|
Phone posted:The whole "clinton had slaves" thing didn't pop up until April. The GOP doesn't do oppo, they just fabricate poo poo and go nuts until it sticks. and that book was first published 20 years ago. nobody in their right mind has ever read it
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
It is really a bummer when an artist who has done some stuff you really like (Videodrome etc.) is a shithead in such an aggressive manner that it's almost impossible to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:shooting targets printed up with Obama's face on them in an office I worked at. Oh, yeah. I forgot about those little treasures. BiggerBoat posted:Maybe Hillary did dig most of it up but to say she propagated feels like a stretch to me. I guess it's possible that Hillary Clinton had the greatest and most effective research team on the planet, as well as the contacts ability to disseminate the information through largely right-wing channels (who cooperated with her for some reason? maybe she also had the most effective skullduggery crew on the planet) while also not being able to actually win in an election, but I'm going to say nah. This is just more of the wailing about Hillary and her lovely campaign and how it's all her fault for some reason. Hillary didn't get Fox television and pretty much 100% of AM radio (minus NPR) coast-to-coast to spew this poo poo 24/7, and the idea that the entire Republican political and media machine just sat around with their thumbs up their asses until the Clinton campaign decided to start flinging mud is not credible. I just re-read that, and it sounds like I'm arguing with you. I'm not. However, the secret Muslim/"not a real American" poo poo was on the wire before the candidates had even declared. Even if her campaign dug up poo poo to smear with, she is not responsible for the continual pushing of it for eight years after she lost the primary, and on into today. The Muppets On PCP posted:and again, all that originated with the clinton campaign- the photo of him in traditional somali garb, the reverend wright stuff, rumors of him being born in kenya, etc. if clinton's oppo researchers hadn't dug that stuff up, the gop would've mostly been limited to the lazy cartoons of obama on the white house lawn eating fried chicken and watermelon and michelle as a silverback gorilla in a dress that were constantly emailed back and forth among every state and county level republican staffer because they're not that creative I'll just refer you to my reply to BiggerBoat. It's silly to think the GOP was going to spend eight years with their entire fight being dumb cartoons. There is nothing in recent history to support that. They are excellent excavators, and do not need help finding dirt. The Muppets On PCP posted:what's bizarre is saying that the smear campaign against obama was somehow worse, yet none of it stuck. No? Their failure to beat Obama, or remove him from office, has nothing to do with how hard they shoveled their poo poo. The screeched and flung poop like monkeys. They turned their entire apparatus toward both publicly, via their major media outlets, and more surreptitiously, through their fringe outlets, painting Obama as a dangerous lunatic who wanted to import hundreds of millions of Muslims to rape and murder the oppressed white minorities, while installing himself as dictator and murdering old people with free health care. The Muppets On PCP posted:reminder: bill clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job as the result of an investigation that initially started by looking into a shady land deal a decade prior. they stopped at nothing to try and take him down, and it's only because fox news and the internet were in their respective infancies during his presidency that it seems the right wing smear machine- a term coined by hillary in response to the concerted effort against her husband- wasn't nearly as bad back then They failed to stop Clinton from being re-elected, and failed to remove him from office, despite the fact that Clinton had actually done things wrong. If "none of it sticking" is the barometer for how bizarre something is, this is a wash with my claim, because they failed just as hard both times. Meanwhile, Clinton was being pursued for things he was actually guilty of. If you're going to claim that "Accused of getting his dick sucked, which actually happened, and also of doing shady land deal" >= "Accused of being a foreigner illegally occupying the office of the President, and also subverting the entire country's sovereignty" then there's probably not much I'm going to say to sway you. You've also laid the groundwork to be able to say, "[Thing] is only because Fox hadn't reached their final form." That's like an infinite power-up, because any objective data about hours of coverage, or number of words, or volume of tweets, or whatever, can all be dismissed under that umbrella. BiggerBoat posted:this is a pretty good overview of the racial smear campaign the clintons ran against obama in 08. i don't think they did it because they themselves are personally any more racist than the average middle age white person, but that was what they thought was the best line of attack to deligitimize him at the time I have read that article. I just want to clarify that I am not disagreeing with the premise that Hillary ran a smeary campaign, and played to racist middle America, and raked muck. She did. Her campaign did. My contention is that the claim that Obama has been treated "tamely" is just plain wrong. I do not believe there is any widely-accepted definition of tame in this context that comes close to being true. I also disagree that the blame for this dumb poo poo as a whole can be laid at her feet. Look at the article you linked: "... not only did Hillary Clinton’s campaign do nothing to push back against the racist fear-mongering about Obama, it actually fed this atmosphere and helped it grow." Well, duh. That was a primary. You're not going to help your opponent in the primary. It's lovely, but it's also standard. Also, the photo (I think it's the same one you referenced) that came from the Clinton campaign... because Drudge said so. I mean, maybe. I agree that the right-wing campaign against Bill was more gross, both in the sense of "ick" and in the sense of "unrefined," but I don't believe that makes it worse. In my opinion, a more pervasive, subtle, and consistent message undermining the legitimacy of the President and accusing him of literally trying to destroy the nation and turn it over to foreign powers, is worse than a circus of cum-stained dresses and special investigations. Either way, your claim is that the anti-Obama stuff was tame compared to the anti-Clinton stuff. My claim is, nah. We can go endlessly back and forth about who had it worse, and, whatever, chalk it up to a difference of perspective, but I don't think your core claim that Obama's race made the opposition go easy on him holds up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
How is this low life still getting work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:How is this low life still getting work? Doesn't seem like he's getting much aside from being on Dice and a couple VA gigs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:How is this low life still getting work? Is he? Aside from the odd movie every few years the only thing he seems to be doing lately is just voicing Hades whenever Disney needs him for anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:How is this low life still getting work? He claims he has “retired” which means he isn’t getting work because he is repulsive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Veni Vidi Ameche! posted:They are excellent excavators, and do not need help finding dirt. this, but the exact opposite name one thing on obama they dug up all on their own. beyond that how anyone can claim the gop does any oppo after the 2016 primaries is just laughable. they don't, because as was mentioned on the last page: Phone posted:The GOP doesn't do oppo, they just fabricate poo poo and go nuts until it sticks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Isn't he still getting some pretty prominent voice work roles?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Please stop feeding the conspiratard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
So...Obama just spent 20 years spying on Rev. Wright then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:this, but the exact opposite The "birther" nonsense was perhaps started by someone who claimed to support Clinton, but the campaign itself played no part in researching, constructing, or spreading the smear. I assume all the other conspiracies you mention are about the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:The "birther" nonsense was perhaps started by someone who claimed to support Clinton, but the campaign itself played no part in researching, constructing, or spreading the smear. I assume all the other conspiracies you mention are about the same. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:The "birther" nonsense was perhaps started by someone who claimed to support Clinton, but the campaign itself played no part in researching, constructing, or spreading the smear. I assume all the other conspiracies you mention are about the same. Sidney Blumenthal was a senior advisor to the Clinton campaign in 08. He disputes starting the birther controversy, but there is no doubt that he was the one trying to get Obama's photo in Kenyan garb printed in the media, and he was the one that people claim was pushing birtherism. He denies that and claims that he simply wanted the media to report on how Kenyans were upset about disparaging comments Obama made about his father. The reporter says he did. Whether or not he actually pushed birtherism will never be definitively proven, but he certainly was trying to push hard for at least birtherism-light with his aggressively pushing of Obama's photo in Kenya. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/sid-blumenthal-birthers-clinton-obama-228388
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:The "birther" nonsense was perhaps started by someone who claimed to support Clinton, but the campaign itself played no part in researching, constructing, or spreading the smear. I assume all the other conspiracies you mention are about the same. none of this stuff is conspiracy. and others and myself have posted ample evidence of what happened in 08. the clinton campaign was extremely dysfunctional and they've attracted some really lovely people over the years like sidney blumenthal, mark penn, dick morris, etc. whose advice they should've known better than to trust
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
I haven’t read the whole thing yet but thanks to Milo’s lawsuit, the entire manuscript of his book with his editor’s notes are now available through the New York Court system’s website. Highlight so far is 5 pages dedicated to a reddit post he copied and the note “DELETE. UGH” at Milo saying lesbians only belong in porn. I can’t wait to read the whole ducking thing. Because holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Why is he even suing? I'm confused about how this wound up happening, but thankful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Didn't they cancel his book deal when everyone noticed him defending pedophilia? I assume that's what he's suing over and how the manuscript became legal evidence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
They're going to end up publishing it with the editor's notes in place and he'll claim he was trolling all along.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Tony Phillips posted:They're going to end up publishing it with the editor's notes in place and he'll claim he was trolling all along. LIKe. IF “Dangerous” was actually a concept novel about a non fiction editor getting angrier with the book’s author, all told through the editors notes in the margins, I would buy it. Like a political version of House of Leaves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:LIKe. IF “Dangerous” was actually a concept novel about a non fiction editor getting angrier with the book’s author, all told through the editors notes in the margins, I would buy it. Like a political version of House of Leaves. Comment [1637] : I have discovered a truly remarkable proof that the author is a loving idiot which this margin is too small to contain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Skimming through those pages is bizarre. Like, Milo clearly made no effort to write a decent book and its just reading random online rantings. Also I saw "butthurt" in what theoretically was meant to be a serious political book. Also the President referred to as "Daddy." There's a weird part of me that wants to read this book. Or at least the full manuscript complete with some poor editor's notes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
For the lazy: Milo's book + edits https://www.dropbox.com/s/bjc0n5dll244o2w/Milo%20Y%20book%20with%20edits.pdf?dl=0 Edit: This whole thing reminds me of helping an old Navy buddy who was struggling with his liberal professors who discriminated against him in English class. His draft really seemed to be influenced by right wing radio, a rambling stream of barely connected points with attacks sporadically peppered throughout. I remember talking to him "Your thesis is pretty clear, Gun Control is ineffective. Everything in your essay needs to support your thesis. Your teacher is probably annoyed by you because you keep going off track from your thesis to insult the political beliefs that your professor probably believes in." Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Dec 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:I haven’t read the whole thing yet but thanks to Milo’s lawsuit, the entire manuscript of his book with his editor’s notes are now available through the New York Court system’s website. The idiot posted:There was no reason why the left had to abandon its old blue-collar base. The editor posted:(points out the that it happened because the Democrats voted for civil rights)(c&p from the notes is a pain) The idiot posted:They are the tpe who will be disappointed by a DNA test that shows they are of 99% European ancestry because hey thought "I might be The editor posted:Cite examples This thing is hilarious. Even the parts that don't get called out are so obviously stupid it's almost frightening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Oh god! I think I found the best part! Edit: I lied, here's the best part in the ending acknowledgments: 
Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Dec 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:So...Obama just spent 20 years spying on Rev. Wright then? Don't they rationalize it by saying he went to Wright's church simply to listen to his GOD drat AMERICA! sermons... because, you know, that was literally the only thing he ever preached and wasn't at all one instance taken out of context to make him look like an angry lunatic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Skimming through those pages is bizarre. Like, Milo clearly made no effort to write a decent book and its just reading random online rantings. Also I saw "butthurt" in what theoretically was meant to be a serious political book. Also the President referred to as "Daddy." It kinda sounded like he knows his audience well and is writing for them, and the publisher was like "wtf?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
I'm making my way through these comments now.the editor posted:This entire paragraph is just repeating Fake News. There was NO blood, NO semen and there was NO satanism. Delete. the editor posted:Rephrase this. "Dark continent" will irritate in the wrong way. It sounds like "darkies."
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
I just don't get it. What did they think they would get from Milo? It's like they imagined giving him a book deal would inspire him to start providing well-researched points and counterarguments instead of just saying dumb internet poo poo to piss people off. Was everyone in on the plan except the editor?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Tip Shades posted:I just don't get it. What did they think they would get from Milo? They were seeking profit, nothing more. They dropped him when it seemed like the marginal gain from selling his book would be more than offset by a loss in reputation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
I very much doubt that the editorial staff is in any way involved with deciding who gets to be published.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Tip Shades posted:I just don't get it. What did they think they would get from Milo? They probably expected Milo to either do a tiny bit of work or hire a ghost-writer. Instead he sharts out something resembling what happens when you take a semester-long project that was blatantly written at the 11th hour and dip it on a bucket of pure racism. Edit: "Expand on your idea of trolling as truth-telling--that's something your critics have never considered." I can't tell if that editor comment is honest or biting sarcasm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Tip Shades posted:I just don't get it. What did they think they would get from Milo? they expected him to turn in something decent they could sell and ride the controversy of to profit. instead, because milo is a lazy grifter, they got hot dogshit that would make them look unprofessional at best and like complicit suckers at worst. like, it's not the content of the book that's the issue, it's that it's such a poorly written manuscript that it's unsalvagable and so the publisher decided to cut their losses rather than see how bad round 2 would be like, if you want to be controversial and have people pay attention, you have to put in some effort. rush limbaugh is the best in the business, and the man has put in a lot of work over the years. anyone can be controversial and incompetent
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Going to read it later, but are there any obvious libelous things he could get sued for in it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Edit: I lied, here's the best part in the ending acknowledgments: Yeah, I read this. Notice no thankng Sargon of Akkad anywhere, before he hit Brietbart he was hanging around Sargon for a short time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:They were seeking profit, nothing more. They dropped him when it seemed like the marginal gain from selling his book would be more than offset by a loss in reputation. That and becoming a free speech martyr for the right is like the new thing. * fires Bill Maher* * steamrolls some Dixie Chicks CD's*
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Yeah, I read this. Notice no thankng Sargon of Akkad anywhere, before he hit Brietbart he was hanging around Sargon for a short time. Really? Didn't he have that stupid picture of him and Sargon (and two other dipshits) on the face of Mt. Rushmore? Wasn't his book where it came from?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Oh god! I think I found the best part! The fact that the THANKS FOR MAKING THIS BOOK NUMBER ONE! is crossed out is hysterical. The editor knows. Archonex fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Dec 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Going to read it later, but are there any obvious libelous things he could get sued for in it? He self-published it after S&S dropped him so if there were then it would have happened already
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
So wait, was this book actually written by Milo himself, or was it the product of his clown car of unpaid ghostwriters? Like, isn't Actual Milo prose demonstrably shittier than Fake Intern Milo prose? Has anyone tried to do an analysis using his old pre-fame stuff as a baseline to see which bits of his works were actually him and which were some desperate college kid's?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 04:34
|
|