Creepy in Politics

[Jon Letendre]

I will never show a knowledge of Peter’s existence again if he will maintain the same.

How's that for wanting a flame war?

Let’s see who breaks it first, for conclusive evidence as to who wants a flame war.

[Peter]

1 minute ago, Jon Letendre said:

Thank you for that frank admission of ignorance on the subject.

You should be minding your own business.

You should be banned for life from OL or at least put on probation but I will allow Michael to judge.  

[Peter]

Just now, Jon Letendre said:

I will never show a knowledge of Peter’s existence again if he will maintain the same.

How's that for wanting a flame war?

Let’s see who breaks it first, for conclusive evidence as to who wants a flame war.

I will never be judgmental about your posts if you no longer post. Boo! Go away. I will not ignore your "crimes against humanity' you piece of excrement. 

[Peter]

I remember getting in flame or turf wars with George Hamilton Smith back on the old Atlantis and OWL. Damn. He was brilliant. I can't say the same for Letendre. He seems to be a junk yard dog. 

[Peter]

I liked when Crocodile Dundee pulls out his knife and says, "Now that's a knife."

I wrote to George H. Smith, years ago. There you go again. Anarchists find traitors to THEIR freedom among the founding fathers machinations at the creation of the Constitution.
-----------------------------
And George replied: You are going off the rails again, Peter, and becoming hysterical. I never said anything about traitors. Nor does my comment have anything to do with my anarchism. I merely stated the position of many Antifederalists. Do you not count opponents of the Constitution as founding fathers? They included George Mason, author of the magnificent Virginia Bill of Rights and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention who said he would rather cut off his right hand than sign the document. What about Richard Henry Lee, the Virginian who made the original resolution for American independence in the Second Continental Congress? What about Patrick Henry, who refused to serve as a delegate to the Convention because he "smelt a rat"? What about Sam Adams? What about Mercy Otis Warren, the woman who wrote a two-volume history of the Revolution and who warned that the Constitution, by failing to provide sufficient safeguards for freedom, would eventually become a virtual blank check for the expansion of federal power? What about all those Quakers and other opponents of slavery who protested that pro-slavery document?

Historians estimate that over half of America's population opposed ratification of the Constitution. The political tricks and maneuvering used by Federalists to overcome this liability have been been well documented by historians. A few years ago, at an ISIL conference in Williamsburg, I gave two lectures on the topic, "Was the U.S. Constitution a Betrayal of the American Revolution?" My talk was very balanced, as I presented the strong and weak points of each side objectively. But whether one wishes to use the term "betrayal" or not, the fact that the Constitution departed radically from many essential principles of the Revolution is indisputable. This was a hot button topic at the time, widely discussed, and Hamilton discusses it in the Federalist Papers. He freely acknowledges the differences, but argues that the Constitution, by dramatically increasing the power of the federal government, was a change for the better.

Then there is the fact that the Philadelphia Convention exceeded its legally authorized mandate, which was to correct and amend the Articles of Confederation. This is one reason why Rhode Island never even sent delegates and why Lansing and Yates, two of the three delegates from NY, left in protest not long after the Convention began. Antifederalists objected to this illegality and demanded that a new convention be held -- one that was legally authorized and was not stacked with nationalists. In the Federalist Papers, Madison pretty much concedes the illegality argument but goes on to say that the Constitution was a new revolution, in effect.

As a pro-Constitution newspaper put it at the time: The War with Britain was a revolution in favor of freedom. The Philadelphia Convention is a revolution in favor of government. In my two ISIL talks (which run around 2-1/2 hours total, and which may be available from ISIL), I present a detailed list and discussion of the many ways in which the Constitution departed from the principles of radical republicanism that animated the Revolution. Revolutionary principles included short terms in office, compulsory rotation in office (i.e., term limitations), a deep suspicion of executive power, a preference for local governments over a centralized government, limits on taxing power, the insistence that all powers exercised by a government must be enumerated and expressly granted by the people, a preference for federalism over nationalism, etc., etc. In virtually every case, modern libertarians would agree with the Antifederalists, not the Federalists, on these issues.

Fortunately, the nationalists did not get everything they wanted. (Hamilton, for example, wanted a president elected for life who would have to (the) power to veto all state legislation.) Hence the final document was, in Madison's words, a "bundle of compromises." It also incorporated a number of good ideas that both Federalists and Antifederalists shared. This is why I said the Antifederalists were largely correct. Virtually every one of their predictions about the growth of governmental power that would occur under the Constitution has come to pass, and they correctly identified the reasons for this, such as the "general welfare" clause and the "necessary and proper" clause. The Antifederalists were amenable to changes in the Articles, but they wanted to close the loopholes that the Constitution left for the expansion of power. The dire warnings of the Antifederalists were widely dismissed as anti-government hysteria, but it was not long before Hamilton, in his defense of federal subsidies for private businesses, presented his detailed defense of the Implied Powers Doctrine. According to this doctrine, the Constitution implicitly vests Congress with powers that far exceed the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8. This broad interpretation of the general welfare clause, which effectively renders the enumerated powers (Art. 1, Sec. null and void by vesting Congress with indefinite and undefined powers, was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1936. The majority decision declared:

Hamilton maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised for the general welfare.
Many Antifederalists, such as Mercy Warren, saw this coming and insisted that the Constitution should be rewritten so as to leave no doubt that Congress had only those powers that were expressly delegated to it. I discussed these issues in some detail in the four Knowledge Products tapes that I wrote on the Constitution -- two on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and two on the text of the Constitution itself. My four tapes (around 200 manuscript pages) were part of an eight tape set, and in 1988 this set, after receiving the approval of a committee of leading historians, became the official Bicentennial tapes on the U.S. Constitution. I mention this in case you think that an anarchist is incapable of writing good history . . . .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Come on, guys.

You're both the good guys.

Fight the bad guys fer kerissakes.

 

(When I was in the underworld in São Paulo, one of the favorite sayings was when one bandit fights another, the only winner is the police. Ditto for here. When one good guy fights with another, the only winner is the dark side.)

Peter, I love you to death. But there is a difference between trash talk and accusation of fact. I don't like Jon's form of trash talk, but that's all it is when he does it. I think William's form of trash talk is far more deadly. Jon is a punch in the face. William is cancer with a sweet coating. You can see Jon coming and duck. You only see what is going on with William when you are so sick, you are ready to die. 

Let those two work out their issues. It's not a one-sided deal. They may even resolve them over time. (I doubt it  but who knows?) They are both long-time regulars so they get a pass where newbies would not. (Ditto for you.  )

As to politeness, if that were my thing, I never would have gone all in on President Trump before he was president. Had he not won the presidency, we would be mired up to our necks in more endless wars for profit, the deep state would be taking over more than before with a stronger secret police than ever, the US would be in worse trade deals with jobs vanishing more and more, North Korea would be blowing up bombs, etc. etc. etc. 

As to this flame war, I will be spinning it off into a separate thread. The issue of this thread--i.e. blackmail among the rich and powerful through their sexual deviances--is too important for a flame war. There are people on the front lines who are fighting this war for us (like Cernovich, Molyneux, the Open Secret people, etc.), just like Trump is fighting the crony elitist machine for us. I want readers to be able to get their messages without wading through pages of posts doing nothing but personal squabbles. Most readers bail when that happens. (The attraction of a train wreck, while compelling, is short lived.  )

btw - Have you ever met a person who was seriously abused by pedophiles as a child? I have. The 12 step meetings I went to over my life were full of them. There are depths of pain and sheer fucked-upness you have to see to believe. And that didn't come from wrong choices by them when they were children. Those are the people I feel sorry for, not any rich and powerful people who may have abused them, then tossed them aside like garbage when they grew out.

You and Jon don't have to like each other, but I think you would be great neighbors. I know he would look after your shit just like you would his when each of you were not there. If somebody came snooping around, I can easily see in my mind both of you confronting the snooper, calling the police, or whatever. That, to me, is one of my tests of a good guy.

People like William, on the other hand, would destroy your shit without you knowing it if they got it into their heads that this was what was best for you. They would be the fucking snooper. They would meddle, alter and destroy--your shit, not their shit--then get pissed when you tell them to stop.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

Some of Peter’s post was totally on–topic, Michael.

He thinks Patton may be a victim of a hoax and he thinks OL could be in the wrong for repeating the hoax here. He wanted that addressed by OL’s management.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

34 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

He thinks Patton may be a victim of a hoax and he thinks OL could be in the wrong for repeating the hoax here.

Jon,

I agree with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but I agree with that as a standard of law. As a standard of personal opinion, the existence of blackmail by pedophilia as a real thing in our culture sure throws a monkeywrench into specific cases where we can't see what is going on.

As to Patton himself, I have no strong opinion right now--one way or the other. I need to look deeper. I know Cernovich dug up some old tweets and, generally, where there's smoke, there's fire.

But James Gunn got rehired by Disney. Apparently, thousands and thousands of pedophilic tweets are not a standard for Disney. And if that becomes the ruling standard, if you let off one pedophile, why not let off others?

I know I won't be watching the new Disney film. Whether that means anything is another issue. My own standards don't come from multinational corporations in bed with governments the world over.

Fact-wise, I can see the possibility of Patton suffering from a hoax. I doubt it, but I won't deny the plausibility. We have all kinds using social media for that on all sides. But I cannot see Cernovich as perpetrating that hoax should it be one. Cernovich doesn't do hoaxes. I know his work and he fights the culture wars in a far different manner.

Michael

[Peter]

36 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Some of Peter’s post was totally on–topic, Michael.

He thinks Patton may be a victim of a hoax and he thinks OL could be in the wrong for repeating the hoax here. He wanted that addressed by OL’s management.

I was just thinking about that. And thanks to Michael for the benevolent post. Are there any videos of Patton Oswald or whatever his name is, saying the things in those text messages? It is possible it was not him, even though I googled him myself and found those texts. What if? What if someone is trying to destroy someone's life or get them to commit suicide, etc. What if? 

edit Michael was replying before I sent the above. 

[Peter]

18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Fact-wise, I can see the possibility of Patton suffering from a hoax

Those texts are so over the top, anyone in show biz would be insane to express them. I am no expert but when I googled Patton, up those texts popped. Bingo! But was that proof? Could a web expert or a hacker print/post something making it appear that it was you or Oswalt that said it? I bet that Ruskie Puton and has buddies could. I bet Jean Letendre could. Did Le Jon change his French first name to Jon from Jean? What if I googled that? My point is, Jussie Smullen or whatever his name is lost out at the first semi proven hint of criminal activity. But Oswalt is signing up for new gigs.

It boils down to this: why would he, who works for entertainment entities that are highly susceptible to public opinion to hire him, go way out on a criminal limb and admit crimes or potential crimes? it makes no sense. What if someone is trying to destroy him, like Letendre does with William every time he calls him a pedophile?  

[Jon Letendre]

Notice that shit–for–brains doesn’t address Gunn. Does that feel like you’re really talking to someone, Michael? Doesn’t look like you are, from here.

[Jon Letendre]

11 minutes ago, Peter said:

Those texts are so over the top, anyone in show biz would be insane to express them. I am no expert but when I googled Patton, up those texts popped. Bingo! But was that proof? Could a web expert or a hacker print/post something making it appear that it was you or Oswalt that said it? I bet that Ruskie Puton and has buddies could. I bet Jean Letendre could. Did Le Jon change his French first name to Jon from Jean? What if I googled that? My point is, Jussie Smullen or whatever his name is lost out at the first semi proven hint of criminal activity. But Oswalt is signing up for new gigs.

It boils down to this: why would he, who works for entertainment entities that are highly susceptible to public opinion to hire him, go way out on a criminal limb and admit crimes or potential crimes? it makes no sense. What if someone is trying to destroy him, like Letendre does with William every time he calls him a pedophile?  

All of your imagination about how the world is, proved wrong by Gunn. You refuse to listen. You refuse to reasearch for yourself. You refuse to treat with respect those of us who do research and do know and try to show you. But you start flame wars with me in total ignorance, and end up making a complete fool of yourself, telling us how the world works and what is and is not possible in this world in perfect contradiction to facts about Gunn. Your stupidity is so utterly complete.

[Peter]

12 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Notice that shit–for–brains doesn’t address Gunn. Does that feel like you’re really talking to someone, Michael? Doesn’t look like you are, from here.

I don't even know who Gunn is, if you are referring to me. I remember a guy named Ben Gunn from "Treasure Island." I just went to Jean's name location and it didn't say much about him. What do you do? Are you all the things you accuse other's of being? Why can't you "type" without cussing?  Oh. I reread Michael's post. Gunn is the head of Disney and he is a pedophile too?   

[Peter]

Venom. Misdirection. Cursing. Slander. Libel. More venom. Definitely not in a "happy place."  

[Peter]

If Gunn has thousands of pedophile tweets or texts, and he was hired by Disney? That should cause near universal outrage. "I don't get it" said Tom Hank's character in the movie, "Big."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 minutes ago, Peter said:

If Gunn has thousands of pedophile tweets or texts, and he was hired by Disney? That should cause near universal outrage.

Peter,

Gunn was the director of Guardians of the Galaxy. See here on OL:

The Blockbuster Director James Gunn mess

This did cause universal outrage. Gunn was fired.

Then rehired after the dust settled. Marvel didn't even bother looking for a new director during the downtime.

(As to Jon, well... let Jon be Jon...  He's got a good heart that speaks with a bad mouth.  I believe the metaphor is Angel with a dirty face).

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

53 minutes ago, Peter said:

If Gunn has thousands of pedophile tweets or texts, and he was hired by Disney? That should cause near universal outrage. "I don't get it" said Tom Hank's character in the movie, "Big."

No shit, you don’t. But you run your ignorant mouth, anyway.

[Peter]

How dare the other Jon wear black face even if he is an angel?

Jon Voight to Become Trump Presidential Appointee by Paul Bond 51 mins ago,   President Donald Trump said Tuesday he'll appoint Oscar-winning actor Jon Voight to the board of trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for the remainder of a six-year-term to end in September of 2024 . . . .

Holy crap. This Gunn guy should not be employable. I saw the tweets from The Daily Mail if anyone is interested. “He is a baaaad man” as Ali used to say I think the Muslim Ali would be all for cutting this guy’s head off. Grotesque.

James Gunn: “My words of nearly a decade ago were, at the time, totally failed and unfortunate efforts to be provocative. I have regretted them for many years since — not just because they were stupid, not at all funny, wildly insensitive, and certainly not provocative like I had hoped, but also because they don’t reflect the person I am today or have been for some time.”

“Regardless of how much time has passed, I understand and accept the business decisions taken today. Even these many years later, I take full responsibility for the way I conducted myself then. All I can do now, beyond offering my sincere and heartfelt regret, is to be the best human being I can be: accepting, understanding, committed to equality, and far more thoughtful about my public statements and my obligations to our public discourse. To everyone

[Peter]

3 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

No shit, you don’t. But you run ignorant mouth, anyway.

Me run mouth? You run mouth. At least he only called my mouth ignorant and not my typing fingers. What a maroon, said Bugs.

[Jon Letendre]

2 minutes ago, Peter said:

Me run mouth? You run mouth. At least he only called my mouth ignorant and not my typing fingers. What a maroon, said Bugs.

You so rarely have a genuine contribution to make. You are usually just making jokes on serious threads. Or posting twenty year old conversations you were not even part of.

[Peter]

1 minute ago, Jon Letendre said:

You so rarely have a genuine contribution to make. You are usually just making jokes on serious threads. Or posting twenty year old conversations you were not even part of.

Aaah. I'm so sorry, Uncle Albert. What's on TV tonight?

[Jon Letendre]

1 minute ago, Peter said:

Aaah. I'm so sorry, Uncle Albert. What's on TV tonight?

So much for getting me kicked off OL, huh, Peter?

You are really cute when you are mad. Thanks for today.

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

(As to Jon, well... let Jon be Jon...  

Second that.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[T]here is a difference between trash talk and accusation of fact. I don't like Jon's form of trash talk, but that's all it is when he does it. I think William's form of trash talk is far more deadly. Jon is a punch in the face. William is cancer with a sweet coating. You can see Jon coming and duck. You only see what is going on with William when you are so sick, you are ready to die. 

Partly second that.  Jon's form of trash talk doesn't bother me in the circumstances in which he's using it.  He doesn't use it indiscriminately.  I'd use a different metaphor for William.  Insidious poison.  Slithery.  Never quite coming out with a thing.  Insinuating.  I've seen that for some while.

Ellen

[Jon Letendre]

49 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Second that.

 

Partly second that.  Jon's form of trash talk doesn't bother me in the circumstances in which he's using it.  He doesn't use it indiscriminately.  I'd use a different metaphor for William.  Insidious poison.  Slithery.  Never quite coming out with a thing.  Insinuating.  I've seen that for some while.

Ellen

Thank you, Ellen.

Yes, we’ve all seen it for one long while now. Billy is Cancer, as Michael wrote earlier. That’s bloodthirsty vicious compared to what I call Billyboy. Didn’t Rand ask how, once one has identified the white and the black, would one justify any black and resultant grey? Now read it again, substituting “Cancer” for black. But I digress.

 As Michael will confirm, I have never attempted to get Billyboy banned. Nor Peter, nor anyone else. What a bad show on Peter’s part. He wants me censored. Ayn Rand would High–five me for pointing out what a little girl he is. It’s a shame he won’t address me with respect, but he shits all over serious threads with asinine “jokes”, throws putdowns at me then acts like he did not. I’ve asked him to leave me alone, and like Cancerboy, he expressly refuses. A fucking stalker.

[Peter]

39 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Second that.

 

Partly second that.  Jon's form of trash talk doesn't bother me in the circumstances in which he's using it.  He doesn't use it indiscriminately.  I'd use a different metaphor for William.  Insidious poison.  Slithery.  Never quite coming out with a thing.  Insinuating.  I've seen that for some while.

Ellen

Arrgh! I don't know Ellen. When you are the recipient of trash talk, foul language and nasty names, it raises the blood pressure  . . . since Jon used it on me I wonder why I stick around and why I am allowed to be defamed, which is against the site policy?

I don't follow William Shrek much unless he is off his blog. If Michael does have concerns about William I wonder why he allows him to hitch a ride on OL? I suppose I should ask that of Michael in private but what the heck. No need to be private here on a public site.

Since I will apparently still be defamed with impunity whenever Jon wills, I will take a vacation . . . . at least from contributing in any way. I can still poke around without signing on, I guess.  Peter