Can this obviously lying nutjob torpedo Obama's campaign?

[tnetennba]

It’s already settled. He’s nobody. When CNN has to prove every nutcase on the Internet WRONG, we’re in trouble.

[Sampiro]

The Smoking Gun Speaks: Slanderous Kook Says ‘I’m a Slander Victim’

Sinclair really has filed suit against Obama and Axelrod. Can a splashy televised failed suicide attempt be far off?

Now if it was Larry Birkhead instead of Larry Sinclair claiming to have had sex with him, then I’d just agree that “I’d probably tap that” and go on with it, but to the best of my knowledge Barack never even claimed to be Anna Nicole’s baby daddy.

[Sampiro]

Oh Og, this is wonderful! I think Larry Sinclair is Andy Kaufman. Listen to his lawsuit:

The defendants are Obama and David Axelrod, incidentally:

Defendants have and continue to conspire against the rights of citizens in that they are actively engaged in ongoing internet intimidation, claiming to be engaging in the illegal investigations into plaintiff’s personal life, an [sic] actively involved in allegations of illegal drug use and sexual activity involving Defendent Obama from becoming public knowledge.

I think I speak for all Americans when I say that until this moment I never realized how well you could sing Defendant Obama to the tune of Hakuna Matata.

And when I read the comments on YouTube (even some of the ones I agree with), I remember why I paid to join SDMB.

[tnetennba]

@Sampiro

The Smoking Gun Speaks: Slanderous Kook Says ‘I’m a Slander Victim’

Sinclair really has filed suit against Obama and Axelrod. Can a splashy televised failed suicide attempt be far off?

When it comes to suicide attempts, “splashy” is hard to visualize in conjunction with “failed.”

[Sampiro]

The Full Text (without commentary) for those interested is below. Typos (except as noted by sic) are mine.

1. The Following are Plaintiff(s) in said action:

Larry Sinclair, Plaintiff Pro Se
600 W. Superior St. #604
Duluth MN 55802

2. The following are defendants in said action:

Barack Obama
230 South Dearborn Street, Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60604

David Axelrod
AKP Message and Media
730 N. Franklin Street, Suite 404
Chicago, IL 60610

Democratic National Committee
Howard Dean, Chairman
430 S. Capitol Street S.E.
Washington DC 20510

3. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U. S C. 1981, 18 U.S.C. 241 and the First amendment of the United States Constitution right to Freedom of Speech.

Defendants have and continue to conspire against the rights of citizens in that they are actively engaged in ongoing internet intimidation, claiming to be engaging in the conduction of illegal investigations into plaintiffs personal life, and actively involved in preventing allegations brought of illegal drug use and sexual activity involving Defendant Obama Plaintiff from becoming public knowledge.

4. Plaintiff states that he personally engaged in sexual activity and personally used illegal drugs in November 1999 with U.S. Senator Barack Obama on two separate ocaissons. Plaintiff states that he attempted to contact defendant Obama in the fall of 2007 to advise defendant Obama to make his 1999 use of illegal drugs public himself and that if he did not do so then plaintiff would have no choice but to come forward as defendants actions

5. Plaintiff states that he personally engaged in sexual activity and personally used illegal drugs in November 1999 with U.S. Senator Barack Obama on two separate ocaissons. Plaintiff states that he attempted to contact defendant Obama in the fall of 2007 to advise defendant Obama to make his 1999 use of illegal drugs public himself and that if he did not do so then plaintiff would have no choice but to come forward as defendants actions were relevant to his running for President of the United States. Defendant Obama ignored plaintiff’s attempts to allow defendant Obama to reveal this information on his own.

Plaintiff then contacted numerous news papers and news networks with this information in January 2008 after it became clear to plaintiff that defendant Obama did not intend to release this information. After being advised by numerous media outlets that the Obama organization was refusing even to submit the question to defendant Obama plaintiff was forced to release the statement via video posted on YouTube.

After posting of video statement by plaintiff on YouTube, plaintiff began receiving calls from reporters as well as repeated threats of violent attacks against plaintiff’s person via the internet. While meeting in person with Chicago newspaper reporter plaintiff was informed that defendant David Axelrod was contacted personally regarding plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff was informed that defendant Axelrod advised said reporter they (defendants Obama and Axelrod) were aware of plaintiffs youtube video and were conducting and [sic] undercover investigation into plaintiff and plaintiffs [sic] associates.

Defendant Democratic National Committee has engaged in an active effort to slander plaintiff on defendants [sic] official web site, allowing false statements to be made against plaintiff and has openly encouraged defendants [sic] members to attack plaintiff.

Actions of defendants are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, violate plaintiffs [sic] right to free speech, conspire against the rights of citizens as a whole. Defendants [sic] investigation is believed by plaintiff to be illegal and questionable as to the funding used for said alleged investigation.

Plaintiff feels his complaint holds merit under the law and that this Honorable Court has jurisdiction and standing.

5. Plaintiff respectfully moves this Honorable Court for immediate injunctive release and request this court ORDER defendants to cease any investigation and to turn over to this court any fruits from said investigation, ORDER defendants to cease all acts of intimidation and instruct their staff and supporters to cease with intimidation and threats, ORDER defendant Democratic National Committee to remove all attack statements, smear and slanderous claims made against plaintiff on any and all sections of its official web site.

Wherefor [sic] plaintiff prays upon this Honorable Court for the right to amend Complaint at later date, and to grant plaintiff INJUNCTIVE RELIEF forthwith.

Plaintiff further moves this COURT to ORDER the withholding of plaintiff’s address from being released as the making public of this information will most certainly place the plaintiff in danger of physical harm.

DONE and DATED this 11th day of February, 2008.

Larry Sinclair, Plaintiff, pro se
600 W. Superior St. #604
Duluth, MN 55802
(218) 464-1113

This guy is enough of a nut that he could quite possibly be the first fag welcomed to worship at Westboro Baptist Church. (So who else laughed at the part about “turning over any fruits”?)

[tnetennba]

Oh, God, he’s a Minnesotan.

:hangs head in shame:

[Sampiro]

Just as a matter of curiosity I googled the 600 W. Superior address. As I suspected it’s a commercial property (ads for hair salons and CPA offices came up). Very few residential areas would have 600 as their street number.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@The Flying Dutchman

Well I watched the video, and I see that Sinclair is allegedly a little pissed with Obama for lying about his cocaine use. Nothing like watching a rising star getting away with an outright lie and you’re the only one in on the secret.

Or, he may be pissed with a failed blackmail attempt.
I don’t think we can assume anything yea or nay, or expect that Obama should respond, but I hope that CNN offers to arrange a polygraph test for Sinclair to settle this issue.

I fucked John McCain up the ass in 2002. He offered me Ecstasy and meth and then asked me to do him doggy style in a Motel 6. He asked me to give him an ATM deposit so I obliged him. I’m willing to take a polygraph.

Obviously, it wouldn’t be prudent for you to assume anything yea or nay about this allegation but don’t you agree that CNN should arrange to give me a polygraph to settle this once and for all?

(Polygraphs are bullshit, by the way and can’t “settle” anything)

[RedFury]

@John Mace

I’m not sure if you are referring to Hillary’s recent speech in which she mentioned the “all hat and no cattle” thing, but she was clearly talking about Bush, not Obama. Still, I’m so sick and tired of hearing her pitch about action, not speeches. And about how she keeps praising Obama for being a good orator (a back handed way of saying the same thing).

John, I took her comment as a dual-dig thus my calling it a “twofer.” Your post made me curious to see if I was the only one that saw it that way so I just did a brief search and it appears that no, I am not alone in my parsing (and the timing and delivery) of her comment:

At her El Paso rally last night she didn’t congratulate Obama and failed to officially concede defeat (or did I miss something?). In fact, she only mentioned her opponent by name to criticize his health care plan. I also found her riff on the old “all hat, no cattle” joke a little off; she said “after seven years of George Bush we need a lot less hat and a lot more cattle!” Obviously she meant Obama’s all talk, whereas she would bring home the bacon, or something. She also clearly meant to suggest that Obama is like the current president, which made me shudder. I hate to say this but last night it was Hillary who reminded me of W. - she can’t admit her weak points and goes on the attack too much.

On Tuesday she met in El Paso with 12,000 fans who were doing their best to ignore what was going on in the Potomac Primary. “There’s a great saying in Texas. You’ve heard it: all hat and no cattle. After seven years of George Bush we need a lot less hat and a lot more cattle,” Clinton told the crowd, in a barely veiled swipe at her opponent. “Texas needs a president who actually understands what it’s going to take to turn the economy around, to get us universal health care, to save hard-working Americans’ homes from foreclosure.”

And she’s only gotten more shrill since:

In recent days, Clinton has challenged Obama’s ability to deliver on his rhetoric.

“There’s a big difference between us – speeches versus solutions, talk versus action,” she said.

“Speeches don’t put food on the table. Speeches don’t fill up your tank or fill your prescription or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night.”

*highlights mine.

No big though as in essence we agree. I too find the whole “strategy” vapid and irksome as all get out.

[Siam_Sam]

@Larry Borgia

Eh, back in the day Me and John McCain used to go around smoking meth and picking up hookers, so it all balances out.

I went down on Hillary in her office, then we shared a joint, but she didn’t inhale.

[RedFury]

@The Flying Dutchman

Well I watched the video, and I see that Sinclair is allegedly a little pissed with Obama for lying about his cocaine use. Nothing like watching a rising star getting away with an outright lie and you’re the only one in on the secret.

Or, he may be pissed with a failed blackmail attempt.
I don’t think we can assume anything yea or nay, or expect that Obama should respond, but I hope that CNN offers to arrange a polygraph test for Sinclair to settle this issue.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I hereby summit exhibit A for the reasons expressed in my first post to this thread.

And BTW, Dio apparently forgets that I was the ham in that particular sandwich he describes. So I guess it’s not even worth mentioning the time I tossed Hill’s salad. Which I must certainly did.

:::sigh:::

There goes my career and credibility as a male whore to Presidential Hopefuls.

Then again I still have YouTube and my willingness to take polys in hopes of redeeming myself with my exclusive clientele. CNN, please call – I’ll even do Larry and bring the hash-brownies.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Obviously, it wouldn’t be prudent for you to assume anything yea or nay about this allegation but don’t you agree that CNN should arrange to give me a polygraph to settle this once and for all?

Give me your real name and put your anguished face on youtube and I still wouldn’t believe you, cause I know you all too well.

I don’t know who the fuck this Sinclair guy is and several years ago would agree with everyone else here to dismiss this outright, but every similar accusation (that I can recall) against a politician or preacher of recent years by a homosexual has turned out to be legitimate. Aren’t you kind of desirous to see this guy get his by failing a polygraph ?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@The Flying Dutchman

Give me your real name and put your anguished face on youtube and I still wouldn’t believe you, cause I know you all too well.

But what makes this guy any more credible than me?

I don’t know who the fuck this Sinclair guy is and several years ago would agree with everyone else here to dismiss this outright, but every similar accusation (that I can recall) against a politician or preacher of recent years by a homosexual has turned out to be legitimate.

I’m not sure this is true, but in every case we’ve heard about, there was actual hard evidence, not just bare, unsubstantiated accusations.

Aren’t you kind of desirous to see this guy get his by failing a polygraph?

I don’t think a polygraph can possibly prove anything one way or the other (if he failed a polygraph do you think it would convince anyone who wanted to believe the worst?) nor do I think his allegations deserve to be legitimized in such a manner, but as long as you bring it up, Sinclair is being offered $10,000 by whitehouse.com to take a polygraph along with a promise of $100,000 reward if he passes it.

[Sampiro]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Sinclair is being offered $10,000 by whitehouse.com to take a polygraph along with a promise of $100,000 reward if he passes it.

That’s a dangerous offer. Passing those things is not as difficult as most people think (and the reason they’re inadmissible in most courts).

@George Costanza

Just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it…

[Billdo]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I fucked John McCain up the ass in 2002. He offered me Ecstasy and meth and then asked me to do him doggy style in a Motel 6. He asked me to give him an ATM deposit so I obliged him. I’m willing to take a polygraph.

And those years McCain claimed to be a POW in Vietnam, it was actually a giant heroin-fueled gay sex orgy with Ho Chi Minh. They made up the POW story as a big cover-up because revealing the true circumstances would be too embarrassing. I know because I saw it in a flash-back.

[RedFury]

Dio, seriously now, would you please stop bringing up these obscure sites and cites? I repeat, you’re NOT doing Obama any favors by keeping this up, quite the contrary, and as I said before you’re simply opening the door to The Flying Dutchmen of the SDMB.

To wit. From your last link: WhiteHouse Poll - Do you Believe that Barack Obama had Gay Sex and did drugs with Larry Sinclair?

Do you Believe that Barack Obama had Gay Sex and did drugs with Larry Sinclair?

Yes: 51%

No: 47%

Bad mojo. Or what Richard Parker said.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@RedFury

Dio, seriously now, would you please stop bringing up these obscure sites and cites? I repeat, you’re NOT doing Obama any favors by keeping this up, quite the contrary, and as I said before you’re simply opening the door to The Flying Dutchmen of the SDMB.

Don’t worry, I can’t vote

To wit. From your last link: WhiteHouse Poll - Do you Believe that Barack Obama had Gay Sex and did drugs with Larry Sinclair?

Bad mojo. Or what Richard Parker said.

Seriously, would you please stop citing irrelevant and silly polls as if they support your argument? If I were to take that poll at face value, then I would, if I were a die hard Obama supporter/believer like you, want to have Obama’s reputation restored by an investigation.

[Larry_Borgia]

@The Flying Dutchman

I don’t think we can assume anything yea or nay, or expect that Obama should respond, but I hope that CNN offers to arrange a polygraph test for Sinclair to settle this issue.

The only thing that would accomplish is to give this loon credibility. The best thing to do is to ignore him.

[RedFury]

@The Flying Dutchman

Don’t worry, I can’t vote

Thanks Og for small favors. Neither can I BTW, but that doesn’t prevent me from stirring shit up if I so desired. But I don’t as my son is an American and the last thing I want is for this election to turn into a feces-slinging sideshow.

Unlike others it appears.

Seriously, would you please stop citing irrelevant and silly polls as if they support your argument? If I were to take that poll at face value, then I would, if I were a die hard Obama supporter/believer like you, want to have Obama’s reputation restored by an investigation.

Whooah there, Einstein! The “irrelevant and silly polls” cited are there to support your argument and, ironically, undermine mine and Dio’s – since it’s taken from his own obscure cite.

Point being, yet again, that the more this we talk about this pile of manure the better the changes it picks-up steam with the likes of people like you, i.e., the ones who have made their dislike for Senator Obama abundantly clear and would stoop low enough to dignify something as absurd as this in order to undermine him.

On my end there’s nothing to “settle” and as much as I dislike the other two contenders in the race I should think I would feel the same way if something as preposterous as this came out on their side. UFO shit is easier to stomach.

Clear now?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Red, I understand where you’re coming from about giving this youtube crackpot any attention at all, but he’s already getting some anyway, at least on the internets. Fortunately, I think the majority of people are dismissing him out of hand and only the types who already think Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist are taking him seriously.

I think I’m just extra paranoid this time around, being able to support a candidate that I actually care about (instead of just voting against the Republicans), so I find myself scanning the horizon like mad looking for potential landmines and trying to run to defuse them before the rest of the caravan gets there. I should probably just take a deep breath.