whether Larry’s motive was to “harrass her as she lay dying”. This is simply a stupid comment by LTL.
LTL continues:
“He made a video urging the President’s daughters to read Sinclair’s own pornography.”
Can you or maybe LTL link to where this happened?
LTL then comments:
“He admits and even brags about his compulsion to swallow the semen of strange men.”
This is simply another stupid comment. From all that I have heard, Larry was asked ONE TIME whether he was a spitter or a swallower, and he answered that question. That is a far cry from the comment that he “brags about his compulsion”.
Some people will grasp at straws.
Now I’d like to move on to ZeN who commented,
“Wells… you complete imbecile. So since Obama hasn’t sued Sinclair proves Sinclair’s story true? What else have you got?
Anything? Anything at all?? (I didn’t think so.) Know why?
Because there isn’t anything. Because it NEVER HAPPENED.”
No ZeN it doesn’t mean that the story is true, but when Larry FIRST posted his you tube video, Obama could have easily presented Larry with a “Cease and Desist” order. ZeN suggesting that “it NEVER HAPPENED”, is as far a jump as someone believing Larry’s story is true.
ZeN then makes this comment:
“Sinclair is a liar, proven time and time again and you still insist to believe him. What is it that you hate about Obama so much that drives this willingness to latch onto ANYTHING negative about him? You’re some patriot, Wells.”
Obama’s policy ZeN. I know it’s hard for you to understand that, but Obama’s policies are why we disagree with him. It’s not that we “hate” Obama, he seems like a nice enough man, but when he allows the spending of over 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars to “stimulate” the economy (how’s THAT working out for us with unemployment at a 26 year high at 10.2%??????), or how he says during the campaign that he will allow bills to sit on his desk for 5 days before signing them, and then breaks that promise in the first month in office, or that he said he would go “line by line” on any budget legislation to cut out “earmarks”, and then allows 8,000 earmarks in the Omnibus spending bill (which cost us another 410 BILLION dollars), or the fact that he has allowed the Treasury to take over banks, financial institutions, and the auto industry making them DEPENDENT on the Government, or that he went on his “American Apology” tour of Europe, or that he sat in attendance while Ortega gave a scathing speech about how the US is the reason for all of the ills of the world, or that he accepted a book from Hugo and had that photo op with him during his vacation in Trinidad, or how he talks a good game about listening to “the other side”, but I’ve yet to hear of him actually sitting down with those that oppose his policies, or that he holds up his little fingers like he’s holding a “tea bag” and talked down to those who actually have a differing view than he does about the direction of our Country, or the FACT that he said that the health care debate would be streamed on the internet or televised on CSPAN, and then makes a back room deal in secret with drug manufacturers, or that he stood in front of a joint session of Congress touting “his plan” on health care when I can’t find “his” plan ANYWHERE in writting.
I could go on, but I believe you get my point. There are LEGITIMATE reasons to disagree with our President, it has NOTHING to do with “hate” or “race”.
And ZeN, it is Patriotic to disagree with the Government, especially when you have strong feelings that the our Country is heading in the wrong direction.
ZeN continues:
“I think that “he never sued so it must be true” defense just proves that this is all about trying to get Obama to sue somebody. “look at me … look how important I am”. He never had Sinclair killed either so by your logic how does the Donald Young lie add-on to Sinclair’s story hold water??”
Can someone point out to me when Wells stated the comment: “he never sued so it must be true”, or is this another made up story from the folks at the regulator?
ZeN concludes:
“I think the world knew when Sinclair failed the lie detector test with flying colors what his allegations were worth. Sinclair is a career criminal and complete nutcase with zero credibility and his only purpose on this earth at this point is to be made fun of. That’s his contribution to society now.”
Again, ZeN resorts to this “lie detector” thing. Is that ALL you people have?
It kind of amazes me that you vilify Taitz for having an on line degree for being a lawyer, but it seems that ZeN has failed to acknowledge that the man who gave Larry the lie detector also holds an on line degree. Interesting isn’t it, that on one hand, ZeN makes fun of Taitz, and on the other hand, he gives Dr. Ed Gelb the benefit of the doubt.
Again, Larry’s test was not administered per protocol, and you ALL know it, but still insist on using it. The test was interrupted more than once, and a break was taken in the middle of it. Even the second expert wrote as much in his assessment of the test.
Also, didn’t Parisi have a press conference at the NPC on the same day as Larry did, where he said he was going to play the video of the test, and pass out the graph from the test? How did that work out?
Oh, and didn’t Whitehouse dot com scrub their website of everything having to do with the test?
Again, ZeN shows his bias and doesn’t give the whole story.
Then I have to take up a couple of YOUR comments:
You wrote:
“A telling indication of Sinclair’s intimidation tactics is to always post people’s full names and locations on the web and in his books. He really hopes that one of his supporters might find one of these people and perhaps do some harm to them. After all, what is the purpose of putting someone’s name and location (and sometimes complete addresses) out there, just because that person disagrees with his statements?”
Do you mean like the people at the regulator have done also?
You know that I have been subject to the same information being posted about ME, with out and out lies posted about me, and edited comments posted attributed to ME, when one can only conclude that the people at the regulator have the same motives in mind as Larry does.
I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence:
“After all, what is the purpose of putting someone’s name and location (and sometimes complete addresses) out there, just because that person disagrees with his statements?”
But yet you still comment over at the regulator, and have even commented how “great” this or that post is that mentions people’s real names.
Isn’t that kind of hypocritical?
You then write:
“He and his cohorts have threatened to burn on dissenter’s house to the ground and actually put out her complete address with a photoshopped picture of her home burning. That is the mentality of Sinclair and his fellow bottom dwellers.”
Now KStreet, I’d like to see that comment. Larry did post the picture of a house of one of the regulator’s regulars, but he didn’t post that someone should burn down the house, or have a photoshopped picture of that house burning.
Prove me wrong, link me to where Larry did that.
I DO KNOW, because I seen it with my own eyes, that the folks at the regulator posted a picture of Larry’s house that was photoshopped with it being on fire, with many, many comments on the thread about how fast it would burn, etc, etc.
Again KStreet, it seems that when “some” people do the things you criticize Larry for doing, it’s ok. How can that be?
You continue:
“He is dangerous, vindictive and thinks that everything that MENTIONS his name is all about him. Forget that the above piece actually focuses on libel and public figures, he is so narcissistic that he believes that everything written about him that does not fawn over him like his lemmings write (see Citizenwells.com) then its an all out war against that person or persons.”
Now we can agree on something. I would tend to agree with this paragraph. Larry seems to be all about me, me, me.
Then you write this:
“By the way, the three most aggregious things Sinclair has done was:
1. Call on his (P)sychophants to email Malia and Sasha Obama and tell them about their father’s alleged “affair” with him. (I will research his statement and post it here when i find it.)”
You did research it, and this is what you copied:
“”Why doesn’t someone email Obama’s daughters and start asking them what they think of their father using crack cocaine and engaging in gay sex with other men while the oldest child was at home with her mom? Maybe the NYT’s will ask Michelle Obama how it feels to know that she lost out to another man rather than another woman?”
He doesn’t “call on” people to email them KStreet. Come on now, you are posting that he “called on” people to do this when the first words in the above quote is : “Why doesn’t someone email Obama’s daughters”. That’s a far cry from posting “I call on my supporters to email……..”
And then joeymac goes on some rant about Larry’s SSI/medicaid benefits.
What is joeymac jealous that Larry has found a way to be on disability, and he/she can’t? Seems that after his Delaware issue, the folks at M&N railed about how they got his payments stopped. What happened to that?
joeymac also makes this claim:
“Sinclair penned his libelous screed, it has come to light that President was born in Kapiolani Hospital, which makes it nearly a certainty, that he IS circumscised, since it was the common practice of hospitals at that time. It seems that Sinclair was the victim of disinfomation; it set him up beautifully.”
When did this “come to light” that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital? I know Obama sent a letter to the Hospital claiming to have been born there, but didn’t he also claim Selma brought his parents together, and that we had 59 States, or that there were dead people in his audience, or that one of the people in his audience just last Thursday had won the Medal of Honor, when that person actually HADN’T won the Medal of Honor?
Obama simply writting a letter to a Hospital (which by the way had it posted on it’s website, and then took it down [you think maybe because they couldn't VERIFY it???]), is proof enough that Obama was born in that Hospital, then how can joeymac criticize supporters of Larry for believing him without ANY proof?
Then joeymac makes these comments:
“How about:
(1) Barack Obama is uncut.”
Well now, again, just because Obama wrote a letter to a Hospital, joeymac comes to the conclusion that he is circumcised. Jumping mighty far there joeymac
“(2) You were going to get your telephone records to prove contact with Donald Young. Then, you lied and said that they were unavailable to you.”
Hey joeymac, why don’t you use the stolen information you have for Larry, and get his phone records yourself? Seems the people at the regulator can do just about anything they want, why don’t YOU get his phone records and prove he didn’t receive calls from a Mr Young? This has not been proven one way or another.
“(3) You lied and said that you couldn’t get YOUR credit card records to prove your expenditures in Chicago. A lie, because THE CREDIT CARD WASN’T YOURS. And, its my understanding, the usage was unauthorized.”
You see, it’s comments like this that gets me to shaking my head in disbelief. Just read the comment. First joeymac writes that Larry couldn’t get records from HIS credit card, which if he didn’t use HIS credit card in Chicago is a moot point. Then joeymac writes that because he used someone else’s credit card and it was unauthorized, again, my opinion is that this is simply MADE UP. joeymac makes assertions that aren’t substantiated. Using joeymac’s own logic, WITHOUT PROOF how can we be sure?
“(4)You lied about the alleged limo driver’s name–changing it several times.”
Look, the people at the regulator, or a supposed “Sherlock” supposedly TALKED to the limo driver, and so did “Mitch”, who was SUPPOSED to post the conversation, and didn’t. So which is it? Did Larry give the name of the limo driver, and “Mitch” and “Sherlock” talked to him, or not?
“(5) In an interview with shock jocks, Opie and Anthony, in 2008, you claimed that you couldn’t reveal whether or not BO was circumscised, because you were contractualy prevented, because you were going to reveal it in another imminent interview. Fact is, you didn’t state it until many months later after you solicited members of Barack Obama’s health club to provide the information to you. Except that the person that supplied it punked you.”
joeymac agains makes assumptions from information that he/she has NO direct knowledge of. Isn’t that the same thing you people claim Larry does? I just shake my head at the hypocrisy.
“(6) In 2008, you constantly claimed that you were truthful about your past, but you never revealed outstanding warrants in CO, FL and DE; other people had to uncover them.”
Other than the Delaware warrant (which was VERIFIED to have never been served), this is a correct comment, but again, why does joeymac have to put Delaware in there when the comment would have been truthful without adding Delaware? A bit of “embellishing” there joeymac?
“(7) You claimed that you never used any aliases, but records indicate that you used at least 14 different ones. You say that they were legal names for you: granted, so why were you using them except to practice deception.”
So long as the names were “legal”, why does this even matter on the issue in question?
All this is, is another attempt to “embellish” the Larry story. Larry has always been Larry since I started following this story some time ago (seems like forever now).
joeymac concludes with this:
“This is getting boring.”
It sure does get pretty boring having to correct, or point out the inconsistencies in the stories put out.
Now I know that I will again be attacked for posting my opinion.
I have NEVER stated that I believe Larry. NOT ONCE. I have NEVER stated that I “support” Larry. NOT ONCE.
What I HAVE done is give Larry the benefit of the doubt UNTIL his FIRST visit to DC when he claimed some “big” revelation would occur, which didn’t, and from then on all I have done is point out either inconsistencies, or the hypocrisy of the comments people make.
Look, Larry hasn’t proven ANYTHING, and the fact that Obama has not acknowledged Larry doesn’t mean squat. I know that.
However, when people use the same tactics as Larry, and claim that THEIR claims should hold merit, then I just can not sit here and allow it.
Now maybe the folks at the regulator will post ANOTHER thread about me, and you can tell them how “great” it is, when you have commented that you think it is wrong. They have already posted at least three threads with ME in them, and ALL I have EVER done is ask how they can justify what they are doing, and criticize Larry for doing the same thing.
You did that already with the “badpoet” video where he NAMES people that he CLAIMS support Larry.
I do NOT support Larry, I don’t believe Larry’s story, I simply gave him the benefit of the doubt until JUNE of 2008.
All I ask is that you and the folks at the regulator NOT engage in the same thing Larry does.
Let the attacking begin!!!!!!!
Interested Bystander,
I am not LTL or Kstreet, but to answer your question, where did this occur? Have you not watched the videos the TEACHABLE MOMENTS? Posted at JustinTV and also on his YouTube channel?
http://www.youtube.com/user/LarrySinclair1961#p/u/4/Vh_VeYuxQBU
Here is a transcript that has NOT BEEN EDITED… you seem to ask many questions, but you make no effort to research things for yourself.
Meesh,
I have to comment first and foremost, that you have earned NO respect from me.
YOU LIED on the thread about me when you posted that Pete didn’t put my name out on the comment where he banned me from the regulator. YOU KNOW HE DID IT, and then edited my name off of the comment. You also edited comments from 2008 on that thread that took my comments out of text, and didn’t link the pages they came from or the context in which they were given.
With that posted, I respond to this reply with “That’s all you’ve got?”
I heard Larry say that Malia should read the book, but I DO NOT hear him say Sasha should. He says their friends should read the book.
This is exactly what I mean about the regulator doing what Larry does. You people EMBELLISH. You do not actually give the facts as they are.
So it is only MY opinion that LTL stretched the truth, just like joeymac did in his “warrants” comment that I replied to above.
Your site would have so much more credibility, at least in my mind, if you would stick to the FACTS, and quit with your embellishment of the truth.
So Larry encouraged Malia and Sasha and Malia’s friends to read the book.
Thank you for the link.
You comment this:
“Here is a transcript that has NOT BEEN EDITED… you seem to ask many questions, but you make no effort to research things for yourself.”
You see, when someone makes an allegation or accusation, I don’t feel it is my responsibility to “research” for myself. The allegation or accusation should be researched by the person making the statement.
The comment says that Larry “encouraged” Sasha AND Malia to read the book, and your own “evidence” shows differently.
What is sad is that you folks don’t really care.
Sorry,
The comment should read that Larry “URGED”, not “encouraged”.
Meesh thank you for your concise report on Sinclair’s antics concerning Malia and Sasha. IB hopefully I will feel better (flu) enough to tackle some of your questions on both this comment section and thisone as well.
Kstreet
I seemed to have double posted, please delete my comment posted
November 10, 2009 at 11:26 am
Thanks.
KStreet,
Please delete my comment made at November 10, 2009 at 11:41 am… I will resubmit it in the proper text, thanks!
The feeling is mutual, interested bystander.
Interested bystander, I did not lie, I did not see this, when both you and Pete were having your “pissing-match” there was no need for me to moderate, or read Pete’s comments as Pete was also moderating the blog. Whatever Pete did or did not do, this was between the both of you…
Pete did tell me he *only posted your email address* and he promptly removed it and at the time we did NOT know your name, so this was impossible for Pete to do this. Your email address is NOT your *full* name, is it?
As for banning you, I had no knowledge of this, as what I am looking at currently is that you have NOT BEEN banned, although your future comments will automatically go into moderation at The Regulator.
I cannot believe you posted this, what difference does it make, Sasha or Malia or their friends, these are children they are MINORS! Does it make sense for Sinclair to involve or inform children of his sordid fabrications, portraying to be someone else, their Father?
URGED or encouraged…
What is sad Interested Bystander, is for you to even be debating this, by all standards, this video was done in VERY POOR TASTE, even for Larry, he hit rock bottom, if this is at all possible, these are children, I am certain some of Larry’s supporters felt this way too.
Interested bystander,
I cannot link to a blog that no longer exists, we have it archived, and no, we do not edit… the comments that I posted were relevant to what you stated at Obambi.
You did in fact support Larry at one time, you were not telling the whole truth, were you?
And the comments that I selected were NOT edited, but have it your way, here are ALL the comments you posted at Larry’s… for someone who has never been a Larry supporter, you certainly had a lot to say. I will admit towards the end you had had it with Larry’s antics, and at the beginning you did say you were sitting on the fence. I will grant you that.
We noticed you emerged at BHDC as Interested Bystander and not Art. We only put two and two together when you in fact posted at The Regulator, your avatar confirmed you were in fact the same Art who once posted at Larry’s. The same posting email address follows you, wherever you go.
Why you have been such a concern to us at The Regulator, it’s because of your constant attacks of the Regulator and M&N and also directed towards the posters they escalated to a degree that either we ignore you completely or prove you wrong by exposing you, for what you are, you are a troublemaker.
To ridicule posters of their spelling or grammar this serves no purpose IMO and you have done this quite often, now if you look below to *your* comments posted at Larry’s, you also have made errors…
COMMENTS posted at Larry Sinclair’s by Art aka INTERESTED BYSTANDER
LOL Ya gotta love Meesh’s ability to back any and everything said by anyone in her archives. The woman is amazing. I have yet to read the full thread here due to feeling lousy, but I just passed by to see how things were moving along here.
Ok I just read Meesh’s last paragraph and IB I have to agree, you appear to want to argue with people over the most minute point. Here’s an example right here in this thread:
IB The fact is Sinclair asked: “Why doesn’t someone email Malia and Sasha….”
Let me just say that those two babies names shouldn’t be mentioned by anyone like Sinclair. His alleged beef is with Obama, he needs to stop invoking those girls’ names, purely for the sensationalism and a hope to get a rise out of the press or Obama.
IB, to be honest, Meesh is a saint to try to take on your nit picking…no she hasn’t tried…she HAS in fact taken you on. I, on the otherhand do not have the patience nor the desire to argue with anyone about anything at this stage in my life.
Life is too short to always have a chip on one’s shoulder and a need to nit pick every little nuance written somewhere. The Regulator keeps its records meticulously, thanks to Meesh. We all have screen shots converted to pdfs of things Sinclair has said and done. If in fact we acted in a manner untasteful to you or others, undoubtedly, you should move on to another blog that is more yout taste, like Goofy oops Larry Wells’ blog.
KStreet,
Call it “nit picking” or what ever you want, it still remains that Larry didn’t “call on” anyone to email them. It was a rhetorical statement.
You comment:
“The Regulator keeps its records meticulously, thanks to Meesh.”
Good, then Meesh has all of the LIES they have posted.
“If in fact we acted in a manner untasteful to you or others, undoubtedly, you should move on to another blog that is more yout taste, like Goofy oops Larry Wells’ blog.”
I get your message KStreet, thanks for letting me post on your blog.
Let me state that YOU can’t even be “respectful” to others. Where is “Larry Wells’” blog? Would that be Citizen Wells? Why is it that you and others feel it necessary to use people’s REAL names when they post using another name? I have never understood that. Is it an intimidation tactic that you learned from Larry?
I’m out.
Meesh,
You commented:
“I did not lie, I did not see this, when both you and Pete were having your “pissing-match” there was no need for me to moderate, or read Pete’s comments as Pete was also moderating the blog.
Whatever Pete did or did not do, this was between the both of you…
Pete did tell me he *only posted your email address* and he promptly removed it and at the time we did NOT know your name, so this was impossible for Pete to do this. Your email address is NOT your *full* name, is it?”
Do us all a favor and link the thread that you claim Pete and I were in a “pissing match”.
The FACT is that Pete posted my NAME (which is Art), and NOT my email address. Man, I never thought I would have needed to save the email Pete sent me, but I sure do wish I would have now. I even commented on that FACT right after Pete did it, and the comment did not post. Pete then emailed me and apologized for posting my name and that he had taken it down out of “respect”. I’m sure Pete still has that email, and my reply to him, and if Pete agrees to have his email published, I give my permission for you to post my reply back to him.
It matters not, because email or name, what was the purpose other than intimidation?
Then you comment this:
“As for banning you, I had no knowledge of this, as what I am looking at currently is that you have NOT BEEN banned, although your future comments will automatically go into moderation at The Regulator.”
You had “no knowledge”? When did you become aware that I was banned? Seems YOU knew when you posted this:
“Pete did not post your real name, you are the one who confirmed this, Pete only said this about your avatar, he only checked the email addy that you utilized at The Regulator as well as Larry’s old WP site, that was obtained from the backup that CW left out on the internet.
What in fact caused you to get banned at The Regulator, was your “so called” debating was confrontational with some other posters and also off topic.”
See where it says
“What in fact caused you to get banned………..”?
That was in MAY Meesh. And you say you weren’t aware of it?
I will link to the whole article:
http://theregulator.net/?p=4129
As far as not being currently banned from the regulator, I could care less.
You continue with this:
“I cannot believe you posted this, what difference does it make, Sasha or Malia or their friends, these are children they are MINORS! Does it make sense for Sinclair to involve or inform children of his sordid fabrications, portraying to be someone else, their Father?”
Look Meesh, I do not think Larry should have posted the video. DO YOU GET THAT?
Larry can’t help himself, and you folks know that. He is an attention wanter, and you guys give it to him. He THRIVES on it.
Next you comment this:
“What is sad Interested Bystander, is for you to even be debating this, by all standards, this video was done in VERY POOR TASTE, even for Larry, he hit rock bottom, if this is at all possible, these are children, I am certain some of Larry’s supporters felt this way too.”
The video IS in VERY POOR TASTE, but the video does not say what LTL commented it to say. That’s my whole point. LTL “embellished” that Larry was “urging” Sasha and Malia to read his book, when what Larry did was suggest to Malia that she read the book, and “encouraged” their friends to read the book.
LTL was wrong when he/she commented what they commented.
All I did was ask for proof that Larry was “urging” them to read the book.
It was a STUPID thing for Larry to do either way.
You go on with this:
“I cannot link to a blog that no longer exists, we have it archived, and no, we do not edit… the comments that I posted were relevant to what you stated at Obambi this”
Well you have the screen shots, why not post them?
Next you comment this:
“You did in fact support Larry at one time, you were not telling the whole truth, were you?”
YES I WAS TELLING THE TRUTH. I contributed to Larry staying in DC because he said that he was getting close to getting an interview with someone. I WANT Larry’s story to be investigated, and found out one way or the other. I consider that “enabling”, not “supporting”.
I DO NOT BELIEVE Larry. I gave him the benefit of the doubt until his FIRST DC visit, not the NPC visit, and I DID NOT contribute to Larry’s NPC trip (you have not accused me of this, but I want to make it clear, it was his FIRST TRIP to DC that I contributed too, and that was when Larry was saying that he was close to getting an interview, call me an idiot for believing him, I DESERVE THAT).
You continue:
“And the comments that I selected were NOT edited, but have it your way, here are ALL the comments you posted at Larry’s… for someone who has never been a Larry supporter, you certainly had a lot to say. I will admit towards the end you had had it with Larry’s antics, and at the beginning you did say you were sitting on the fence. I will grant you that.”
So what’s the point Meesh? You ADMIT that I was “on the fence” and that in the end I “had had it with Larry’s antics”, so you are suggesting that in between those times I was a “supporter”? I beg to differ.
As far as my comments being “edited”, they are, they are taken out of context, and placed in where you believe they do YOU the most good. The WHOLE of the comment CAN NOT be detected by the comments as you post them.
Why? Well because the comments that I am replying too aren’t included.
I call that “editing”, you call it whatever you want. The comments you post are taken out of context because they do not include the whole “back and forth”.
This also gets me:
“for someone who has never been a Larry supporter, you certainly had a lot to say.”
So what? what’s that got to do with me “supporting” Larry?
Who knows what would have happened with me and the regulator if I had read Democratista’s comments to me when I was there that day when I got banned? Maybe I’d be a regular there now too. Just because I comment at a site, does not mean I agree with them, or “support” them.
And then you comment this:
“We noticed you emerged at BHDC as Interested Bystander and not Art. We only put two and two together when you in fact posted at The Regulator, your avatar confirmed you were in fact the same Art who once posted at Larry’s. The same posting email address follows you, wherever you go.”
Do you notice my ID, “Interested Bystander”? I came up with that because that’s what I was, and that’s what I still am.
Next you comment this:
“Why you have been such a concern to us at The Regulator, it’s because of your constant attacks of the Regulator and M&N and also directed towards the posters they escalated to a degree that either we ignore you completely or prove you wrong by exposing you, for what you are, you are a troublemaker.”
You have NOT ONCE proven me wrong. What you people do, is TRY to intimidate by putting out stuff about ME, and not addressing the things I bring up about the regulator and M&N doing the same thing Larry does.
That’s the probelm I have with the regulator. You do the same thing as Larry does.
And just in case people want to read what I wrote, and the “pissing match” between ZeN and myself at Obambi, here’s the thread:
http://obambi.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/thebook/
And Meesh, if I’m a “troublemaker” for showing you to be what you are, then so be it, a “troublemaker” I am.
After posting what you claim is ALL of my comments made at Larry’s site (is that all of the over 250 comments? I only count about 75 comments, and YOU commented in the thread at the regulator that I had made OVER 250 comments, your words Meesh, not mine)
Then you comment this:
“These posts made by you have NOT been edited, but you will do the same as Larry and you will deny ever posting any of this, I have you pegged, don’t bother.”
You can post that they aren’t “edited”, but they are DEFINATELY taken out of context because you have not put the comments I am responding too, or the comments made on the thread I am commenting on. Call it whatever you want, I call it EDITING when you post PART of what I am commenting on.
But Meesh, how’s this;
I MADE THOSE COMMENTS
And if I may add, in NOT ONE of those comments do I comment “I support Larry”.
You conclude with this:
“By the way, is there any blog out there that you are welcomed as a poster, you seem to be argumentative and condescending to many of the other posters wherever you go. I would make a point of brushing up on your social and proper “netiquetting” skills…….. just saying.”
For your information, I don’t visit many blogs, and I post on even fewer.
And the regulator is the ONLY blog that I have been BANNED from.
I am a courteous commenter.
KStreet even “likes” me (that should tell you SOMETHING), and Democratista and I have had courteous back and forths, and even on the “Greta” forum, Bandita seemed to take a liking to me.
YOUR problem is that I have “caught” the regulator doing the same thing as Larry does, and you HATE that.
There’s plenty of proof of that in the Obambi link.
I have believed all along that the regulator would have had some credibility if they would just stick to the FACTS. Heck, I may have even “supported” you if you would have only kept to the FACTS.
The sad FACT is, the regulator isn’t able to do that.
Well, once again IB, your criticism is thick and heavily ladened with dispute over minutia and “nit picking”. Yet you appear to be extremely “thin skinned. My comment was referring to “The Regulator”. You are welcomed to comment here as long as you or anyonelese, from this point forward, cease with the ad hominems and in you case IB, the hysteria.
I have to make something clear here, your defense of Larry’s most aggregious acts, in my mind, is appalling, but you have the right to your opinion.
Hoever, I believe it speaks volumes about a person who would overlook that a person such as Larry Sinclair would try TWO times to invoke Sasha and Malia Obama into his mess and all you can tell us is that it was SASHA, not Malia. Have you any children of your own IB?
Would YOU want some hardened criminal, liar and grifter (not ad hominems, they are a proven fact ON THE PUBLIC RECORD) soliciting your 8 and 11 year old girls to read his book or ASK why someone doesn’t write to them about their father’s [alleged] sexual and drug misconduct?
IB you wrote something above that I need to quote:
Yet you do not apply that logic when it comes to Larry Sinclair and his accusations. You and others constantly insist (paraphrasing) that all Obama has to do is to answer the allegations or file a cease and desist order about the book…and so forth.
Larry Sinclair made the accusation. Larry Sinclair has to prove the allegation. Thusfar, he has not done so. He will never do so. He is a scam artist and his latest scam to raise money is this so called election fiasco.
You’re on the wrong side of a lot of issues IB. Perhaps instead of knee jerk reactions to a lot of things said about Sinclair, you might want to take a step back and ask yourself, what has he sucessfully proven to the world, regarding his allegations about Obama? Why is everything about “raising money” when it comes to Sinclair, with no clear agenda, just ruses to make people who already hate Obama contribute to his “causes”, which inevitably result in EPIC FAIL?
IB with regard to The Regulator and M&N, I am and will always be a staunch supporter and contributor to said blogs.
Once again, IB, understand that blogs are mainly about opinions. They are not news organizations that
MUSTSHOULD adhere to some simblance of objective reporting.Blogs will have opinions that are extremely distasteful to some and very pleasant to read by others. The point is, this is the internet! There are millions of places to go that adhere to your particular mindset. Stop being so hard on others who don’t agree with you IB. We’re all here to shine an EXTREMELY bright light on LARRY SINCLAIR’S criminal activities and lies. Anything else, in my opinion is superfluous.
You know IB, that is a pathetic statement. As much as I have been victimized by that “real name” thing you ASSume that I got from Sinclair, the truth is I honestly could NOT REMEMBER the name of his stinking blog. Nothing more, nothing less.
Having said that, at my age chit like that happens, and for you to “go there” about real names, after the bullshit I have taken from Sinclair, I would rather you NOT comment on my blog any more. THAT is a personal decision based on your last statement. You just crossed the line IB. To even think that I would stoop to Sinclair’s level is nauseating and unacceptable. THIS TIME ITS PERSONAL IB… You are NOT welcomed here, after all. “Buh Bye”.
KStreet,
I know this won’t be posted, but I KNOW you will read it.
Did you write this over on the KPBS site?
“A telling indication of Sinclair’s intimidation tactics is to always post people’s full names and locations on the web and in his books. He really hopes that one of his supporters might find one of these people and perhaps do some harm to them. After all, what is the purpose of putting someone’s name and location (and sometimes complete addresses) out there, just because that person disagrees with his statements?”
Didn’t you do the same in your comment about Citizen Wells?
You are just upset because I pointed out your hypocrisy.
Let me make something perfectly clear to you IB…I told you that I could not remember the name of his web site. I have gone there a couple of times over a year ago. Wells is too far right of center for me to even entertain the idea of visiting his blog. I used the term “Goofy” because that’s what we call him, but decided not to, and used his real name instead. Wells has had websites advertising his Real Estate Business in NC as well as bigfoot websites with his full name in view.
I think I explained to you though, that at my age one honestly forgets. YOU on the otherhand still insist that I did that purposely. I see there is no middle ground with you IB. I am wondering if there is a name for the mental illness you manifest when “confronting” people. I always said that Sinclair’s supporters were as dumb, blind, and stupid as he is, hence the old adage: “Birds of a feather….”
Once again, you are no longer welcomed here IB. I will be banning you from my site in a few minutes.
KStreet,
I am sorry I upset you.
You are a person I respect and admire.
You have more integrity in your pinky than Larry has ever had.
I’m sorry you feel the need to ban me, but it’s your blog, and you need to do what you think you need to do.
Thanks for letting me post.
KStreet,
I’d also like to point out that I HAVE NOT done this:
“I have to make something clear here, your defense of Larry’s most aggregious acts, in my mind, is appalling, but you have the right to your opinion.”
I’m not defending Larry’s actions (I agree with you, they are out of line, completely out of line).
I point out that what people comment are NOT what Larry said or did. If that’s defending Larry, then we have differing opinions on what defending is.
Look Larry is a liar, and a con artist, and has a criminal background. He has not proven ANYTHING happened with Obama. I do not believe anything happened. I believe Larry is lying.
I HAVE asked Larry for evidence, just read my comments that Meesh posted above.
Interested Bystander,
To me, the *pissing match* between you and Pete is when another moderator addresses a poster of his/her comportment on the blog, at which point the other moderators back off , in reality we had 3 moderators that day… Pete, ZeN and myself.
Initially ZeN addressed you as did I and then Pete took over.
The thread in question when you popped in, I believe to stir the pot was here… http://theregulator.net/?p=2653#comment-16656
The on blog and also off blog discussions were between you and Pete, the final decision on how to deal with you, was up to Pete. You were the one that kept mentioning that you had been banned at The Regulator, you said it at Obambi’s in May and I assumed you had been this is why I said the reason you had been banned.
Mea culpa, I ASSumed you had been banned.
Once again in August at Gretawire, you mentioned being banned at The Regulator to Bandita or to someone there.
ZeN and I double-checked and we discovered Pete had NOT banned you in February, yet Pete placed you in moderation, there’s a difference.
Pete posted your *first name* at The Regulator and not your email address, OK if this is what you say, then I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because this comment made by Pete was deleted by him, as well as your response, I thought it was your email address.
I did ask Pete at the time, what had occurred to cause this hoopla, between the both of you; I had noticed comments disappearing on the thread.
And Pete told me he sent you an email and he was handling it.
I think you’re beating this to a pulp.
and this
I do get it now, Interested Bystander and that’s a relief to know, you were merely nit picking on LTL’s choice of words, when expressing his/her revulsion of Larry’s actions when posting the video in question.
Bottom line we all agree it was sad attempt on Larry’s part to get the attention he thrives.
Yes, you can be Interested Bystander, I must admit I have noticed this, but it’s when you start nit picking and being confrontational this is when a thread derails, other posters feel uncomfortable posting in this type of setting.
We try to cater to *all posters* by trying to provide a comfortable atmosphere, we look closer to determine what factor is causing others to feel uncomfortable, and on February 5th I believe your intent in dropping in was not amicable on your part.
Meesh thank you for saying so clearly what I tried to say, but my anger took over. Anger is the wind that blows out the lamp of intelligent discourse. (Paraphrased)
In the early days of the Sinclair fiasco, debating with IB was tolerable. In fact I honestly liked the man then.
However, his increasing anger and use of ad hominem attacks has left me extremely aggitated, especially when he admits that Sinclair has done many things to intimidate some of us at The Regulator, and then turns around and calls us hypocrites, etc.
Anyway, as I said before, I prefer to eliminate stress and chaos in my life and if that means on this blog as well, so be it.
KStreet,
When Interested Bystander called you out as a hypocrite when you referred to CW by his name, he could not have been more wrong about you.
On the contrary, you have defended many unwelcome guests at M&N and at The Regulator, and this includes Interested Bystander. I’ve admired how you look beyond what some posters have expressed when criticizing these guests, you’ve always pointed out any good that you may have spotted, and you have never been afraid to express it openly, in their defense.
Never change KStreet, I find this remarkable in a human being!
Also, as a moderator of all the M&N blogs and at The Regulator, you KStreet have made this task or job very pleasant, in fact a treat!
I am certain at many other blogs other moderators feel the same about you!
Meesh,
You are right, I was WRONG for posting that comment.
KStreet is a woman of strength and integrity.
I have been rightfully “spanked” for posting such a comment.
A tip to you, Interested Bystander avoid these *shopping cart filled* comments, you know the ones you often post, containing numerous points, questions and so forth… If you limit it to one or 2 points per comment, I am certain you will be received in a better light.
You will not appear to be as condescending or on some mission to derail.
Meesh,
Thanks for the advise.
I will TRY to follow it.
Interested Bystander,
KStreet has the perfect setting here, to reply each and individual comments as they are posted.
All the best!
IB Has apologized to me and tells Meesh that he will try to follow her advise. This seems like grounds enough for me to say that Larry Sinclair has always been a volatile issue on most blogs in which he appears or the comments about him appear. I will not say that no one can comment on him, but it does generate a lot of ire and sometimes worse. Thats what happens IMO, when one has a discourse about pure evil.
May I reccommend to all that since there are a lot of things going on out there in the real world that we can discuss, this post or this, or even this one. How about this one?
At any rate, have a good evening and a better tomorrow all.
KStreet,
Thanks for letting my comments through. My comments were disrespectful and definately unnecessary. I sincerly apologize for that.
I will respect that this is YOUR blog.
You sure know how to humble someone.
THAT’s why I like you so much.
KStreet and Interested Bystander,
It’s very nice to see you have resolved your differences, I have admired in the past while viewing your comments at BHDC the respect you both had for each other, even though you were both on different sides of the political spectrum. The debates have always been stimulating as they should be.
This goes for democratista’s and jay’s participation at BHDC as well…
The Regulator and M&N have never been intended to be political sites, although Larry has often claimed we are (were) pro-Obama sites, he has done this purposely to draw in more supporters, and this of course work$$$ for him.
We do have many democrats, some republicans and also politically uncommitted posters; this is why we have discouraged the poignant political debates on our sites.
We are in fact anti-Larry sites and basically making fun of all the loony conspiracy theorists surrounding the President and or his administration.
I’m so happy KStreet you decided to start-up this site as perhaps an extension, on what we lack; peace out!
And now I will end my comment as you often do at The Regulator; “CARRY ON”
IB — Every single thing you list is misinformation, a half-truth or baffling as to why you think it’s bad. I’m gathering you get your news from rightwing websites, radio and TV.
1. If by spending you are talking about the stimulus, only half the money has been spent so far. The balance will go to help small businesses and to create jobs.
2. As for the omnibus bill (commonly known as the budget), the one President Obama signed was the one left over from the Bush administration — 1/2009 was a little late in the game to send the 2009 budget back to Congress to rework. If President Obama does not fulfill his promise re earmarks on next year’s budget, then you can complain.
3. Yes, the Treasury bailed out the largest manufacturing sector in the country and the largest banks with loans of taxpayer money (with strings attached). Bush approved the bank bailout and Obama allowed it to continue. I gather you are part of the group that thinks he should have just let the banks fail and the auto industry too. How would the unemployment figures have looked then?
4. President Obama said in his campaign he would restore our standing in the world. He has done that. Not sure why that pisses the rightwing off so much.
5. President Obama has called Republican leaders into the White House to discuss issues. He has also had conservative media people in for lunch.
6. Don’t know what you are talking about regarding the teabag gesture so I’ll tell you what I think. The un-Patriotic, anti-American teabaggers have called our President Hitler, have compared his administration to the Holocaust, health care reform to mass murder, called the Speaker of the House a Nazi. Are you suggesting they have their panties in a bunch because they think the President is disrespecting them? Respect has to be earned and acting like damn fools is no way to earn it.
7. The healthcare debate has been on C-Span all along. If the Big Pharma deal was so secret, how come everyone knows about it?
8. President Obama’s healthcare plan is not a bill, it is a goal. He has laid out what he wants to accomplish and left it up to the lawmaking branch of the government to write the bill. That’s the constitutional way to do things in America.
Glix,
I will reply to your comment over on the “One Year Later” thread later.
No time now.