Thursday, July 12, 2007

Fred Thompson To the Rescue

My favorite Fred Thompson moment is in his most recent movie gig. In Albert Brooks’ mildly-subversive movie, Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, Thompson plays himself as the head of a commission that sends Brooks to India and Pakistan to find out what makes Muslims laugh. "Are you back in politics?" asks Brooks. "I thought you were acting now." Thompson slumps over the conference table and pronounces "Once you’re back in politics, you never really escape." The other flunkies on the fake "commission" chuckle in deference to the chair, as Thompson works his substantial charms on the out-of-work Brooks character, eventually convincing him to take on the effort, supposedly dreamed up by W. himself who, Thompson claims, "has a pretty darn good sense of humor". Yeah. Funny like a heart attack, or a suicide bomb in Falusia.

After years of pretending to be a tough guy, dropping F-bombs and drinking brown liquor in the movies and on TV, Thompson is bizarrely being held out as the last remaining hope of a desperate Republican party. Saddled with a dreadful president and an out-of-touch agenda that includes the continued slog in Iraq, racist immigrant bashing and anti-science denial from evolution to stem cells, the GOP is facing the stark reality of its own irrelevance, if not its pending extinction. Staring blankly at a Law and Order rerun some months ago, someone in Rove’s office got the bright idea: Why not Thompson?

No less than ten "candidates" have stepped forward to offer their services as the Republican presidential offering for 2008, resulting in a wave of indifference and yawns throughout the land. Giuliani? The self-declared Mr. 9/11 has some, er, personal issues and his positions on social issues are at odds with the nut-right base. Oh, and, by the way, some firefighters would like to talk about what he did or didn’t do on and around 9/11, if you have the time. Romney? A little anxious to please, don’t you think? His perfect hair and teeth (talk about your Breck girls) lurch ahead of his face as he enters each room, pander-ready. OK for GOPers who want to love themselves, but he will have the smell of death in ‘08 (not to mention the rancid stench of his desired doubling of the population at Guantanamo) as he tries to find those in the enraged general populace to love him while he’s wrong on every issue imaginable – at least this week. A minor player like Tommy Thompson? What do you do with someone who is only taken seriously by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? Run him for county executive, perhaps? John McCain? Sounds familiar...who was that, again?

And so, as America struggles to build a new start after the disastrous and corrupt Bush/Cheney years, the Grand Old Party reaches into its past to find its future. Once again, a decidedly B-actor steps forward to read the script. A typical character played by Fred Thompson in one of his movies would look dourly at the proposed candidacy outline on his cherry-maple desk while clinking the ice cubes in his ever-present glass of scotch, chuckling mildly as he turns the page. Eventually, he’d take the Rove-written proposal, crumple it up and throw it into a wastebasket across the room. "That’s a three-pointer," he would say, to no one in particular, about his waste-shooting skill. "F*#k that."

But, like Ronald Reagan, the phony hero, the real Fred Thompson is not made of such strong stuff. If you want to love him, he will make himself available to be loved. In fact, if the money is right, Thompson the lobbyist will tell you anything you want to hear and lean on the rope-line to receive your hugs. Reagan, his supposed brother-in-bullshit, had his price to carry the water of the moneyed interests and I’m sure Thompson has his. Maybe he’ll just charge them at his going rate of $500 per hour. Let’s see, this president thing is a 24/7 job...365 times 4 years, paid in advance, of course...hey, he’s yours – phony red pick-up truck and all. Oh, and by the way, his sons would like to talk to you about commerce in Uzbekistan...

Although he and those around him will spend untold hours and millions of dollars trying to define him in a glowing, aw-shucks light, Thompson will not be able to hide from how he first came to national attention – as the 30-year-old chief Republican counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee during the hearings that gripped the country’s imagination 34 summers ago. While Sam Ervin and even his then-boss Howard Baker were tying to find out what the hell was going on in the cesspool otherwise known as the Nixon White House, young Fred was sneaking behind their backs, leaking all kinds of inside information about the investigation to Nixon’s henchmen. Not that it did them any good. But it says something about the desperation of the 2008 GOP that they would turn to a veteran of secret Nixonian intrigue to help them recover from these somehow even darker years of secret Bushian nonsense.

Thompson’s other "issues" are nothing compared to him plotting with Nixon to subvert the historic work of the Watergate Committee. He has the kind of issues that would be death to any Democrat, but that just cause knowing nudges in a well-connected Republican. Lymphoma in remission? Hey, has anyone seen Cheney’s medical charts lately (Treated as Secret/SCI)? Divorce and second marriage to a 24 years younger trophy wife? A mere piffle – Rudy’s got one marriage on him, not to mention the Rage of the Second Wife, and he’s in the lead. Active in the Scooter defense fund; no doubt the successful lobbyist for that particular subversion of justice? Well, the whole thing was silly and, besides, juries are for suckers. Asbestos and abortion-rights lobbyist? Hey, a guy’s gotta eat.

In the end, Fred Thompson is stuck in a no-win situation. If he runs, he’ll be the doomed front-man for a miserable Republican party that has itself boxed-in and wrong on so many issues, from Iraq to health care to immigration to stem cell research. Somebody has to have an "R" next to their name as the loser in the history books, so it might as well be a mediocre actor in a dumpy brown business suit. If he doesn’t run, he will be the Man Who Wouldn’t Come, someone the GOP can blame their many failures on as they lose 30 more seats in the House, 5 more in the Senate and 100 more votes in the electoral college. They’ll need someone to blame – looking in the mirror after imposing the Bush Regime on the world will just be a bit too painful.

51 comments:

Brad said...

Name one movie in which Fred Thompson has dropped an F-bomb....

EddyPo said...

If the G.O.P. needs a "Reaganesque" candidate, they will never do better than Zombie Reagan.

Anonymous said...

Seems like Mikey is a tad bit nervous about FDT considering that he's already slamming the hell out of him yet FDT hasn't even declared a run for the White House.

So somehow in Mikey's moronic and possessed thinking, he believes that two junior senators, one not even serving a full term and the other being elected on the coattails of her husband with no real experience, is the best and most qualified option for our country???? Wow.

If the dems were smart, which they're not, they would be pushing Gov. Richardson (D-NM) as their candidate in 2008...he could easily win carrying the south and a lot of Reagan democrats. Fortunately the media and the wing-nut left is too obssessed with Hillary Rodham and B. Hussein Obama to let logic to prevail.

EddyPo said...

B. Hussein Obama? Hey that's clever. Did you ever notice "Obama" rhymes with "Osama"? Someone should let Fox News know about this breaking story.

Anonymous said...

So Mikey the blogger can call Reagan a "phony", Republicans "racist", and FDT a "brother-in-bullshit" but I can't have fun with Obama's ACTUAL name?????

The lefty wing-nut double-standard knows no end...

Anonymous said...

At first, I liked Fred but he has the same problem as Hillary, Obama, and the Breck Boy: they all come from the legislative branch--no executive experience. Only Romney has that kind of experience unless you think Hillary has "apprentice" experience under Bill.

You Lefties should like Romney because he is from the most liberal state in the Union. He is more like JFK in that he has to overcome the Mormon issue as JFK did the Catholic issue.

EddyPo said...

If you want to make fun of centrists Hillary or Obama be my guest. When you insult an actual lefty I'll let you know.

Mike Plaisted said...

brad: I swear I saw Thompson go f-ee on a clip once from one of his movies. Still looking. I know there is S-word in "In the Line of Fire". Will confirm if I can find it.

1 Anony: Go ahead and nominate Fred. We'll wipe the floor with his phony, corn-pone ass. The GOP could nominate Jesus H. Christ and he'd still get thumped if he's running on a Republican platform.

I also think Dalton is a much funnier middle name that Hussein. But, if a Republican had the misfortune to have the middle name of Hitler or something, I wouldn't mention it -- there is such a thing as a cheap shot. Besides, what could be better than a VP whose first name is Dick and who also happens to be one?

And, yes, I will take Clinton's and Obama's experience as activists (and, yes, First Woman) before and progressive senators now over a B-acting, one-term senator with a lazy reputation and a willingness to take the cause of anyone who will pay him enough. If he had one leading role to his credit, it might look better for him. But he doesn't. And he won't. And, sure, let's nominate Richardson. Our field is five or six deep. And yours?

Anony 2: Go ahead and nominate Mitt. I assume he will be the nominee anyway, because nut-base Republican's can't see through his enourmous bullshit quotient. He is a laughable cartoon of himself and I hope he carries the banner, just for entertainment's sake.

As for the religion thing, if you take that kind of stuff seriously, Mormonism is pretty whack, even for a religion. JFK was a good practicing Catholic, but I don't think he had to put on vestments, stand on street corners and try to convert anybody. And the whole thing about Mormons sweeping in to save the U.S. Constitution is as nutty as it can be, although the chalice, incense, (supposed) priest celebacy and rituals of my (former) Catholic church is not far behind.

It's not bigotry if you don't want Romney just because of his religion. Religious lunacy is simply a matter of degree, but you can draw the line somewhere. All serious candidates have to profess to some sky-god beliefs. At least when JFK said the Pope would not be running the government, he had some credibility. If Romney makes the same commitment, well, who would believe him? And, even if you do, like everything else he says, it might change tomorrow.

Matt said...

Funny how "Anonymous" claims the right to have fun with people's names when she goes by the name Anonymous.

Should we call her Laura, after Mrs. Bush, or shall we call her Dick, after the other Mrs. Bush?

Whatever, she sure likes Bush.

Roland Melnick said...

"...a willingness to take the cause of anyone who will pay him enough."

My God man, take a look in the mirror.

At the top of your main page, it should read "Dedicated to My Opinion." Granted I am new here, but your posts and comments that I have read so far bear little resemblance to an analytical process as much as they are opinionated ranting.

Call me cynical, but I have a hard time taking someone seriously who links to Arianna Huffington.

Mike Plaisted said...

Roland:

Pardon me for my opinions. I can give you "analytical process" if you want, and I often do. You can take the opinion for what it's worth or you can just dismiss my opinion because it is, well, my opinion. Or you can offer an opposing view. Your choice.

It is not cynical not to take me seriously because I link to the Huffington Post. It is ridiculous. Is that what you mean by "analytical process"? The Huffington Post is the best lefty web site that I know of. It has gone far beyond its founder, who has come quite a long way herself since her first public exposure as a right-wing commentator.

As for the "look in the mirror" comment, I don't know what you mean. Thompson's a lobbyist and he's gotta eat, but he has shown a remarkable propensity to shill for anyone, including asbestos companies and, apparently, things he says he doesn't believe in (such as freedom of choice). I'm a criminal defense lawyer and I represent criminal defendants, mostly indigent. What's your point again?

Roland Melnick said...

Why is "shilling" for something you don't believe in hard for you to understand? Do you condone the actions of the hundreds of people you work for? I hope not. So why is Thompson's work so distasteful to you? Do you think you occupy some moral high-ground because you defend indigent criminals?

Other Side said...

You'll have fun with Roland, Mike. He likes to hang out at Badger Blogger where his nincompoop comments blend well with a fellow named Mickey.

Anonymous said...

Once again you're wrong Mikey P...FDT was elected twice (1992, 1996) as Senator from Tennessee and has served more time in the US Senate than Hillary and Obama COMBINED.

And how is using Obama's actual middle name a cheap shot??? Going after his wife or children would be a cheap shot. Is it a cheap shot when wing-nut lefties go after Bush and use his "W" middle initial in a derogatory way? The double-standard, once again, is blinding.

Other Side said...

Gawd, anony ... you are stupid. It's how his middle is used you ninny and the implication behind it (though I am curious how the "W" is used derogatorily ... would like to use that).

Thompson's career as a Senator was so distinquished that he is more known for his TV roles.

Roland Melnick said...

Mikep probably will have fun verbally sparring with me. I am not afraid to engage people with whom I disagree. I don't casually dismiss people by labeling them as a nincompoop.

As for your comments, it's obvious y'all aren't Hillary or B.Hussein Obama supporters if you think a "distinguished" Congressional career is a pre-requisite.

Other Side said...

Oooh, Roland. That hurt. So you admit that Thompson's senatorial career was not so distinguished.

I've seen your commenting before Roland. It's not very high-minded. But I'll take you on anytime.

Anonymous said...

Senator Thompson's career was a reputable one who purposely didn't draw attention to himself to feed any massive ego. Instead he did his job...and he wasn't doing it to use a launch pad to another, higher position.

Please tell me one major piece of legislation that Obama or Hillary have been the big names.

If you want to talk about "distinguished" Senatorial service between Thompson and Obama/Hillary, bring it on.

Hillary and Obama are the media darlings of the 2008 race and nothing more...they are the empty suits with nothing more than catchy slogans and catch phrases. I still don't know if Hillary supports our troops or the war, she keeps changing her mind. Whether you agree with Thompson or not, at least you know his stand on something as important as the war in Iraq.

Other Side said...

Yes ... a war we should never have started. His support is all I need to know.

Oh, anony, your first paragraph in a nutshell ... Nice way to say he did nothing.

As far as ego goes ... check out his trophy wife.

Other Side said...

Note to anony: I did like his work on Law and Order.

Anonymous said...

I never said that he had any "signature" legislation when he served in the Senate, I was comparing his record to that of Obama and Hillary's...which is slim to none.

I think it's hilarious that you bring up his "trophy" wife but yet it's ok for the wife of a former President to use her husband's popularity to run for Senate which was nothing more than a shill for running for President. What a joke you are.

FYI - Hillary supported the war in Iraq from the beginning and only recently flip-flopped to satiate her wing-nut followers. Do you not support her either?

Roland Melnick said...

So who is "other side?" Well, it may be easier to say we know who he/she isn't.

"Other side" is not:
1) A Hillary, Edwards or Obama supporter since he thinks distiguished public service is a pre-requisite to being President.

2) A feminist. OS trivializes Jeri Thompson as a trophy wife ignoring that she is a college educated professional in addition to being beautiful.

3) A true pundit. OS talks tough, but won't back up his/her childish little snipes. Anonymous gave a genuine response to OS' troll-like post, then challenged OS to qualify Hillary and Obama's service. OS responded with more troll garbage.

OS, earlier I was engaging MikeP and you decided to snipe at me. What name did you post under over at Badger Blogger? Do you attack me here because I gave you the smack-down over there?

Other Side said...

Oooh. Let's see, Rollie:

1) I happen to think that Ms Clinton and Mr Obama's service has been distinguished. If you think mere length of service is a qualification for that, you are sadly mistaken.

2) Let's see. Mr. Thompson was married to his previous wife for 26 years, then married a beautiful younger woman. In wingnut circles, that would automatically call for sarcastic remarks (like anony's insipid comment about Ms Clinton's senate seat being a shill). In this case, I am guilty, too. He married his present wife 17 years later. Hardly a leap. (There, I admit errors. Do you? Hah, I think not.)

3) What was genuine about anony's response, Rollie? He merely skated over the career of Mr. Thompson. He provided nothing to back up his statement. Basically, his argument was the career was distinquishable because nothing happened. Hardly overwhelming.

Meanwhile Mr. Obama has provided more encouragement to constituents and others who identify with his message of hope than Thompson did in eight uneventful years. Additionally, Ms Clinton at least tried to make changes rather than sitting quietly aside like your hero.

Finally, are you so clueless, Rollie, that you cannot click on the link and figure out my real name, which is displayed at my site (including e-mail address ... none of which you provide).

I note that you don't even have a blog or at least provide no means to get to it. Who's the real troll?


As far as anony is concerned ... everything you say are Rovian talking points. Why should I respond to you? I'll say this for Rollie, he has some nerve ... at the least.

Other Side said...

One more thing, Rollie. You? You gave me a smack down. Way too funny.

Actually, I don't remember entirely the exchange ... your comment did not elicit any venom from me. It was Mickey who touched a nerve with one of his typically swinish comments.

I'll admit, my reply was not one of my better moments. I have not returned because I found I had lowered myself to the level of commenters at Badger Blogger ... and I did not like that.

Roland Melnick said...

@OS, to respond to your 1,2,3 post:

1) You say their service was distiguished but you don't say how. And, I never said anything about length of service...so get your facts straight.

2) Thompson was married, divorced then remarried...so what?

3) The only one here who has raised the "distinguished career" question is you. When you did, me and anony challenged you to justify how Hillary and B.Hussein fit that description. (Something you still haven't done.) "Mr. Obama has provided more encouragement blah blah blah..." That's a real substantive response.

And finally, I did try to click on your name to see your profile, but can't because I don't have a google account.

I think that to dismiss someone who is trying to make sincere points by calling them a name is trollish behavior. Also, merely labeling someone's comments as "Rovian talking points" is weak. If you don't have any ammunition in your gun, don't go to the fight. It's like challenging someone to a fight, realizing your opponent is tough then saying "I don't want to fight because my clothes will get dirty."

p.s.: Mickey is Mickey...no more no less. I'm not Mickey. Mickey has his trollish tendencies as well and I have openly disagreed with him on occasion.

Anonymous said...

Here is what's funny...wing-nut lefties like Mikey P and the OS are scrambling around like crazy trying to dismiss and slam a person who has not even declared his campaign for presidency. What does that tell you? It tells you that the wing nuts are deathly afraid of a potential FDT candidacy, so much so that they feel the need to bash him before he even enters the race. Talk about validating his candidacy!

And PS - if you don't like the fact that I can post anonymously, then disallow the function on this web site. I don't need to reveal my true identity just because I bring up cogent points.

Other Side said...

Rollie:

You should really try reading comments before commenting ... it makes you appear flaky when you don't.

1) Distinguished service ... read the comment. I did provide my opinion on why I think their service is distinguished.

2) Thompson and divorce ... read the comment. I provided a mea culpa. I was wrong.

3) Repeating yourself here.

4) Get a google account then. btw: You did comment once at my site. It was lame.

5) What sincere points did you or anony try to make? It was yours and anony's opinion. I disagree with your opinions. In fact, I flatly reject them. Oh, well ... such is the state of partisanship these days.

6) Lastly ... every snide remark anony came up with I've read before on other conservative blogs. No original thought there.

FYI: A troll is someone who has an opposite view of the content of a post and makes snide comments regarding such posts, without providing anything of substance to the discussion. Since I support Mike, and you and anony do not ... guess who the trolls really are.

And: My site is at http://othersideofmymouth.blogspot.com and my e-mail is piratebat@wi.rr.com. Feel free ... I welcome comments from everyone there. Even trolls.

Anonymous said...

How is one's service determined to be "disguished"? Still waiting to see how you define or embody that. Hillary has served barely one term and Obama hasn't even served one term. And you're right, time of service in the Senate doesn't necessarily make someone "distinhuished" but just having the last name Clinton or Obama doesn't make one distinguished.

Mike Plaisted said...

Hello, all:

Well, several of you seem to be having a great time here in the comments, and you are more than welcome. Just a few thoughts, since Anony 8:09 tried to drag me back into this -- I mean, it is my site, after all.

Yes, I allow anonymous postings so people feel free to drop a thought or two. And, yes, people who post repeatedly as anonymous -- especially those who cast personal aspersions on me or anyone else -- are wimps. They take shots with no accountability. Again, this allowed. Again, they are cowards for abusing the priviledge.

And, again, if all you have is Fred Thompson, bring him on. He still has to run on the disasterous Bush records and will be stuck with the ridiculous GOP positions. No amount of smug, tough guy posturing is going to save him -- or any other Republican -- from the thumping the entire party has coming in 2008.

I'm not trying to take him down because he's a threat. I just think it's funny that he or anyone else would think he's going to make any difference in the ultimate outcome. He's a joke, and I'm laughing.

Anonymous said...

Good, continue laughing and continue to think that he's not a threat...you guys don't even know which democrat candidate to support who has a legit shot at winning (Hint: New Mexico).

Didn't you give the Elephant Party a "thumping" in the 2006 Congressional elections? And now the Congressional approval rating is actually LOWER than that of GWB and at the lowest level in U.S. history. Now I'm laughing.

Roland Melnick said...

I did read your comment OS. You said: "Meanwhile Mr. Obama has provided more encouragement to constituents and others who identify with his message of hope than Thompson did in eight uneventful years." Could you be more vague? I know it's hard for Lefties to think logically, but come on.

It doesn't surprise me that a Lefty/Liberal/Democrat would define a troll as someone who disagrees with them. It's libs like you who support attacks on free speech like the "Fairness Doctrine" and "McCain-Feingold". Just because you disrespect my position does not equate to me being a troll.

Other Side said...

No, Roland. My comment regarding trolls was general ... trolls can be liberal or conservative. You're reading things into what I wrote. Stay in the reality.

Depends on what you consider free speech. I believe in free and fair speech.

Anyway, this is old now.

Toodles!

Anonymous said...

Fair speech to liberals = shutting up Limbaugh/Hannity/Belling/Sykes

On one hand, liberals claim that conservative talk is really just "entertainment" then on the other they say that liberals need equal time to balance out the conservative talk.

Ok, fine, we'll balance out the conservative talk with liberal talk on the radio as long as you promise to the same with the publicly-owned over the air TV waves (NBC, CBC, ABC).

Other Side said...

No, it's conservatives that claim their loudmouths are entertainment ... that way they are exempt from having to be objective.

And one last time: No one wants them shut up. It's best their hateful diatribes are heard by all.

Duh ... when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, both TV and radio frequencies were included. Are you really that clueless, anony.

You should try to get that straight.

But thanks for trying.

Anonymous said...

Funny how the media, when covering the Fairness Doctrine, really only talk about how it's aimed at conservative talk radio because liberals can't seem to keep an audience of their own despite the unrelenting propaganda and coverage liberal talk radio received even before going live on air (Air America).

Other Side said...

Well ... that was another fine talking point brought to you by Anonymous. Thanks for playing.

Roland Melnick said...

Still waiting for "other side" to say how Obama's career has been distinguished.

But I have learned something from OS. Anytime someone disagrees with me, all I have to do is call them a clueless troll and dismiss their view as nothing more than a liberal talking point. That way I won't have to actually make an argument of my own. Thanks OS.

Roland Melnick said...

"Still waiting for "other side" to say how Obama's career has been distinguished."

Or Hillary's...Or Edwards'.

Other Side said...

Roland ... again, why should I repeat myself. I gave examples earlier. All we got for Mr. Thompson was a "he stayed in the background and did not seek adulation" description of his career. Hardly distinguished.

You should stop crying. I believe you first used the word "troll" to describe me. Hypocrite!

Anonymous said...

Let's go OS, please tell us one more time, since we're clueless conservatives, why/how Obama's career has been distinguished. Just tell us once and for all so that we don't have to ask you ever again. Pretty please?

Other Side said...

No need to repeat myself. The problem is that anything I would say that I consider to be distinguished, you would cut down.

What is the point?

It's like saying Thompson career had no distinction. You will disagree.

What is the point?

There is hope, though, for you. You realize your cluelessness. Work on that.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, insults and more personal slams. I guess that's what we should expect out of you.

I have gone back and read every single comment you have made on this blog and this is the ONLY thing you have said about Obama:

"Meanwhile Mr. Obama has provided more encouragement to constituents and others who identify with his message of hope than Thompson did in eight uneventful years."

That's your definition of distinction???? Where is the substance??? Obama has barely been a Senator for 2 years yet he's transformed his entire constituent base and thus is ready to lead the free world???

Remember, Obama would never have won had it not been for the smear job the wing-nut lefties did on incumbant Senator Ryan to get him to pull out of the race because of some sordid sexual behavior he did with his then-WIFE. And all along I thought you lefties believed that an elected representative's personal life was off limits. I guess it only comes into play when it helps your side.

Other Side said...

Like I said... what was the point?

Tell you what ... I don't like talking to a wall. Tell me who you are ... send me an e-mail with your real name, phone number and address and we can continue this.

Otherwise you're nothing.

Anonymous said...

Instead of focusing on who I am and trying to change the subject...why not back up the words you "allegedly" said? All I'm asking you to do is state why you think Obama is distinguished and what he's done of substance in the Senate thus far. Is that so hard?

Roland Melnick said...

Apparently it is that hard, anonymous. This guy wants your address and phone number? For what purpose? OS hasn't shown us anything substantive in this blog, so how would that miraculously change if you gave an address or phone number?

Had he actually given "earlier examples" of Obama's distiguished service, he could have just copy-n-pasted them to respond to us. He got caught in a trap of his own making, unable to back up his own assertions so his only recourse is to be disrespectful, name-call and now demand personal information like some kind of veiled threat. This is like debating a child.

The last word, uninspired and superficial as I'm sure it will be, is yours OS. I'm done here.

Anonymous said...

Yeah. I'm done here too...Bitch.

Other Side said...

Oooh! Such nasty name calling. Easy to do with no name attached.

I told you what I thought of both Clinton and Obama's careers and how I thought they were distinguished. Additionally, I offered the chance to communicate via e-mail and continue the discussion. Neither of you took the opportunity.

What sort of veiled threat? I would provide my info as well ... in fact mine are available easily. My name is on my site, phone number and address can be garnered easily. Unlike the two of you ... I've googled and looked up Roland Melnick and Google asked the same question I have, what the hell is a Melnick?

I'll address myself to you finally, Roland, because the anonymous one is a coward. One more time, if you want to continue this via e-mail, I'll be happy to do so. I communicate with quite a few conservative bloggers in the back channels, so to speak, and EVERYTHING is considered confidential. Hell, I've invited a number to dinner and we had great times ... family, friendship and politics.

But if you think you got the better of me ... well, go ahead if that boosts your ego ... I'm secure enough to not be concerned at all.

Other Side said...

Oh, since I would get the info from here anyway and it's easier than copying here (plus there is limited space)... here are links for you Roland.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/senator/

http://www.barackobama.com/

Now, like I predicted, you will discount anything written there. So, again ... what's the point?

Anonymous said...

I can't stop laughing...the OS still refuses to say why Obama is distinguished. Instead he finally chooses to simply have us go to Obama's propaganda-filled web site. Wow. Super Genius!

And once again, he tries to deflect the conversation to something else that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Why the hell would I want to speak to you off line? Just answer the question you have dodged for nearly a week now. The problem is you CAN'T! Why not just go back up in the conversation and copy exactly what you said that answers our question?

Yours truly,

The Coward

Other Side said...

What? I answered your question by providing the place where I would have gotten the info in the first place. I have said from the start that it was "my opinion" their careers were distinguished.

It has also been my opinion that anything I say will be denigrated anyway. Witness the comment "... Obama's propaganda-filled web site."

But you know what. I actually have a life. Just got back from golfing and now my wife and I will be test-driving a new car, after which we'll have dinner together.

You might want to put your clothes on, turn off the porn and consider leaving the basement and get out and enjoy the summer.

It's a good first step that you acknowledge your cowardice, though.

Anonymous said...

Well I'll have to ask my mom if I'm allowed to go out before I can leave my porn-filled basement.

First of all, I could care less about what you and your wife are planning to do. Bully for you! But the fact that you are still checking the replies on this site tells me that you're actually more of shut-in. I'm just being entertained by your dodging, lies, and cowardice...that keeps me coming back for more!

Secondly, why not get some non-biased info on Obama instead of just going to his web site? Do you actually think that they would put anything remotely negative on his site? And beside that fact you have told this web site multiple times why you think his career has been distinguished...and yet still nothing. Sad.

The problem is that you can't tell me anything that Obama has done.

The other problem for you is that I never once said that FDT's career has been distinguished, all I said was that he has served longer in the Senate than Obama and Hillary combined.

Yours truly,

Online Porn Fan