Activate the activists!

You said: "Hogenson ... [is] also the Radio Services Manager for the RNC, a fact kept conveniently off his CNS "bio" ..."

However, from his CNS bio: "Politics lured Scott to Washington in 1992, when he became the radio services manager for the Republican National Committee."

Did they just add this as a response to your post or are you mistaken?

Has Rep. John Conyers been updated on this republican front group? At the very least he would be able to make a statement that the corrupt corporate media will be forced to cover ( granted in the least amount of words as possible and religated to page 15 of section C).

Olberman is another person who could be contacted. He would definitely give this coverage.

Conyers knows. Beyond that, it's up to you guys to get the word out.

Thanks 'Doesn't Matter', I've made the correction. Not sure if I just missed it, or if it was recently added. In anycase, as you suggest, it "doesn't matter" --- so I've removed that line from the article.

Thank you for letting me know, and if the error was my fault, I apologize for having overlooked it.

My anger and frustration cannot be put into adequate words...but i'll try...
VERY angry
and VERY frustrated...

Brad - This piece is so well-written, in that it includes so much info. Could you address it at the top to all the MSM, date it, sign it and mail it as a letter to the editor (it's ready to go). You never know. Someone there may actually check on the facts and twig that something MIGHT BE amiss with all the info they've been mindlessly regurgitating from the Bushites to the American people. Thanks.

Coordinated attack on your voting rights happening NOW!

The above is a diary currently on the recommended list at the highly-trafficked DailyKos. I wrote it as a report on some of what Brad has uncovered. Not a ton of comments, but a ton of recommendations. People are interested. The info is spreading.

The problem with Dkos is they all (well not all) seem like wannabe politicians themselves, and thrive on the process. The suppresion of the fraud diaries was a crime, but judging by the responsiveness of the posters on your diary, there remains a passionate minority of people who "get it", and any efforts by them to spread this information around is a mighty good thing.
Thanks Bejammin075

Yes, thanks and congratulations, Bejammin075. Good work!

And very good sleuthing, Brad! Let's all do everything in our power to keep democracy afloat, for the world and humanity's sake.

Nice job Bejammin075. I don't often visit DKos but I went to help out your deserving write up. Apparently it takes a week to be able to review on a new registration so I'm of no help to ya but hey I tried.

Keep up the good work.

All these great reports by Brad, and none with a siren! I wonder what kind of development with ACVR would get a siren? They all seem like sirens to me.

If I use the siren for *everything* who would notice?

I believe we'll have some siren-worthy items on this ACVR matter before long. Sit tight.

And good work over at DKos, Bejammin!

Finally...a very useful link and courtesy of the hard-right extremists at Townhall.com!

For easy emailing to all of your media, use this link!

Please feel free to share it in the comments of other BRAD BLOG items as necessary!

Nice one Brad! And very nicely written...

I wouldn't hold my breath however for the "4th Estate" to do their responsible jobs. They are all cowards now. Far more scared of loosing their worthless jobs than doing good Journalism. They are all just parrots now. They probably all sit in their little cubicles with an IV drip in their arms, fed from Rove's office. It must be from Rove's office, some of the words they use have more than one syllable, that rules out Bush & Chaney.

Thans again for the update!

Cheers.

Thank God, that your excellent journalism has uncovered this "sham" quickly. We're getting better at it. It took 2+ years to uncover the Jeff Gannon/Talon News sham. Fast, fast, fast. But...I've seen no coverage on this important story in the MSM. Sham partisan voter's rights groups aren't news in the MSM. Only death watches are. Now that Terri Shiavo has died, the MSM will shift thier 24×7 death watch news to the Pope! What a sick media.

Hey, have y'all seen this yet? It was released yesterday..

Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies

Yeah, I know, old news to some of us, just another study to back up what we've known all along.

Shyster:Slang, An unethical, unscrupulous practitioner, especially of law.

I think it's spelled "Shyster" Brad, but money meister or spinmeister is correct and "shyster" does come from the german, scheisser:

"Calling someone a shyster might be considered libellous; knowing its probable origin adds insult to injury. According to Gerald L. Cohen, a student of the word, shyster is derived from the German term scheisser, meaning literally “one who defecates,” from the verb scheissen, “to defecate,” with the English suffix –ster, “one who does,” substituted for the German suffix –er, meaning the same thing. Sheisser, which is chiefly a pejorative term, is the German equivalent of our English terms bastard and son of a bitch. Sheisser is generally thought to have been borrowed directly into English as the word shicer, which, among other things, is an Australian English term for an unproductive mine or claim, a sense that is also recorded for the word shyster."

Excellent choice of words on your part.

KBE 16:

This article is different. I know the first author quite well, and some of the others by reputation. I have a great deal of respect for their work. This is a carefully done study, and in my view one of the best in carefully establishing the statistical fact that vote fraud occurred.

Statistical evidence is the newest form of evidence in the legal world (DNA may be more accurate, but it is really no different than leaving a scrap of clothing at a crime scene). It is not well understood nor well accepted. However, to a statistician it is every bit as convincing as any other form of evidence that could be put forth.

"The problem with Dkos is they all (well not all) seem like wannabe politicians themselves, and thrive on the process. The suppresion of the fraud diaries was a crime, but judging by the responsiveness of the posters on your diary, there remains a passionate minority of people who "get it", and any efforts by them to spread this information around is a mighty good thing.
Thanks Bejammin075 "

The problem with DKos is that it is heavily trafficked by trolls who seem pretty good at manipulating the moderates. Screw that. I revel in my radical leftist ideology. The more they tell me I am a barking moonbat, the louder I bay at the moon. Moderating your ideas and positions because of criticism only makes you seem weak and wishy-washy. They have no respect for that at all. After this week with the Schiavo circus, we can all see who barks loudest at the moon, and it ain't the left.

Good news: 99 Grass roots voting reform groups.
GOP/Repubs field just one group, ACVR.
Bad news: Celeb tee vee will promote ACVR, not
grass roots reform groups.
The Boldness of removing voting machines from heavily Democratic precincts in Ohio must be noted.
Removing machines to create endless lines is so obvious, so easy to discover and document...
To counter this Boldness we will need a national grass roots voting verification group of 100,000 to Observe the Counting as well as the voting.
One Farmers Market table's opinion.
ThePeaceTable.com/

As I've mentioned before, I was never a "leftist", always a "moderate". I am now, however, to the "far left" of the "Beelzebush Conspiracy", of which George W. Bush is only the puppet propped up in front of us, to put a face on it. The country is being run by white-collar criminals.

I just want to ask a couple of questions....

Lets say that I work (or have worked) for an organization such as Greenpeace in the press office. Are you saying that I can’t start a website that broadcasts the plight of animals? And it would be wrong for my friend, who happens to share my interests and works for Save the Whales, and I to form a company and lobby Congress? Or maybe we want to start a news company – that’s wrong as well?

Are you saying that once I have worked for a political party, or any type of advocacy group, that I will never be impartial again and thus I can’t own any type of news organization?

What if I already own a newspaper like the Village Voice – should my reporting be suspect? Who decides and how do they make the decision? Is it based upon political contributions?

What about if I already run a grass-routes liberal outreach organization – can I accept a contract to work for a candidate for public office? Would that be a conflict of interest?

What about if I am a Senator – can I also be an owner in a firm that lobbies Congress?

Genek,

Ordinarily I'd say no problem. But how many so-called 501(c)3's with no track record get invited to testify at congressional hearings 3 days after they put out their shingle? Do you see the problem here?

Rebecca,

I agree that there MIGHT be a problem.

Here's my answer to a similer question on another thread...

Supersoling #46

Your question “how does a group, that we should all be able to agree by now, is not only not non-partisan but backed by the GOP, become the only "voter rights" group invited to testify before a congressional investigation?”

According to the rules governing Congressional Investigations section 408 para (2) “Every investigating committee may issue, by majority vote of all its members, subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses and subpoenas duces tecum requiring the production of books, documents, or other evidence in any matter pending before the committee.”

So your questions should be:
1- who is on the Investigating Committee
2- who or what parties where brought forward by the committee members to serve as witnesses
3- which members of the committee voted for and against which potential witnesses
4- why did the committee members cast their vote a certain way

Unless and until I have those questions answered – I am unable to answer your question.

However, generally speaking, I would be opposed to only having a single group testify before an investigating committee unless that group is a recognized “expert” in the field and 100% of the committee members agree to only the one witness.

I think that this may be a red herring because if there were other witnesses that were voted down based upon partisanship, I’m sure that Boxer, Clinton, Kucenich, Kennedy, Dayton etc. would immediately hold a press conference. However, if your accusations hold out, I think you would have reason to be upset… and I’d co-sign letters/phone calls/ faxs/e-mails with you protesting the committees behavior.

Genek,

The recent hearing wasn't an investigative hearing but an oversight hearing to determine if election reform is needed and if so what kind of legislation should be enacted. Your criteria for concern is irrelevant.

Why don't you do a little investigating on your own and come back to us with your findings? I'd be fascinated to read them.

Genek...or can I call you Gene,

It didn't take very long to dig up stuff about you. Why don't you play nice and take your trolling back to Free Republic unless you want me to let everyone know who you are.

You ignore most of what everyone says and you only hear what you want to hear. This really doesn't serve any purpose but to antagonize fellow Americans who you disagree with politically.

Many of the wonderful folks here aren't even in the party which you despise so much.

So I ask you nicely to take your one-sided arguments and your refusal to listen to anything anyone writes and go somewhere else unless you can comment reasonably and not unreasonably partisan.

peace

Ron -

You can call me Gene or GeneK (just don't call me late for dinner).

I'm really wondering as to what you "dug up" on me. If it's as bad as you are alluding (it would keep me from posting to a public board), and you're worried about outing me, feel free to email my deep dark secrets to me at genekluther@msn.com. I already told you the story behind my pseudonym... I don't know what else there could be. I'm actually quite excited to see what you've found.

I'm simply asking some questions and presenting an alternate point of view. I have done it in a very calm, thoughtful and respectful manner. This is more than I can say for the others here, simply look through the threads and you'll discover some of the personal attacks and name calling that has come my way.

I'm wondering why you're so worried about a dissenting opinion? Surely the folks here can stand up for themselves and don't need you rushing in to "protect" them. Several have started very interesting discussions with me, and I look forward to continuing.

Are you concerned that I may be presenting a view of the truth or are you concerned that I am simply encouraging people to think for themselves and get their information from more than one source???

GeneK #27

He's not worried about "dissenting opinion", he's worried about people comming and spreading misinformation and lies.. people comming in and stating opinions only to have them refuted with substantiations, and nothing come of it. He's worried about people comming here with closed minded assaults on people engaging in productive discourse and not offering any good to the discussion (be it with encouragement or -valid- oposing opinions supported by -fact-, not conjecture).

At least, that's what "I'm" worried about.. and I'd think any honest person would be too. The driving force behind the fear is knowing all too well that Republicans and Conservatives love to fuzzy up the matter with 1/2 truths and veiled implications then derail the conversation to something totally off point. Not saying that you are doing that, but that's what we're (I'm) afriad of. Personally, I enjoy learning new things.. being shown the error of my ways (with facts).. but when people set out to maliciously obfuscate things, I get angry.. Decietful people suck and I have no use for them in my life.. and I'm sure most of us here feel the same way.

Though, I will point out, GeneK.. you mention in #27 "I'm simply asking some questions and presenting an alternate point of view. I have done it in a very calm, thoughtful and respectful manner. This is more than I can say for the others here, simply look through the threads and you'll discover some of the personal attacks and name calling that has come my way." yet you have had your share of instigating (I even made a post showing how your "out of the gate" post was insulting with no real substance.. that inflamitory post set the stage... and being "calm, thoughtful, and respectful" after the fact doesn't cut it).

As has been stated time and again, if you were really "presenting a view of the truth" and "simply encouraging people to think for themselves and get their information from more than one source", you'd not keep backing down from "your view" when presented with facts that are counter to your beliefs.. yet, we don't see you conceding anything, which means you must not be "thinking for yourself with beliefs based on [a valid alternate] view of the truth".. *shrug* but then, that's just my opinion.

Ron -

A quick question...

When confronting a differing opinion, do you typically threaten the speaker to get them to stop expressing their opinions???

I thought that you would be a supporter of the First Amendment, which specifically covers political speech?

Where is the ACLU when you need them? Where’s Jesse Jackson?

“Help me Jesse…. A black man is being repressed!!!”

Just kidding – trying to lighten the mood and have a little fun folks.

GeneK #29

Funny you should mention "threatening".. look at this..

More DeLay crap

I guess my problem is, most times I get into talks with Republicans/Conservatives.. when they get pushed into a corner (not saying that's happening with your here, you just reminded me of the situtation I see on occasion), they switch to "I was just pushing to see if you really believed what you said" or "I was just having fun, don't take what I said too seriously".. and the like.. Well, this isn't a place to "have fun" in the midst of a serious discussion.. Granted, some toungue-n-cheek stuff is fine, but in general, "playing" when you are supposed to be posting your "opinions about serious matters" is counter productive and frustrates your audience.

(in the case of that last post, nothing seems malicious or inflamitory, I'm just talking about conversations in general)

I don't care who GeneK is. I'm glad he's here.

That said, he asked some questions. I'll answer them. His questions are in italics:

Lets say that I work (or have worked) for an organization such as Greenpeace in the press office. Are you saying that I can’t start a website that broadcasts the plight of animals?

Of course you can.

And it would be wrong for my friend, who happens to share my interests and works for Save the Whales, and I to form a company and lobby Congress?

Of course it wouldn't.

Or maybe we want to start a news company – that’s wrong as well?

Nothing.

Until you misrepresent yourself. Don't tell folks who you are despite receiving the privileges of a 501(c)3 organiztion, get favors from Congress that nobody else gets in the bargain, claim to be "non-partisan" when you're a very active and partisan member of one party instead of another (and paid to boot!) and refuse to follow the law that you are working under (at tax-payer expense, mind you).

Are you saying that once I have worked for a political party, or any type of advocacy group, that I will never be impartial again and thus I can’t own any type of news organization?

You can do whatever you like. If it's legal.

You can also do whatever you like even if it's not ethical. But if it's either illegal (as ACVR seems to be) or unethical (as ACVR definitely is), I will be calling you out on it.

Especially when the sole purpose of the deception is to harm our democracy and our Constitution.

What if I already own a newspaper like the Village Voice – should my reporting be suspect?

Yup.

Who decides and how do they make the decision? Is it based upon political contributions?

It's based upon common sense. If the newspaper claims to be "fair and balanced" and is neither, they should be ridiculed for it.

If they are colluding with political party operatives abusing the goodness of the tax-payer via a 501(c)3 scam which they do not have the right to do, they should be exposed, and tried as criminals if criminal law has been broken.

What about if I already run a grass-routes liberal outreach organization – can I accept a contract to work for a candidate for public office? Would that be a conflict of interest?

Is it illegal? If not, then there's no problem.

Is it unethical to hide that affiliation? Probably.

It it unethical to hide your affiliation with a particular political party being investigated in a U.S. Congressional Hearing? Testifying about the activity about that particular political party, but never acknowledging you are a part of it? Even while the other party was not invited to participate at all?

Is it immoral to pretend to be a "Voting Rights" group circulating propoganda to ensure *fewer* such rights and more disenfranchisement of Americans? Especially when American have DIED for that right in this country, and are even doing so now across the world on behalf of the very "Voting Rights" this group is attempting to scuttle in the United States of America?

Yup. It's the very definition of immoral.

Would you have had a problem with it if Bill Clinton was in office, and pulled of such a scam that had the DNC Communications Director and the Clinton's lead attorney testify to congress and act as if they were not associated in any way with Bill Clinton?

What about if I am a Senator – can I also be an owner in a firm that lobbies Congress?

I'm not an expert in Congressional law or ethics, but it doesn't smell good to me! Don't care which party it is, btw.

Sav -

Why would I "back down from my beliefs?" Most of my opinions I have researched and gotten data from multiple sources and I believe them to be true. However, I have conceded a point on another thread, when the possibility was raised that I may be in error and I didn't have the info to back up my opinion.

Additionally, (again on another thread) I provided my opinion with source data and the response was "I don't believe you. End of argument"

I find it interesting that you and Ron are so interested in preventing others from researching other opinions and thinking for themselves. Or am I wrong?

You are right that the tone of my first post was slightly over the top - especially considering the sensitivities that I've found here... if I offended anyone I am truly sorry. Not to excuse my post, but if you look at the vile hatred that has been directed at me, I don't think it's even in the same ballpark.

What I've found so far here, is that if I ask questions and present a differing view point I will be personally attacked, slandered, and threatened.

peace right back atcha

Brad -

Thanks for the come back (and support).

Excellent answers... I think that I'd tend to agree with you (to some degree or another) on most all of them.

It's funny that I've never been asked about my opinion regarding ACVR. Everyone assumes that I support them, probably based upon my "HYPOCRASY" post (the misspelling was pointed out)

Sav #30

I'm not Tom DeLay (although GeneK is a pseudonym, so I guess I could be... but I'm not). For all you know, I may not even be a Repub (I'm not, although I tend to vote that way - with a couple exceptions), and nobody even bothered to ask me before painting me with the same brush and taking out their hatred of Repubs on me.

I was talking about specific personal attacks and threats made against me on this board.

I'm not just "pushing" to see if you really believe what you say (I have no doubt that you believe it), but I am questioning HOW you formed your beliefs and what information you used.

GeneK #32

Not sure about Ron, gonna leave that for him to rebuttle (I tried to intentionally slide that other post over to be fully "my" responses, and not speak for anyone else)..

As for me.. "I find it interesting that you and Ron are so interested in preventing others from researching other opinions and thinking for themselves. Or am I wrong?" Yes, as to -my- position, you are incorrect [in thinking I -dis-courage- people from getting info]. I totally encourage people to find the facts.

The problem I've always run into is, when the "facts" don't fit (and it goes for Repugs and Dems equally), people tend to say "well, too bad, that's not the way I feel".. It's been -my- expierence that, in general, it's Conservatives and Republicans (who, also, by the way, are typcially veracious in their religion wich is a way to encourage 'faith' in the absense of 'fact') who do it a lot more, and in the face of -most- facts that go counter to what they 'believe'.

For -this- thread of info, and talking about 'facts'.. let's disect this for a moment.. You said "Additionally, (again on another thread) I provided my opinion with source data and the response was "I don't believe you. End of argument"".. however, I read that thread.. the actual response was "I don't believe you. The expert I heard sounds more plausible. End of argument." .. You left out "the expert I heard sounds more plausable", a -damned- important part of the quote. Your implication is someone was presented the facts, and in the face of that, with nothing to go by as a basis of comparison, they 'ignored the facts'. Can't you see that in your own mind they 'ignored facts'? and you would present that to others that that's the case? yet the -fact- is that they -did- get more info from a different source, and stated, without malice, that the -other- explination was more "plausable"? From what -I- see, you mistook what was said and twisted it (perhaps unconsously) to be more in line with what you wanted it to imply. Herein lies the rub.. either you accept what I've said and admit you were mistaken (in the grander sense), or you sustain that you were "correct" in your interpritaion (which flies in the face of the -facts-).. If you admit you were mistaken, you would have to admit that some of your beliefs may well be based on the same "mistake" and have to re-evaluate things as they come up.. if you "sustain your position", you are doing exactly what you are acusing others of (ignoring facts)..

That discussion would require you -both- to pull out tons of more info to try and prove your point.. unfortunately, there are things that no one will agree on, and things that some people will manipulate data on to prove their point (like global warming.. some scientists say it's not real, yet -most- scientists across the world say the evidence supports it.. why is it that American scientists payed by certian corperations say "no", but the 'scientifically accepted position' is "yes"?).. If you believe curruption is beyond those in power, you are foolish and can't be relied upon to make 'rational' descisions. Yet, currupted 'facts' are presented to us every day, and when people try to find the 'real facts', they are accosted?

Also, I wonder how well you can "read facts" when you had to question if my position was 'for' or 'against' people getting info when I made several statements about being concerend about having "lies" and "misinformation" brought into discussions.. do you not know what those words are? I'm sure you do.. yet, your distinct attempt to imply I didn't make it clear that I valued "truth" and "facts" is just another -perfect- example of how the 'right' works. Distraction after distraction for no reason other than directing the conversation -away- from the truth. I really am starting to wonder if it's some sort of disorder whereby people's brains just don't seem to work in 2 directions. They can put out info that is 'productive' to their cuase, but when info tries to come "in" to their heads, it get's all twisted and jumbled .. so they discard it.

When you asked "Why would I "back down from my beliefs?" Most of my opinions I have researched and gotten data from multiple sources and I believe them to be true".. There we 12 points in counter to some posts you made (12 points listed in one post that rebuffed several posts of your).. you only touched on 2 of those 12.. that means 10 cases where you stated your beliefs were countered, you "backed down".. failed to bring to bear any 'facts' to dispute the 'facts' that were coutner to your "beliefs".. so, when you ask "Why would I "back down from my beliefs?"" I have to ask.. yeah, why? If you were so sure you were right, and based in 'fact', why not bring some to bear for your defense? You didn't... you just commented on 2 points which were largely 'backpeddling' from your earlier assertations to be a broader 'view'. Giving you a broader 'base' to work from.

As for people asking your opinion about ACVR, why should we have to ask? You are playing games, another thing Conservatives are good at (that deceptive gene again). If your position wasn't being made apparent by your comments in regard to the thread, then why not clarify yourself? When you start off on the thread poking 'slanted accusations' in an apparent attempt to "support the AVCR" and it's legitimacy, you "imply" what your belief is. If you merely wanted to "make sure we were considering all possibilities", you should have said so. Part of engaging (repsonsibly) in debates is to make sure you are stating your point, not being fecitious or being the "devil's advocate".. Though, unless you've had lessons in Logic and Debate, I'd guess you just didn't know it's bad form to pretend to believe something you don't in a debate.. switching sides later probably won't be tolerated..

GeneK, nobody here *hates* Republicans. We hate liars, bullies, and hypocrites. Neoconservatives to be precise.

Are there any Republicans that I like? Yes. I liked Christine Todd Whitman. A conservative in the original sense of what a conservative is. She's also pro-environment. High on my list. And for thinking and acting on her own, she was rewarded by being nudged out of the EPA.

I also liked John McCaine. During his time as a POW, he had a chance to walk free if he chose to. His father was a high level officer at the time. But he chose to stay with his men and not take the coward's way out because of Daddy's connections (unlike a certain current high level politician in office now). I'm sure he did this so he would be able to look at himself in the mirror in future years.
High mark's for character in my opinion. But his inability to stand up to the Neocons has lowered my confidence in him as a politician.

Looking for Republican hating only blogs? They're out there if you look hard enough, but this isn't one of them. We also feel free to criticize Democrats here.

You asked how we formed our beliefs. This isn't a church blog. We don't come here for beliefs. Ask a specific question and it will be answered.

You won't attack the legitimacy of ACVR members, but you easily attack media matters and others with misleading questions. As I have said before, name names and incidences that violate ethics that concerning media matters or any other such liberal organizations and we might take your point as valid. Brad has named names and incidences. We here think for for ourselves. Brad does not tell us how to think or argue. If he did, I wouldn't be here.

As far as the personal attacks go, don't insult anyone, and they won't make personal attacks on you. Simple really.

"unless you can comment reasonably and not unreasonably partisan."

You just focus on what you want to focus on. Play nice when you want to play nice. I have a lot of friends who are Republicans and I even link to a couple on my blog. I don't believe in stifling dissent...but you have one motive here...and that is to get people to say stuff so you can throw it back at them.

And man..was that a great response from Brad.

My "threat" was to reveal your name and if you have nothing to hide why would that be a threat. But it's Brad's blog. So I apologize if I was out of line in any way...my mistake was to write that on this thread in which you have been respectful and reasonable as opposed to the last few.

peace

GeneK,

"A quick question...

When confronting a differing opinion, do you typically threaten the speaker to get them to stop expressing their opinions???

I thought that you would be a supporter of the First Amendment, which specifically covers political speech?

Where is the ACLU when you need them? Where’s Jesse Jackson?"

We on the left actually prefer to use salad dressing and/or pies, but you weren't in range.

AB #19 said:
"The problem with DKos is that it is heavily trafficked by trolls who seem pretty good at manipulating the moderates. Screw that."

I'd disagree. The structure of DKos doesn't let trolls get very far. The rating system makes everything completely transparent. If you think a comment sounds trollish, you can easily click on their ID and read every comment that person ever made, what each comment was rated, who rated each comment, etc. If someone is a troll, it is easily detected there, in my opinion. Everybody can rate everybody else, and when people's BS meter goes off, trolls are rated appropriately.

Bejammin075

Maybe most people are too moderate for me. I'm a radical, pinko, commie bombthrower. I support the ACLU in most cases, and as you know if you watch Faux News, O'Reilly has claimed that "the ACLU is a greater threat to America than al-Qaeda." That means I'm pretty damn dangerous and way out there. I don't watch Faux News but Crooks and Liars watches it for me.

I guess I would question any report if it came from a known group with a strong political bias. My question to you is do you question the "facts" in the ACVR report? If so, please elaborate. I know many of these points were made in the MSM and names and dates and verifiable facts were given. Question the motives of those who wrote it, but I can't see dismissing it out of hand simply because it came from Republicans. Are you folks saying that Democrat politicians don't lie, cheat and defraud their constituents? This political game is profitable and until it stops being so, all who engage in it will be suspect in my book.

"Are you folks saying that Democrat politicians don't lie, cheat and defraud their constituents?"

No.

Beerme #41

No one here is "pro Democrat" just to be such. Dems who vote for bad ideas (like that Bankruptcy bill?) get pounded on here too, just not as much and as hard as the Necons who are strangling this country.

As for your specific point "Question the motives of those who wrote it, but I can't see dismissing it out of hand simply because it came from Republicans.", that's exactly what we -are- doing. No one said (that I recall) that what was in the report wasn "wrong", just that it was VERY slanted toward bashing Dems, and the allegations listed (I've not read the report myself) are -MINOR- compared to the vote tampering that's been alledged to have happened.

Lemme ask you this.. Which do you find to be a bigger offense?

a) adding names to the polls for people who don't exist (lets say we max out at 1,000 in a 250,000 person district), but most of those "fictitious" peole don't vote (some would have to actually vote for it to be 'fraud', so we'll say some of those fake people vote).

b) Tampering with computers that record the actual votes and register votes for person X when the voter voted for person Y. Add to that, at least ONE incidient where 4,000 votes magically appeard out of nowhere (the district with 680 people and 4500 bush votes?)

Personally, when you tamper with the voting machines and there is no way to verify results, that's a LOT more of an issue to me. Voter Registration Fraud? yeah, it's a problem.. but it happens on both sides (and something should be done about that too.. but it's not the kind of issue that sways elections by 5.5%)

We all agree with you here .. "This political game is profitable and until it stops being so, all who engage in it will be suspect in my book".. It's just that Republicans and Conservatives 'tend' to make more, and do it at the distinct expense of the general population.. Dems 'tend' to put things in place to protect people while they are getting rich.. Lessor of two evils if you ask me, but evils none-the-less.. Personally, I don't like politicians.. any of them..

:P :confused: :laugh: :satisfied: :rolleyes: :plain: :doze: :angry: :O

Savantster said:

"most of those "fictitious" peole don't vote (some would have to actually vote for it to be 'fraud', so we'll say some of those fake people vote)."

For the record, the silly report from the phony ACVR gives absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any "fake people" actually cast a single vote. Nor that there was voter fraud.

They simply hope to make that implication, and have the coordinated and systematic power and money of the RNC and the phony propoganda wings that it created (Cybercast News Service, for example, where the Executive Editor is also the RNC's own Radio Coordinator and the friend and colleague of the spokesman for the phony ACVR.)

I didn't read all your responses because it is futile..at least it seems so. Unless.
How many people actually read the blogs that expose the truth?? How many of the people in contact with those who read the" truth blogs" actually absorb the scope of what is happening?
How many of you folks actually, and I mean really actually understand the scope of what is going on?
I pray that you all do and the people you contact do too, but the fascist movement is sooo big I think that what we need is something much, much, much bigger than what you're / we're doing now.
I've only looked at the "thruth Blogs" for a few months now but the light sure did come on when I read a broad spectrum of sources.
Through BRAD/Buzzflash/Americablog/FTW and others I am getting to thinking thta we better hurry or we won't make it! I don't know what to do but read on and soon I'll decide what action group to join.
Unless ....everyone becomes active
Keep up the great work and thank you

I didn't read all your responses because it is futile..at least it seems so. Unless.
How many people actually read the blogs that expose the truth?? How many of the people in contact with those who read the" truth blogs" actually absorb the scope of what is happening?
How many of you folks actually, and I mean really actually understand the scope of what is going on?
I pray that you all do and the people you contact do too, but the fascist movement is sooo big I think that what we need is something much, much, much bigger than what you're / we're doing now.
I've only looked at the "thruth Blogs" for a few months now but the light sure did come on when I read a broad spectrum of sources.
Through BRAD/Buzzflash/Americablog/FTW and others I am getting to thinking thta we better hurry or we won't make it! I don't know what to do but read on and soon I'll decide what action group to join.
Unless ....everyone becomes active
Keep up the great work and thank you

Brad #45

All I was saying was, even if we give them the benifit of the doubt and say "there was voter fraud", we'd still only be talking about a very small number of votes (on the order of 10s of thousands country wide). I have a very very hard time seeing how you would get a LOT of people engaged in an illegal and immoral scam like that, -and- keep it secret too? Isn't gonna happen (so I'm basically agreeing with you, just allowing for the possibility of the proposed [from our illustrious ACVR] fraud).

What's funny and amazes me is, the right is saying "do you know how many people would have to be involved in a conspiracy on both sides to do the vote tampering you are suggesting?".. I don't get how people honestly do NOT see how it only takes about a dozen people (or less) in key positions to shift votes, and it does NOT require a partisan effort.. On the other hand, for the kind of fraud they are saying happens on the "left" (fake people voting over and over) -would- require hundreds of people (doing the voting).. Simply amazing..

The news media is neither Democrat or Republican biased, and neither was the "election" drama .. it is CORPORATE..
What is good for Capitalism is going to be in the news, who is good for the capitalistic elite's interest is going to win elections. That is it..simple. That is the way it has been for years. Anyone who runs that is for real democracy in the US or other countries will lose or be asassinated..because we need their oil and for corporate to win. The Iraqi people have not had basic living services restored, yet Halliburton and the contractors are raking in the profits. THEY ARE THE WINNERS !

So, Exposing the Democrats that are thrilled with Horowitz's appointment as Head of the World (Bank), Telling about how the sanctions of Bill Clinton were the early seeds of "terriorism"..which pure and simple is just retaliation..like we did post 9-11. And telling the viewers of this blog about the Democrat's think tank and how it does not differ from the Project for New American Century (Neocon think tank) is missing from this blog.

Also telling how Kerry became a hawk at the end of his campaign..and lost the vote of the people because he gave in to capitalistic invasion and colonization for oil. Hell, there was not a real election but if there he would have lost anyway, as he lost his values and the reasonable dove became a hawk. Those voters who won are those that did not vote for the charade in this country at all.

Phony, cherrypicking and part of the dumbing down is what occurs to me when i see these things as well as issues like depleted uranium info missing on a blogsite.

Talkin56

See www.axisoflogic.com for news and commentary

I haven't noticed that the bloggers here are fond of Democrats at all. I find that they talk mostly about crime and corruption in government.
I have a feeling that when we have a Democratic adminstration you will find much of the same thing here.

And you all know, of course, that I am antipartisan.
And I, like Savantster dislike politicians in general, as they are self serving opportunists by nature.

What is happening here it seems is talk about changing the face of government entirely.

CNSNews > same server as Media Research Center (MRC.org), Brent Bozell > same server as CRC4PR.com, PR firm handling pharma/credit card/petroleum companies' business > USANext.org, uses CRC4PR services

Do you see a relationship or two?