I just turned down a chance to have lunch with Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone

[bobbyw24]

A lawyer I work with is being interviewed by Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi here in Florida about the foreclosure mess. She invited me to lunch with them.

I said in light of the negative things you said about Rand Paul, I must decline but thanks for exposing Goldman Sachs.

[Romulus]

Good man - he sounds like a huge arrogant schmuck, with his nose up Bernie Sanders ass.

[bobbyw24]

Good man - he sounds like a huge arrogant schmuck, with his nose up Bernie Sanders ass.

Yep--that's the sense I got.

[JoshLowry]

Wow, quite a stand Bobby. :)

[bobbyw24]

Wow, quite a stand Bobby. :)

It was tough since the same lawyer who is nationally known has repeatedly told people where I work that "Ron Paul is a racist Nazi" and wonders why I like him.

[sailingaway]

It was tough since the same lawyer who is nationally known has repeatedly told people where I work that "Ron Paul is a racist Nazi" and wonders why I like him.

Even idiots can be nationally known.

He clearly doesn't check his sources.

Good move. I at least respected that guy as a writer and re: Goldman Sachs, but his vendetta against Rand is merely petulant. I'd expect it of Daily Kos, not even the Atlantic nor TPM, he is really over the top about it.

[Bern]

I think you missed out on two opportunities here:

1. free lunch.

2. opportunity to engage Taibbi in a discussion of substance. You never know when you are planting a seed that will sprout a mighty tree.

[MikeStanart]

I think you missed out on two opportunities here:

1. free lunch.

2. opportunity to engage Taibbi in a discussion of substance. You never know when you are planting a seed that will sprout a mighty tree.

I'm tempted to agree. You could have proven Matt wrong about us Ron Pauler's. However, I'll admit I probably would have done the same thing in the heat of the moment. Nobody disses a Paul!

[bobbyw24]

I think you missed out on two opportunities here:

1. free lunch.

2. opportunity to engage Taibbi in a discussion of substance. You never know when you are planting a seed that will sprout a mighty tree.

Nope-the lunch would not have been free and I would have eaten with a person who hates Ron and Rand Paul so much that she would have constantly said "racist" and "Nazi" the entire conversation.

If it were just Matt and I, then I would have gone

[bobbyw24]

Pic of Matt af our office

[Matt Collins]

Too bad you shook his hand ;) :p

[bobbyw24]

Too bad you shook his hand ;) :p

That was after I was told who he was.

The lawyer who introduced me was shocked that I did not wanna eat lunch with him as 10 other lawyers in our office got autographs and took pics with him

[MRoCkEd]

Did you actually say that about Rand Paul to Matt's face? If so, what was his response?

[Romulus]

Pic of Matt af our office

So thats the gal who believes Tabbi's assessment of the Pauls? I would have skipped too. What a sham of a joke. People can't think for themselves... I would gotten sick as the sight of a group of grown ups groveling at Tabbis feet.

[bobbyw24]

Did you actually say that about Rand Paul to Matt's face? If so, what was his response?

None

[legion]

i don't know if this was the best option, professionally...

[Romulus]

i don't know if this was the best option, professionally...

Oh yeah, real professionals kiss some major ass and compromise their integrity to get to the top. :rolleyes:

[Dripping Rain]

A lawyer I work with is being interviewed by Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi here in Florida about the foreclosure mess. She invited me to lunch with them.

I said in light of the negative things you said about Rand Paul, I must decline but thanks for exposing Goldman Sachs.

Wow
you sure are a man of principle bobbyw24
great stand dude!
I dont think that picture here is a good idea
maybe you should at least crop out the lady in the photo. I hope it doesnt cause you any problems

[wormyguy]

He just wrote an article in Rolling Stone criticizing "quantitative easing" using Austrian/libertarian talking points. I think he could easily be brought around - if not to the Pauls (true-blue liberals cannot be convinced to support a religious conservative), then to libertarianism.

[Dripping Rain]

I think you missed out on two opportunities here:

1. free lunch.

2. opportunity to engage Taibbi in a discussion of substance. You never know when you are planting a seed that will sprout a mighty tree.

I think resisting that temptation makes bobby the bigger man
I doubt when youre sitting with 10 other lawyers who dont share your belief that ull get any chance to plant any seed in Taibbis heart

[JK/SEA]

If i would have sat down for lunch with someone that thought Ron and Rand were racist, i would have interrupted Matts first bite with a question..''so, you think i'm a racist eh?.....and then watch the the fun begin.

[legion]

Oh yeah, real professionals kiss some major ass and compromise their integrity to get to the top. :rolleyes:

I don't know if this person is a paralegal, staff, intern, or a young attorney, but they do look young from the photograph.

I don't know if being dismissive to someone about to give the firm a lot of free publicity was the right course of action here.

Now personal political views, which I do not attempt to discuss in office situations, have directly interfered with the operations of the firm. Not a very good situation to put yourself in, when personal issues are interfering with business.

You have to achieve freedom in your own world before you can spread it to other people.

[oyarde]

I think resisting that temptation makes bobby the bigger man
I doubt when youre sitting with 10 other lawyers who dont share your belief that ull get any chance to plant any seed in Taibbis heart

Ten lawyers ? I would have thought I had woken up in hell .

[bobbyw24]

Ten lawyers ? I would have thought I had woken up in hell .

You are both right

Even though I am a lawyer, I cannot stand them in general as they think they are important and are too egotistical for me--and 85% of them are far leftists

[oyarde]

You are both right

Even though I am a lawyer, I cannot stand them in general as they think they are important and are too egotistical for me--and 85% of them are far leftists

Yeah , it is that far leftist disease and egotistical type of thing that would ruin an otherwise good lunch .

[libertarian4321]

Nope-the lunch would not have been free and I would have eaten with a person who hates Ron and Rand Paul so much that she would have constantly said "racist" and "Nazi" the entire conversation.

If it were just Matt and I, then I would have gone

I'm not sure how avoiding people we disagree with, especially those who have a public platform, helps us move our cause forward.

Maybe someone else can explain this move to me?

If the plan is to only engage with people who already agree with us, we are deeply fucked...

[torchbearer]

I'm not sure how avoiding people we disagree with, especially those who have a public platform, helps us move our cause forward.

Maybe someone else can explain this move to me?

If the plan is to only engage with people who already agree with us, we are deeply fucked...

You aren't going to change the mind of a person who thinks Ron Paul is a racist nazi. they aren't even living in reality anymore, or they are just blatant partisans with agendas. either way, a conversation with such a person would be a total waste of time.
talking to your neighbor would yeild more results.

[BenIsForRon]

When did Taibbi say Ron is a racist nazi?

Taibbi has problems with the Tea Party, as do I. Maybe he doesn't get "end the fed". Whatever.

He's exposed many of Obama's cabinet appointments, so he's alright in my book.

[Romulus]

You aren't going to change the mind of a person who thinks Ron Paul is a racist nazi. they aren't even living in reality anymore, or they are just blatant partisans with agendas. either way, a conversation with such a person would be a total waste of time.
talking to your neighbor would yeild more results.

+rep

[libertarian4321]

You aren't going to change the mind of a person who thinks Ron Paul is a racist nazi. they aren't even living in reality anymore, or they are just blatant partisans with agendas. either way, a conversation with such a person would be a total waste of time.
talking to your neighbor would yeild more results.

How do you know?

It may be that the person who thinks he's a racist got that idea from reading one article at "Huffington Post" or the like, without knowing anything else about Ron Paul

I've "converted" plenty of people over the past 3+ years, many of whom simply had little information.

If you blow these people off and only talk to fellow true believers, you aren't doing much good.

It doesn't help to talk about the merits of Ron Paul to people who already support Ron Paul, but you can do a lot of good by changing the mind of a few decent, but misguided folks- but you can't do that if you refuse to speak to them.

[bobbyw24]

When did Taibbi say Ron is a racist nazi?

I said that a woman I work with says thinks this . . . she would've joined us for lunch

[raiha]

I think the woman from work wanted to use you as bait and sit back and watch some fireworks she imagined would happen.
I'm sure you could have held your own ...mainly by letting her hoist herself by her own petard.

I'm not sure how avoiding people we disagree with, especially those who have a public platform, helps us move our cause forward.

Maybe someone else can explain this move to me?

If the plan is to only engage with people who already agree with us, we are deeply fucked...

This never ceases to astound me in US. I thought you were ALL like this but you, Mr Poster, evidently, are not which is of some solace to me.
It is almost as though, in your country, your entire identity is tied up in your political and religious thought and that's it!
It is almost that civillity and respect do not play any role in social intercourse. Your mutual humanity should always be the jumping off point. Mind you, the state of humanity is still just a distant ideal. Most of us are still grovelling around in the swamp , exercising our amygdalas.

To me, not talkiing or associating with those who espouse different views and opinions reeks of defensiveness veering towards hysteria. Our war should be against lack of relfection, conformity, self-centredness and general stupidity, no matter where it manifests. I'm sure that even Plutarch had his 'off days' when it came to mouthing off, and I'm sure that could have always been resolved if he was challenged from a basis of kindness and willingness to connect, and Plutarch would be back on track.
This shrill, over-identification with what-ever snake flag you choose to rally under and inability to entertain other views, is dead scary to me and indeed you will be right royally fucked.

[osan]

A lawyer I work with is being interviewed by Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi here in Florida about the foreclosure mess. She invited me to lunch with them.

I said in light of the negative things you said about Rand Paul, I must decline but thanks for exposing Goldman Sachs.

Most of the folks here appear to be in strong agreement with this based on one's perceived stand on principle. Though I will not second-guess your choice (you know more of the context than do I) I will offer my general thought about such opportunities. Though I myself am strongly principled, it is also my habit to apply them in differing ways where I judge it necessary and wise in the wake of careful consideration of costs and benefits.

It seems to me that you may have passed up a good opportunity to expose the likes of Taibbi to a calm, rational, friendly face of that which he appears to hold in disdain. Remember that you're not the center of the universe (hard to fathom, I know :) ) and that he probably meets with all sorts of people. The best assumption to make, then, is that he will meet other libertarians. If so, and if sane and friendly presentations are made, assuming that he is not a dishonest schmuck (which I am not convinced of yet) on a personal agenda, his views may indeed alter in time. Just consider the case of John Stossel - once very main stream (not sure I'd characterize him a "hack", but mainstream in any event), he is now a pretty strongly recognized voice for liberty.

You just never know when something you say, the way you say it, the way you approach an issue or a person will alter that person's perceptions radically to your favor. If Taibbi is a dishonest, agenda driven man, perhaps you would have benefitted by seeing it first-hand and could have provided an account to the world. If he is not, you may have had an opportunity to leave him something good to think on.

As someone else wrote here, if all we do is engage thsoe with whom we agree, we are in serious trouble. If by chance you ever get another opportunity such as this, you may wish to consider tagging along. As it stands, you will never know what really was said there ('less it was recorded).

In short, be very circumspect about how you apply your principles. One can indeed apply them in differing ways without walking away from them. Pragmatism is an equal partner to principle, IMO.

I probably would have gone.

[bobbyw24]

Most of the folks here appear to be in strong agreement with this based on one's perceived stand on principle. Though I will not second-guess your choice (you know more of the context than do I) I will offer my general thought about such opportunities. Though I myself am strongly principled, it is also my habit to apply them in differing ways where I judge it necessary and wise in the wake of careful consideration of costs and benefits.

It seems to me that you may have passed up a good opportunity to expose the likes of Taibbi to a calm, rational, friendly face of that which he appears to hold in disdain. Remember that you're not the center of the universe (hard to fathom, I know :) ) and that he probably meets with all sorts of people. The best assumption to make, then, is that he will meet other libertarians. If so, and if sane and friendly presentations are made, assuming that he is not a dishonest schmuck (which I am not convinced of yet) on a personal agenda, his views may indeed alter in time. Just consider the case of John Stossel - once very main stream (not sure I'd characterize him a "hack", but mainstream in any event), he is now a pretty strongly recognized voice for liberty.

You just never know when something you say, the way you say it, the way you approach an issue or a person will alter that person's perceptions radically to your favor. If Taibbi is a dishonest, agenda driven man, perhaps you would have benefitted by seeing it first-hand and could have provided an account to the world. If he is not, you may have had an opportunity to leave him something good to think on.

As someone else wrote here, if all we do is engage thsoe with whom we agree, we are in serious trouble. If by chance you ever get another opportunity such as this, you may wish to consider tagging along. As it stands, you will never know what really was said there ('less it was recorded).

In short, be very circumspect about how you apply your principles. One can indeed apply them in differing ways without walking away from them. Pragmatism is an equal partner to principle, IMO.

I probably would have gone.

Alas, as it turned out, the lunch was with 12 lawyers who were adoring fans of his, so I would not have been able to talk to him since as soon as he ate, he posed for pics with his fans . . .

BUT, he came back on day 2 and I asked him about Rand. He said, "No comment. I am not going there."

[MelissaWV]

I probably would have gone, too, but that's my personal choice. The other posts in the threads already make terrific points (on both sides of the fence).

Bobby seems fairly established within the firm. I could understand going just to "suck up" if you were a barely-paid clerk/para in the firm with a tenuous hold on a fresh career path. Those awkward lunches seem to be a part of setting yourself up for bigger and better cases in some firms. Technically, though, he isn't "hurting his firm" by not going to lunch. This is not a real meeting. It's lunch. You can have lunch outside the office, in it, with co-workers, or sitting in your car all alone. Some methods will make you seem slightly antisocial, but it's not one of those things where everyone is going to base your caseload upon it.

If he had gone to "convert" people, I would see THAT as damaging. Not only would he have trouble getting heard, let alone changing someone's mind, but he would have been souring people's lunch. He also, as another poster pointed out, might have been the target of ridiculous questions and pointless "debate" coming from a dozen angles of ignorance. It doesn't seem like a very good lunch hour to me.

Stating very politely that he was declining the lunch because of what was written about Rand, and even peppering it with the fact that he admired some writing on other subjects, was a very good way to handle this. If Mr. Taibbi had cared to set the record straight, or was interested in intelligent debate, it was his opportunity to say "I would love the opportunity to talk to you about that, if you believe I was wrong or inaccurate." Instead, he silently left to have his lunch with groveling fans. The intent of the lunch was made quite clear by that behavior alone. (And Bobby's subsequent post about him saying "no comment" broadcasts that the subject was not to be talked about, so "converting" is a huge stretch.)

Ultimately it's up to Bobby, a professional, to decide what to do with his lunch :) I think it was handled well. A missed opportunity? Maybe, but it's more likely he missed a bunch of heartburn.

[bobbyw24]

Ultimately it's up to Bobby, a professional, to decide what to do with his lunch :) I think it was handled well. A missed opportunity? Maybe, but it's more likely he missed a bunch of heartburn.

Right. Had I been given the chance to meet with him one-on-one, I would've jumped at the chance

[Imaginos]

A lawyer I work with is being interviewed by Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi here in Florida about the foreclosure mess. She invited me to lunch with them.

I said in light of the negative things you said about Rand Paul, I must decline but thanks for exposing Goldman Sachs.
Good for you!
That's awesome.

[osan]

BUT, he came back on day 2 and I asked him about Rand. He said, "No comment. I am not going there."

Not an indication of an honest man, though I could be wrong there.

[hugolp]

Right. Had I been given the chance to meet with him one-on-one, I would've jumped at the chance

I think you did the right thing following your intuition. When you feel a meeting with people is not going to go the right way is for a reason. You can rationalize it one way or the other, but at the end one has to follow his intuition.

[Imperial]

Nope-the lunch would not have been free and I would have eaten with a person who hates Ron and Rand Paul so much that she would have constantly said "racist" and "Nazi" the entire conversation.

If it were just Matt and I, then I would have gone

If I remember right his article about the Tea Party was pretty positive towards the elder Paul. I could be mistaken though