Archive for the ‘cold war’ tag
Wall Street Insider: The Complete January 2012 Interview
Both parts of our January 2012 Interview with The Wall Street Insider….
(Originally published in two parts on January 7th and January 8th, 2012.
UM: So you called me here directly and I believe I detected more than a bit of frustration in your voice over my recent stories involving Ron Paul. Is that correct.
WSI: Yes – quite correct. With all due respect . . . . you are absolutely 100% wrong in your concerns over the Ron Paul campaign – or at the very least, wrong in your seeming dismissal in some of the issues he has quite correctly raised regarding the imminent dangers to America.
UM: Even if that were true, why Ron Paul? There appears to be no real path for him to win the nomination, and if he runs as a third party candidate he would most likely not win there either. I am confused why someone in your position . . . . why the concern over Ron Paul of all people.
WSI: I am not concerned over Ron Paul – I am concerned over your coverage of Ron Paul and how you are wasting precious time and resources attempting to discredit Ron Paul. If -name withheld- set you off in that direction . . . . they were incorrect in doing so and I would urge you to question their motivation.
UM: Right-right . . . . you tell me to watch out for their motivations. They tell me to watch out for your motivations . . . . enough of that sh-t ok? How about we just focus right now, entirely, on the reason behind you calling me in to talk about Ron Paul. I don’t get it. Why would you of all people make what was basically a demand that I come up here to listen to you defend a candidate who has repeatedly voiced his disgust over Wall Street? It doesn’t add up.
WSI: I would beg to differ – not adding up is exactly the reason for my concern – a concern that is not so much about your work . . . . or what seems at the moment to be more of an odd obsession, to reveal some silly truth about Ron Paul . . . . I mean George Soros? Really? And even if true – who cares? That kind of information is secondary to the real and crucial value provided by Ron Paul to the national discussion.
UM: National discussion? Right . . . . enlighten me. Please.
WSI: Sarcasm? Is that your tone? If this is to serve its proper purpose I need you listening – and without judgement.
UM: Sarcasm – guilty as charged. But in my defense, I would call it justifiable sarcasm at this point.
WSI: I was told long ago that what you don’t see with your eyes, don’t invent with your mouth.
WSI: What you don’t see with your eyes, don’t invent.