I was mostly shocked that he didn't plagiarize his stupid essay. Though it did contain copious copy-and-pasting.

The right will win this bout. The left will loudly wail to each other, and demand Bush's impeachment, and Bush's spokesmen will continue to lay smokescreen after smokescreen, while going about the business of America, which is presently to bankrupt ourselves with entitlements and to run up a war tab of $400 to $800 to ???? billion.

I think the ONE thing the lefties are doing, and this blog is supporting, is to get rid of the paperless ballot. They've gotta go!

If the left would concentrate on that, and put Dean in a cage, and get a spokesman who doesn't ridicule & insult the very people you need to win, well you might have a chance of regaining power some day. Right now, Dean is the GOP's best weapon. I look forward to a lot of humor there, and finally a meltdown, followed by a terrible thrashing and backstabbing by the Dems. It'll be great. Even Teddy Kennedy will kick him in the groin when he finally goes down in flames. I can't wait.

Gawd I love politics.

The aliens are in some far away galaxy fighting the Klingons and overthrowing the the Sith. If aliens are anally probing people in space, I and everyone else can't do anything to stop it. End of that issue. Now on to Downing street, privatized elections, prisoner torture, social security scam, media silence ......whew, I'm tired. I can't even keep count of all the bullshit and scandal.

I love how they keep diverting attention away from scandal to aliens. Can they at least use something new like ghosts or fairies?

Will somebody please give a certain person here his box of cocoa puffs? He's coo coo for cocoa puffs, and he won't calm down til he gets it.

:)

I want to point out a fabulous lecture by William Rivers Pitt. Really gang, take some time and watch this:

William Rivers Pitt Stand with Us --- 06.08.05

Also, I have added numerous links to the Iraq War and perspectives at www.reallynews.com

REALLY NEWS is now in plain HTML for those who could not properly view it. Click on Iraq War link in the center.

I am building the Videos link. And also collecting Radio sites and building that.

It will be Freeway blogged this week.

That "Buckshot" is SHOT DOWN. It's a waste of bandwidth.

Yay, Jpenz! A true patriot!!!

This could be a very good omen. Wasn't it Hillary that claimed there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband before he admited he lied?

So it now comes full circle. They are claiming "conspiracy theory!" just before they are forced to admit they lied.

Burn baby, burn.

@Fred (#8)

Sadly, I have a feeling they'd rather have a civil war than admit they lied. In fact, the more evidence that comes out and the more denial, stonewalling, etc. that occurs... the more I think the only way to do this.. is to get a march of 1 million... to the Whitehouse... kick in the doors... drag Bush out physically and install a coalition government or some alternative until the dust settles... even a coalition govt. can't be any worse than the Bush regime.

I dunno... I guess I'm tired of trying to deliver justice to Republicans "by the book" when everything they do breaks every rule going!! If criminal and federal laws are powerless... there's only mob-rule left.

Is Operation Iraqi Freedom the mother of all money laundering operations for the GOP?

Follow the Money-Go-Round.

I, too, have noticed that the word "alien" has become a bellwether for how close we are getting to the truth. They may not be scared yet - but they're definitely getting nervous.

And with some of them (Sensenbrenner comes to mind), I think maybe the aliens just forgot to remove their anal probe.

Oh my God! That GOPUSA site is SO VERY GAY! Why don't they all just come out of the closet?

Well, our buddy TOM FEENEY has thrown HIS two cents into the mix (and we all know what THAT's worth)

Feeney thinks the matter will fade. "I think it'll fizzle out in a couple of weeks," he said. "The Democrats will be on to something else."

For the umpteenth time...election fraud and lying to the American people are not Democrat/Republican matters. They are about honesty and dishonesty.

Bill Clinton was impeached because he was dishonest, not because he was a Democrat (sorry if some of my Democratic friends can't accept that). And George W. Bush, if he is impeached, will have suffered that fate for the same reason...whether he is removed from office or not.

This isn't about Howard Dean, either. Whether some of his remarks have been "over the top" or not is irrelevant to election fraud and governmental deceit. Dean is just a convenient target for people to shoot at...people who want to avoid tougher questions like, "When will the source codes inside those machines be revealed?" and "Why are the mainstream media avoiding the Downing Street minutes?"

Robert,

Years ago (late 70's) a couple of neighbor kids stopped by the house & were on the front room couch waiting for their parents for an hour or so. (I think they had locked themselves out) Anyway, they killed some time watching TV while I was occupied elsewhere. I heard all this commotion and found them wathcing an old Western 'shoot-em-up" movie. They were excited as can be, and kept yelling "Who's the good guys" Who's the good guys"?

Now ignoring the bad grammar, they were in a real quandry. One group was shooting their forty fives at the other. The dust was everywhere. The men were squinting. The guns were blazing. They were loud. There was excitement. Unfortunately, the all happened to have light colored hats. Dang.

Who WAS da bad guys? The kids kept aksing me, as if I KNEW who da bad guys were. I didn't know. I started watching with them. Hmmmm...those guys kinda look bad....so do those guys...but wait....a clue here.....a clue there.....finally.....

AHAAAAAAA!!! I don't remember what the deciding factor was, but there was a lot of yelling as the true bad guys were exposed!!! From that point forward, the kids rooted for the "good guys".

That's what it's all about here, Robert. We got us some libruls & some neocons. This is a lefty blog. It's been decided who the "bad guys" are. They're r-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n-s. There is no need for the kind of rational thought you are injecting into the conversation.

Remember, republicans bad, anyone else good. Dig?

It's really that simple. Don't believe me? Test the hypothesis in your own way.

Did he really say. "plant White House reporters"? Wow, this one is beyond HOPELESS. There is something one poster didn't think about in this thread. He was right about "smokescreens" etc. but the voices are growing and we have seen some results. There is a huge tide of people fighting.

This isn't about "screaming" as the article says it's about fighting.
From what I've seen I wouldn't want to be a rightwinger at this time. Many sleepy Americans are about to get a wake up call.

What's that GOPUSA symbol? It looks like some kind of obscene alien "probe".

I think that the aftermath of this administration will be bigger and better than Buckshot's assessment of the situation. Sure there is a lot of that good guy/bad guy business going on here, and the extremists in the Republican party sure seem to revel in their role as defiant, arrogant, spoiled punks. Much of it is a consequence of the culture of the new wave GOP (as discussed in a right wing stroke book called South Park Republicans).

The new GOP has drawn heavily from folks like Rove and Norquist who trained themselves in the sophomoric world of the College Republicans. The new Republicans have "style" and this style will be their undoing. They spend like liberals, but only on things that nobody wants. They act all self-righteous, but let themselves off the hook for their rascally indiscretions. They talk tough, provided someone else does the fighting. They like punishment for everyone else but their own. And they have done something amazing: They have taken the culture of victimhood and applied to themselves. As if it is so painfully hard to be a rich, influential white man in the most powerful country in the world. But in the end, they are full of crapola. And when they fall out of style, everyone will hate them. They want to be hated by people who think different from them, because it is part of their style. And as long as they have the upper hand, they don't have to worry about being accountable.

This isn't to say that there aren't good republicans or bad democrats, there are lots of both. I just hope that the scandal that this administration has been is a beginning of something better.

The Bush administration is only the shining examples of the excessive abuses that are rampant in our political system. We need to get our elections under control. We need to fix the media. We need more transparency from our leaders. We need greater diversity in our political sphere. We need to jobs for our people. We need to shift the focus of economic health off of wall street and onto our working people. There is a lot to do. And in the end, it isn't about Republicans or Democrats... it's about giving the government back to the people.

The last time I heard the "alien" defense was with the "Bush bulge" story. It was the first of 6 different explanations given by the GOP.

For those of you not aware of the President having a rectangular box strapped to his back and a wire beneath his tie in the 2004 Presidential debates, see:

Images From The Three Debates

BushWired

Is Bush Wired

By the way, the NYT killed that story, too:

New York Times Killed "Bush Bulge" Story

It's deja-vu all over again...and again........and again.

I hate to say it BigTobacco, but you are right. Never ever wanted to say Big Tobacco would be right would be right but you got us there!

The Bush regime has awakened that sleeping giant referred to as "we the people" which I often refer to as the actual 4th branch of government. Forever into the past there were a handful of we the people that would take a swing at the political process, penning out a letter or two to their congressmen on the important issues, but the inner circles were mostly left to lobbyists and we the people stood on the sidelines and let the political processes play out as they did for years and years with minimal input.

The advent of Bradblogs and email and Moveons and all the rest have given we the people a whole medium for taking an active and even revolutionary involvment in the political process unheard of until the Bush regime stirred the waters and gave reason for an uproar tidal wave of the people to jump on the band wagon. I'm just guessing that the Bush/Rove team were not quite ready for the people branch of government to rear up and start demanding answers.

Again, thank you Brad and rave on you awesome 6 or 7! I think you all get capes and become Online Crusaders in the proud old tradition of daily donning the cape and doing battle to save the nation and the world! Love it!!
Gh

Buckshot #15 - You seem a little confused (and that's not meant to be condescending, a LOT are confused these days)

Robert is right, it's not Republican vs Democrat here.

Re: good guys vs bad guys - there are those in the neo-con loop who want us to see every issue, every deception, in those terms, because the more it is perceived as a partisan thing, the less power we have to make changes. "Divide and conquer" is a strong tool for silencing dissent - ditto with diversion and distraction. In fact, it's SO common with this administration, the name "Rove" has now become a noun, synonymous with "deception". "It's another Rove" is a relatively new phrase for an old game, and people are starting to catch on.

To follow your analogy, it's NEO-CONS who back the PNAC that are the bad guys. Go to the signature list of that document and you have the LEADERS of the outlaw gang.

And yes, the Republicans, and some would argue, the Democrats as well, all wear the same colored hats - makes it kind of hard to tell them apart sometimes.

All Neo-cons are Republican - BUT, NOT ALL REPUBLICANS are NEO-CONS.

Keep that in mind, and the rest of the pieces fall into place.

Absolutely, KestrelBrighteyes. Joe Lieberman is bending over backward to be counted among the neocons, and where would they be without Henry "Scoop" Jackson? If you trace them back to Leo Stauss and his progeny (Wolfowitz, etc.), it's all about power and manipulation of the people. They will use any labels to herd the sheep, and when the labels wear out, they'll change labels to suit their goals. These people want American hegemony over everything, and they really don't care what you call them as long as you have to call them.

And neo-cons aren't necessarily Republicans: Kristol said of Buchanan, "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan or any of the lesser Buchananites on the right. If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives." The "Problem" with Buchanan--he was against the war. Old Pat has a moment of moral clarity, and the neocons identify him as a big bad problem. They like Bolton, even though he put his wife through a gang rape--because he is pro-war. And, they sure are sweet on Zell Miller.

The bottom line with the PNAC pigs and the neocon dirtballs is that they support the aggressive use of military and foreign policy to support a pro-corporate agenda. They prefer Bush, but when bush goes down in flames, they will throw their weight behind a "democrat" savior. If we aren't smart, we will end up working for the same company, only under new management.

By the way... BRAD! YOU ARE AWESOME. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK. If America makes it through all this mess, I hope you run for office someday.

Buckshot, I don't give a damn about Democrats and Republicans. Why can't you understand that?

As with you, I have favored third-party candidates more often than not over the years. Perot in 1992, Libertarians at other times, Gene McCarthy in 1968.
For a self-described Libertarian such as yourself, you're surprisingly obsessed with major party labels. I don't understand the contradiction, really.

Labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are also unimportant to me. This is about stolen elections. If somebody robbed your home, Buckshot, would you say, "Must have been one of those liberals (or Democrats) we've got around here."??? If the Democratic candidate had won by fraud in 2000 and 2004, I'd be just as livid as I am now at Bush.

There's no ambiguity about good guys and bad guys when it comes to theft. Thieves are bad guys.

#17 Arry

AND, that name!! :shivers: goPUSa --- sounds like it's infected.

And it is - infected with neoCONS. Bring out the Antibiotics and apply Liberally.

{gotcha! WP}

#18, 23. BigTobacco. You've nailed it very well. "Sophomoric" is really a very good term to characterize the neocons. One of their outstanding characteristics is altering facts to fit their simplistic view of the world. We all know they did it in regard to Iraq and do on global warming. But it's everywhere, for example in the explanations for USA"PATRIOT" Act, regardless of their obvious and actual contempt for the Constitution.

The almost complete hypocrisy, blindness to facts and to self, lying as a way of life, confusion of morality with amorality, need of enemies (you're right - they want people to hate them to validate their victim status and therefore their "understandable" violent reactions) --- all of this points to a feverish and desperate world view.

My own opinion is that corporatism has reached such a stage of development that its irrational, colonizing, and controlling nature (and imminent danger to the earth and civic society) has become clear. That being the case, much of our mental structure - nurtured in a fully corporate environment, especially from the end of WWII, has to be altered, something that many people are afraid to do; and, in fact, they hunker down and refuse to see it. Rather than working on the problem, they become "victims" and build a political view based on that status. (And a new corporate/state identity, failing to see that it is fascism.)

Those with a little less hysteria have found, voila, there is much in United States historical experience to draw on to get us out of this mess and that maybe corporatism isn't quite as central to American culture as we who have grown up in its smothering embrace thought.

A couple of related notes. Global corporations are not passive participants. They, of course, saturate our culture with propaganda to advance their interests - now probably largely derived from knowledge of Peak Oil. Their interests and solutions, however, are poisonous and every bit as irrational as those of a neocon fanatic.

Other minor note - In my own effort to uncover the origins of this dangerous irrationalism - at least in the average neocon brain, I keep coming across Ayn Rand - for what it is worth.

I agree with RLM that it is an honesty issue (although Robert may not entirely agree with me on some of the rest of it). I think the honesty has to be at the heart of our solutions and that it is a much bigger thing than just "Be honest". I could be our saving grace.

Yeah, I come across a lot of Ayn Randians (Or objectivists), too. It should be noted that they believe that altruism is evil and weak. They loathe Christianity more than liberals supposedly, do... but they benefit from a double standard because they like big business (in the same way that Davd Dryer gets to promote his boyfriend, but the governor of NJ couldn't). So they are not to be trusted on matters of "Compassionate Conservativism" (which doesn't come from them, it's just a glaring inconsistency in the GOPs pro-War/Christian fundamentalist/anti-poor big tent.

I'm really proud, that people are so good at identifying these bogus news and voter's rights groups, so quickly! We've come a long way.

Brad's Assignment: Monitor the MSM and watch them quote GOPUSA, and not inform viewers of it's phoniness.

Robert,

Whether you give a dang about the Dems & Republicans is not really that pertinent. It's only important that you comprehend that no matter how many millions of people have conversations like this..

1) on blogs
2) in bars
3) on airplanes
4) on talk shows
5) on campuses
6) in church
7) in deli's

etc etc etc,

on election day, you can bet the deed to your house that somewhere between 94% and 96% of voters will choose either a GOP or a Dem.

Now there is a remote chance that if things get bad enough, a Jesse Ventura or Ross Perot may come along and pull 7% or heck, maybe even EIGHT PERCENT.

But face it - you add up all the votes for the Greens, the LP, the flat earthers, the constitution party, the Independent Party (is there still one?) and they will total around 5% - give or take a coupla points.

Case in point.... my son in law ( a great guy ) was blabbing his politics to me, and quite frankly, he doesn't know a Palestinian from a Pakistani (seriously) He was predicting this and that and telling me HOW THINGS WERE, and I said " I am not a gambler - so rather than bet you, I am going to give you this crisp $100 dollar bill if the GOP & Dems don't soak up at least 95% of the votes.

I won the "bet" with about 3 percentage points to spare. Just to be a good sport, I told him I would make the same offer next time around. I think he learned something - we'll see.

As far as voter fraud - you pay attention to the news reports next time - I guarantee there will be hundreds of cases where very left-leaning election workers will be out there "polling" people to demonstrate what the public "thinks" about certain "issues".

Polls are only meaningful, Robert, if they are run in a scientific manner by unbiased professionals, using a fairly representative test group with an adequate sample size.

In other words, if you go to gay bars and ask folks "Do you think gays should be able to marry?", you might get a different result than if you ask the folks leaving a KKK meeting or a Baptist church.

You are giving WAY TOO much credit to the left leaning folks. They aren't any more ethical than those on the right. They are no more/no less ethical that Olympic athletes or baseball players who use performance enhancing drugs.

People rationalize their behavior. The Dem playbook is being written now - by people like Brad - who are saying "Hey, we got cheated last time - we're going to have to do some CHEATING OURSELVES". The end justifies the means.

Well, guess what, Robert? That's the same behavior as the other side uses.

I'm reminded of a quote from a Civil War jounal - as the men approached the front lines, a swish was heard as a cannonball came through the tree tops. It hit the ground, but didn't explode. It bounced and missed the men and continued on it's way, crashing through the underbrush, until the sound died out.

After a silence, one guy said. "Hey, that could've hurt someone". They were silent after that as they approached the front. Many of them were maimed and killed.

The point is, Robert, we ain't plain' tiddlywinks here. The future of mankind rests with the actions of the next few years. Both sides will do ANYTHING to win control. For folks like you to complain about a bit of fraud (on ONE SIDE ONLY????) is sorta like the young soldier. "Hey...that ain't fair".

Do you think any of the players in this game give a care about fair? Excuse....... .....me...Robert....BWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry i got carried away. But seriously.....

Get real.

I read "Atlas Shrugged" by Rand many years ago. Friends told me it was awesome. It did make me think of and question my world view.
But in the end, it just kind of scared me.
During Viet Nam, it was the hidden power of the military/industrial complex that was so wrong and anti-people.
Hello! Here we are again. Only worse.
But today we have the liberal internet blog.
Drool, drool (per GOPUSA)
Yayyy!!!

#31 b...s. You and Robert are talking at cross-purposes. Your grim "conventional wisdom" is getting in the way of hearing what he is saying.

I'd advise a.) defining your terms b.)compacting your argument so that we can understand what you are saying. It has to be more than it appears. Or does it?

How about clear points in order 1., 2., 3. to make an argument?

Please don't include "People like Brad believe in cheating" as a step in the argument without documentary backup.

Of course, you may be out of here with one lie too many.

Arry,

Yes, of course we have a problem with definitions. That is the root of most disagreements, when you get right down to it.

It is your opinion that "I am not hearing what Robert is saying". Well, I have read about twenty of his posts, and I have seriously considered his words. I respect his views. So, perhaps you are right that I'm "not hearing what he's saying".

But what does "I'm not hearing what he's saying" mean to you?

His message seems pretty straightforward to me. Quite clear. He chooses his words carefully, and he says what he means. And I listen. So, Arry, I believe I do hear what he's saying....and I agree with much of it.

Where I differ (and perhaps you aren't hearing what "I"M saying) is that he hasn't accpeted that this is the way the game is played. Cheating is the rule. That's how you play.

As far as Brad censoring me, he said he wouldn't. Then, in the same breath, he said if I kept complaining about being censored, he might censor me. I haven't complained since, and my posts are showing up, so there's no beef. If I disappear, you'll have your answer.

My message is pretty straightforward, too. When a group of people simply lie morning, noon, and night; it seems silly for them to complain about the opposition party lying.

Same for cheating. If registration drives to get ineligible felons registered isn't cheating, I don't know what is. If encouraging people to register in different districts isn't cheating, ditto. The Dems did this in many areas.

Finally, if my comments are too long for you, exercise your adult judgment, and DON'T READ THEM.

Have a nice day.

RobertLM,
There's no use in explaining the "gray" area to Buckshot, because we can see Buckshot's belief in Bush's statement, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." In buckshot's head, you're either a Republican or a Democrat. Those are the only two slots you get to fit into.

Buckshot is a bifurcating bullshit excuse for insightful "wisdom". RLM, at least you tried though.

No use talking to Buckshot. Either he's really slick with the talking points or he's totally insane. "Aksing" him if he's one or the other would be pointless.

Read his post on the minority women joining the military for the signing bonus then get pregnant scam. If that's not coo coo for cocoa puffs, I don't know what is.

# 34 Buckshot --- That's a little better, but it confirms my suspicions - There is nothing there.

When you reply to Robert's post by stating that most people vote for Democrats and Republicans, you must realize that he is well aware of it. It might occur to you, from that circumstance, that you are missing his point. He is talking about an ethical issue which you refuse to acknowledge. That's talking at cross purposes. To me, it would indicate that you are not hearing him. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you hear him fine, but your purpose is solely to pontificate your views. Not much of a dialogue there.

The rest of your post #31 is just cloudy, confused thinking. You talk about polls and, again, state the obvious - about scientific and unscientific polls - as if you were really telling us something. What polls are you talking about? "Leftie" polls? We need some specifics - otherwise it's just a lot of hot air. It may come as a surprise to you, but most of us know that polls need to have statistical criteria and standards. So, what the hell are you saying?

You say, "The Dem playbook is being written now - by people like Brad - who are saying "Hey, we got cheated last time - we're going to have to do some CHEATING OURSELVES". The end justifies the means." Again, what are you talking about? Get specific. Just mouthing the words doesn't mean anything. I've never heard "people like Brad" say anything like that. Have you? Specifics now, not - "Oh, hundreds". Do you have inside information?Does this have something to do with those polls? Damned if I know from anything you've said.

If you think subverting the Constitution through the "PATRIOT" Act and executive orders and going to war illegally on the basis of false information is a "bit of fraud", it appears to me that you are ethically-challenged and we can safely ignore the "everybody cheats" having the validity of a sage observation.

"The way the game is played..." Come on. Have a little more imagination. You say we have to be so careful because so much is at stake. But what's at stake, if "that's the way the game is played"? A "bit of fraud"? Doesn't sound to me that you see the seriousness of the situation at all, and that may be an unspoken lurker behind your remarks.

You are pretty hopeless. In your message to me you are back to the Democrats again. I thought Robert told you it is not the issue. I thought everybody has told you it is not the issue.

Thanks for the advice. It's true. I don't see much point in reading your posts, although it isn't the length that is the problem. It's that there is nothing to gain from reading them.

Horkus, Fred, and all - don't worry. I'm through with BS.

Robert Lockwood Mills --- Sorry about jumping in there re: Buckshot. The lecturing tone combined confused thought and little substance beyond "everybody cheats" got to me.

You Go! Arry.

Bucksnot is a stupid troll. It's become apparent over the last few days.

Anyone who supports is either an idiot or deceived.

OMG!

Surely I meant "Anyone who supports BUSH is either an idiot or deceived."

Dang - my keyboard must have sticky keys.

Fred,

You may not like the fact that about 95% of those who vote will choose either a Republican or a Democrat. I don't especially like it either, but I accept that it is a fact. That's where we differ. I can acknowledge a fact.

Horcus,

If you do a bit of reading, you'll find that as the conflict in Iraq has become more perilous, more women have opted to get pregnant and get the heck out of there. No surprise. No mystery.

Arry,

You spent quite a few words telling me that you don't understand what I'm saying. So I went back and read your post #28 to see what you said. Hmmmm. A whole lot of not much.

It is lame that you intentionally misrepresent my statement about "a bit of fraud" (which was about VOTER FRAUD) to mean I support the Patriot Act & the Iraq War. What a load of crap. I won't bother to rebut that silliness.

Buckshot, you aren't listening to me. To suggest that pollsters are a bunch of liberals seeking voters who confirm their own biases is belied by the very facts I presented to you. Please read them again.

Once again: The exit polls were deadly accurate wherever paper ballots were used predominantly. They were deadly accurate in the Florida Senate race. They were wildly inaccurate in battleground states that used electronic voting machines and optical-scan tabulators.

For your argument to carry weight, we'd have to assume that polltakers in paper-ballot states, and polltakers who interviewed Florida residents about the Senate race, were honest, unbiased people. Meanwhile, the polltakers who worked in swing states that used electronic machinery were liberals seeking out voters sympathetic to their own views. Furthermore, that in Florida the same polltaker was a liberal when asking about the presidential race, but politically neutral a moment later when asking voters about the Senate race.

BUCKSHOT...THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS!

IMHO, Bobby Eberle is a closet gay. Bobby Eberle is also the route by which Jeff Gannon got his free pass into the White House. Instead of arguing with Buckshot, look at how effectively he's distracted you from the topic at hand--which is Bobby Eberle.

The Fundamentalist/Young Republican/neocon movement is driven by self-loathing about their personal sexual desires. They can't stand freedom because they are afraid of what they themselves might do with it, so they want to take it away from everybody.

Connect the dots. Eberle, Gannon...

Buckshot,

I ran you off ThinkProgress. You have 24 hours to get out of town, you bottom dweller, or I will show everyone here your White Nationalist bottom as I spank it again and harder this time. You know you love it. We call him Commander Cupcake over there. Has he gone into his sugar rant yet? White sugar and snackin' cakes are destroying white culture!

I lied.

Here is what what Dagwood Bumshot is all about.

http://home.ddc.net/ygg/

Don't waste your time with buttsnot, unless to verbally abuse it. It isn't possible to be guilty of ad hominem attacks on a creature lower than a slug, so have at it, then ignore it. It will eventually go away. It will try to sneak back under another name at first. The stench is unmistakable.

Robert,

I think I understand you. You believe that in some of the states where paperless ballots were used, the exit polls showed that more folks voted for Kerry (or at least a greater percentage) than was shown in the official vote tally.

And you believe that in some states where paperless ballots were used, exit polls generally mirrored the official vote tally.

Further, you believe that there were cases in Florida where the same polltaker asked questions about the presidential race and the Senate race. You believe that his data showed a close correlation in the Senate race, but in the presidential race there were discrepancies (Bush did better than the exit poll would have indicated)

Okay? I fully understand your case. You've made it several times in a concise manner. Others would benefit by taking note of your writing style and focus on the topic.

Yet, this is sort of like me talking to the numerous Jehovah's Witnesses who stop by each summer - I usually invite em in for a chat. I understand their views perfectly - in fact I usually know the scripture better than they do. I just don't believe it.

Robert, if I knew that every example of fraud you refer to was based on a poll taken in a professional manner, with neutral questions, in an area of average demographics (in other words, the poll sample was representative of the folks who live in that area), then I woul agree wholeheartedly with you.

But I don't know that. I do know this... if I wanted to show that there was wrongdoing, and I had the ethics of the typical political operative (no rules) , it would be CHILD'S PLAY for me to hire dem-leaning pollsters, fashion their questions to reflect the view I wished to reflect (favoring Dem principles & candidates), and to pick TIMES and of course LOCATIONS where there tended to be more liberal groups of people to poll. And of course I would do this in areas WITH PAPERLESS BALLOTS, so my numbers could not be refuted. (!!!)

Think about it.

Then I would project those numbers over the WHOLE district and announce loudly to the world that the poll numbers in paperless districts showed wild discrepancies, while those in areas with paper ballots were more "accurate". (then I might suggest that "the odds of THAT happening are 100 trillion to one" as if that meant something....

Simple.

Now, I don't know what happened Robert, because I wasn't there. But if I can figure out a VERY SIMPLE tactic like this, I'm sure the Dem operatives can figure it out, as well. And I believe they did.

I'm not arguing with you, or trying to persuade you. I'm just telling you what I believe to be the case, based on what I've read, what I know about political strategy, and what I know about people's ethics in general.

As always, thanks for the courteous response.

That's the ultimate conspiracy theory, Buckshot. Democrats anticipated that an election dispute would arise involving electronic voting machines in battleground states...so in advance, they hired thousands of liberal polltakers (with or without the permission of the polling companies?) to seek out liberal voters who said they voted for Kerry when in fact some of them voted for Bush?

That sounds like what you're arguing for here. Maybe I'm missing something.

Neither your scenario (nor mine, for that matter) answers the $64 question. Of all the claims of vote-flipping and other irregularities that have arisen (57,000 were filed within 48 hours after Election Day), something on the order of 98% of the claims have been about errors favoring Bush. That is mathematically impermissible.

Only the most rabid right-wing troll would argue that 98 out of 100 liberals are liars, and only 2 out of 100 conservatives are. I've insisted all along that this dispute isn't about partisanship or political leanings...it's about integrity. Nobody has ever flipped a coin in the air 100 times and had it come up heads 98, and no honest election has ever seen 98% of the irregularities favor the same candidate.

BS thinks voter fraud (a "bit of fraud") has nothing to do with the illegal Iraq War and the "PATRIOT" Act. He thinks there is no connection between the downfall of our republic and stolen elections. He doesn't draw the connection between stolen election and Bush. He is not very smart.

I think this is its farewell letter. Well not really, it snuck back and had its equally repulsive friends or kids or grandkids, all two of them, try to do some damage control. Just ask anyone at Think Progress what this little cretin is all about. Or for fun surf through some of its comments. It is the archetype of Hannah Arendt's banality of evil concept:

Jay,

Comment By Buckshot — June 2nd, 2005 @ 2:16 pm

Idiot or deceived?

Robert,

You needn't misrepresent my clear statements. I don't misrepresent yours.

You clearly believe there was significant voter fraud favoring Bush. Unless we were both sitting down and analyzing the same data, while asking the critical questions, it's gets pretty smoky.

I don't have any problem with you believing there was voter fraud. Just don't give me any voodoo math/appeal to authority-type reasoning.

There may have been voter fraud that decided the election. I'm not convinced.

And I'm not trying to convince you of a massive lefty conspiracy to make it appear there was. There is plenty of evidence of left-leaning operatives playing fast & loose with data, (& the other side, too) and there is plenty of evidence that many of the "news" outlets lean WAYYYYYY left. Dan Rather, for instance.

Statistics are meaningless unless they are based on a solid foundation. I don't believe yours are.

It doesn't mean I'm trashing your opinion. To the contrary, you've posted the only info I've read on this blog that makes any sense at all.

The vast majority of these posts are from young, uninformed, envious young folks who haven't a clue how the system works in this country, and instead of working at improving their own situations, they spend their time on blogs giving "advice".

You, on the other hand, (and I) have already forgotten more than some of these kids will ever learn. This is why they so easily fall prey to the class envy blather, the "screw the rich" attitute ( not realizing they are screwing themselves) etc.

BS buckshot --- the vast majority of folks who post here are probably grandparents.

You show your stupidity with each post.

BS again --- none of the news outlets lean Waaay left. In fact they hardly lean towards the left at all.

Another stupid idea.

You're just full of BS, aren't you?

Schizophrenia Symptoms (see also Buckshot)

Usually with schizophrenia, the person's inner world and behavior change notably. Behavior changes might include the following:

* Social withdrawal

* Depersonalization (intense anxiety and a feeling of being unreal)

* Loss of appetite

* Loss of hygiene

* Delusions

* Hallucinations (eg, hearing things not actually present)

* The sense of being controlled by outside forces

A person with schizophrenia may not have any outward appearance of being ill. In other cases, the illness may be more apparent, causing bizarre behaviors. For example, a person with schizophrenia may wear aluminum foil in the belief that it will stop one's thoughts from being broadcasted and protect against malicious waves entering the brain.

People with schizophrenia vary widely in their behavior as they struggle with an illness beyond their control. In active stages, those affected may ramble in illogical sentences or react with uncontrolled anger or violence to a perceived threat. People with schizophrenia may also experience relatively passive phases of the illness in which they seem to lack personality, movement, and emotion (also called a flat affect). People with schizophrenia may alternate in these extremes. Their behavior may or may not be predictable.

Thanks for the info, Rifled Slug #50 - our friendly troll tracker!

My pleasure, Kira. I am Buckshot's most pleasant nightmare. The really scary shit is all his mother's doing.

:)

Buckshot's rhetoric is full of holes. Round and round in circles...so you don't want to believe anyone else's analysis or credentials or evidence...you just know it all...and everyone is dishonest...blah...blah...blah. If your son-in-law is a great guy, no doubt he has learned to be kind and overlook certain deficiencies...I wish him all the luck and patience in the world...

Robert,

You'll see from the previous 4 or 5 posters that they aren't interested in issues at all. They hang out on blogs, looking for a common enemy - then they call him names. It gives them joy.

Anyway anyone who wants a shot at the $1000? I haven't heard a peep about it.

Hmmmm.....I wonder why?

Hey... I was able to demonstrate that poor people pay income tax for the 1000 dollar buckshot challenge, and he choked.

Buckshot talks too much about his own ideas and abilities, typical for someone in his tax bracket. Acting all cocky and then at the last minute, change the rules when they might get applied to you. If there were a draft to dodge, he'd be in the Texas Air Guard.

That's why there aren't any takers.

BT,

SAYING "Poor people pay income taxes" isn't showing me. You need to SHOW me something. The IRS website has everything you should need.

People here are showing you the door. Take your grand and shove it with your own hand. And no appeals to authority, please. And if the IRS isn't an authority none of us would trust, given this administration's proclivities, ah, fuckit don't let the good lord hit ya where he split ya.

You need to SHOW me something. The IRS website has everything you should need.

Whoops! Did that do it?

Unrealist,

You need to use numbers. You know, specifics. Your vague comments are meaningless.

Just as I demonstrated that BT had no tax liability at the income he had, your daughter is in the same boat. She most likely wasn't even required to file, but even if she did, she would have most likely had no tax liability. Since you don't give me any numbers, there's no way of knowing.

Okay, turn the light back on.

Buckshot, I seem to have missed the wording of your original offer of the thousand bucks-- which I could surely use and would enjoy taking from you. So, state the offer plainly and simply. It sounds to me that you are claiming that people who earn very little money pay no income taxes. Is that right? Because if so, you are flat out wrong. (My daughter earned something like two thousand bucks her last year, and paid a couple hundred in income taxes.)

Then, we can work out details of how I get your money. I can fax a copy of my daughter's tax returns to Brad, and you can send your check to him, he can adjudge if I'm right, and your check can be a donation to Bradblog. Okay?

Fair enough.

The details of how you get your money are easy. I will write a check & send it to Brad - we'll trust him to give it to you. I'll enclose a donation to his blog for the trouble.

Now all you have to do is prove that your daughter had an income tax liability on her $2000 income. If so, she is the only kid in America who did.

Are you confusing federal income taxes with some other form of tax? FICA perhaps? You know what FICA is, right?

Buckshot, I have pulled my daughter's tax filings, which show she paid both federal and state income tax. I have also contacted Brad, who has agreed to our arrangement. I will be faxing him the paperwork, probably today, but first I want to make sure the filings (1040, and state) were filled out correctly. Won't take long.

Buckshot: according to your post #63, "poor people do not pay income taxes." And, I gather from the previous post, you are willing to give a thousand bucks to anyone who proves otherwise.

That said, I must alter my #71 post. My daughter did not in fact pay federal income tax, but did pay STATE INCOME TAX.

So, I would like you to refer me to your original challenge. I want to see if you specified federal income tax.

Gee, Unirealist,

You've already changed your story. How convenient.

I'm not sure which thead I made my first offer on. The discussion began when someone was crying about the Bush income tax cuts and how they benefited the rich but not the poor.

So, first thing you need to absorb into your cranium is that we were talking about the cuts in the federal income tax rates.

You're aware of the differenece betwen federal income taxes and state income taxes, right?
Now, I further clarified that I am NOT TALKING about FICA taxes, which are paid by anyone who receives a paycheck on any amount of money.

I am only talking about FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. If you are still confused, read this post and any of my previous posts again and again until it sinks in.

Bush's tax cuts involved the federal income tax rates. They only affected the middle class and the rich. The bottom earners don't pay any federal income taxes, so THEY DIDN'T GET ANY TAX CUTS.

Are you still confused?

Next time you write Brad tell him he is eligible for the prize, too. So far he hasn't taken me up on my generous offer. (but in fairness, it wasn't he who said his baby sitter pays federal income taxes on her $2000)

#72 Unirealist:

Buckshot's offer

COMMENT #34 [link]
...Buckshot said on 6/14/2005 @ 9:01am PT...

...Poor people in America pay ZERO income taxes, yet time and again you hear lefty blogs stating the opposite; that rich people are not paying their share, and the poor are getting the shaft. About 40 to 50% of young progressives believe that poor people pay more income taxes than rich people. (in fact, poor people pay ZERO income taxes)

I'm waiting.

==============

So, this is buckie's original offer --- he says "INCOME TAXES" and nothing about FEDERAL income taxes.

Looks like Unirealist is the Winner on this one.

(Looks like buckie is another one of those FLIP-FLOPPERS.)

WooHoo!

Buckshot, I was actually being nice to you. My daughter (NOT my babysitter) did in fact pay both federal and state income tax on her $2108. income last year. However, I was willing to drop the claim on the federal liability because a portion of her income MAYBE should have been on a Schedule C, instead of being categorized as "Other income", which would have increased her standard deduction amount and eliminated her liability; the IRS help line and our H&R tax preparer said the latter, but my sister, who is also a tax preparer, insists that the former way would have been correct, and that my daughter (NOT my babysitter) should have paid no income tax--although she DID, and that was the point of the challenge. So, rather than set myself up for you to claim the tax filing was incorrect, I simply withdrew the claim that she paid federal income tax. Got that? If not, I can explain again.

If you don't believe me on that, Brad will be able to verify on Sunday or Monday. He cannot take faxes today.

By the way, I tried to e-mail you, and your yahoo account no longer exists.

If you have any doubts about the state income tax liability, go to the Oregon website and work it out for yourself. $2108. in income brings an income tax liability of $18. Or ask your own tax preparer; it'll take her sixty seconds to answer the question.

Now, as you see from Kira's post #74, you did not specify federal or state in your original challenge, and I'm quite certain that any reasonable person would award the thousand dollars to me, which I would like to see donated to the Bradblog. I am sure you are both reasonable and honorable. If you are not, and renege, I advise you to stay off this blog for the rest of your days.

Thanks.

Buckshot:

When I was in college many years ago, there was a loutish fellow in the dorm whom we all called The Turk. The Turk was a bodybuilder. I, clearly, was not.

One day we got into a dispute about who could lift more weight. He said he could press 270 pounds, and I said I could lift 300. The Turk said that was flat-out impossible. He challenged me, not a bet, but a challenge. He vowed he would give me every cent he had in the world, quite a sum, if I could lift 300 pounds even an inch off the ground, with no external source of leverage.

We all trooped down to the student lounge. There I had 300 pounds worth of guys sit on a table top. I went under the table on my hands and knees, and lifted it off the floor with my back. All 300 pounds went up an inch in the air.

The Turk was speechless. Of course, he reneged. He couldn't even come up with an excuse why he wouldn't pay up. He just walked away and never mentioned the incident again.

My thanks to Kira for referencing the original challenge.

I think Brad will appreciate the two thousand dollar donation, Buckshot.

It's a stupid little semantics game. He already lost the bet over at Think Progress, which is one reason why he left, aside from being busted as a White Nationalist, a racist in a suit instead of a sheet. Just a different appearance, same old shit. Even the hard right Libertarians at the Ludwig von Mises Institute ( Von Miser Inst.) laugh at his ridiculous assertions. Between him and Jimmo, you can see why the country is about to go in the toilet. This is what happens when you try and mainstream the lunatic fringe for political gain. He probably doesn't even have $2000 to spare. He is full of bullshit. Probably lives in a cabin in Alaska with outdoor plumbing and a gas powered generator.

Do the poor pay income taxes?

Google the ? you will find that it varies from state to state and in some states the poor do pay a higher rate of INCOME TAXES.

link

Not that there is anything wrong with living in a cabin in Alaska with outdoor plumbing and a gas powered generator. But would you want Buckshot home schooling his kids? It's bad enough that this moron actually is allowed to breed.

Unirealist,

I knew you had said your daughter. I misspoke.

I suspected that you had probably given her bad advice and paid income tax on her small income that she had no liability for. If you choose voluntarily to add her income to yours, you can pay income tax on her money at the same rate you pay on your own. It's sort of a game for suckers. Listen to your sister. The trouble with H&R block is that they will sell you down the river to IRS. It costs them nothing to let you pay tax you needn't pay. THEY still get paid.

As far as playing the semanitcs game, it's simple. George Bush cut the rates for federal income taxes. Many people complain that the "poor" don't get a break. My response is yes, that's true. They don't get any money back because they didn't pay any taxes! (Except for a few isolated cases like you - who pay on your daughter's account out of sheer ignorance)

As far as your state income tax goes, that was never in the conversation. We were talking about FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

Unirealist,

I'm not sure what your definition of a "nice person" is. It doesn't matter.

I'm not interested in long-winded obfuscation from people who want to discuss every possible circumstance that can occur in America involving a person and a tax form.

You are arguing semantics.

The discussion was born of a claim by "progressives" that the GWB tax cut (which was a REDUCTION OF RATES ON THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX) -

wasn't fair to the poor folks.

I was VERY CLEAR with my point that I was referring to FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

Again and again, people want to divert the conversation to FICA, state income taxes, cigarette taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. Again and again, I explained that I am referring to FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

The IRS claims the bottom 20 percent of filers PAY ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Further, there are at least 30 million Americans who earn so little they don't even file. (babysitters, yard laborers, etc)

My point is, and always has been, that the "poor" people didn't benefit from a tax cut (INCOME TAX) because they DON'T PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you are still confused, read my last ten posts ten times each.

Buckshot, nobody's income was added to anyone else's. There are certain kinds that belong on a Schedule C, and others are listed on the "Other income" line of the 1040. If the income is listed as "Other income", it is is not counted toward the allowed standard deduction. Hence, the allowed standard deduction is LESS than the taxable income, and what remains is taxed. Which is what happened to my daughter. If, however, the income is listed on a Schedule C, then double FICA and Med. must be paid on it, but the allowed standard deduction goes up and cancels out the tax liability. So it's six of one, and half dozen of the other.

I personally suspect my sister is right, and the income should have been listed on a Schedule C, but again, that's beside the point. Because, it could have very easily been a different one of the types of income (say, dividends or interest) and listed CORRECTLY as "Other income", in which case she would have been poor and paying federal income taxes. I don't think you're crazy enough to insist this situation never occurs, are you? So, you are wrong, then. There ARE poor people who pay federal income tax.

But that's all beside the point. You lost, because you let your mouth get ahead of your brain. We aren't interested in what you SHOULD have said--which was that "most poor people do not have a federal income tax liability", which may very well be a fact. But it just doesn't make very good demagoguery, does it?

As for the absurd thousand dollar challenge, I guess the reason you aren't called on it more often is because everyone realizes you won't pay off on it when you lose. There's no point in continuing this discussion unless you put the two thousand in escrow with Brad, or someone else we can trust.

Please try to be a kinder person in the future.

Thanks, Nunya and Kira, for sticking around and offering assistance.

Which one of you wants to get the lights?

And what does any of it have to do with the fact that George W. Bush stole the last two elections?

Robert,

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The issue has been spun so hard by so many people I would not have convidence in much I hear from either side.

Look at the dishonesty you have coming from the left on the issue of the tax cuts and who pays income tax in this country.

Only one person on this blog (Catherine) even understands that poor people didn't get a tax cut because they DIDN'T PAY INCOME TAXES in the first place.

Now why would I accept explanation on the "voter fraud" issue from these same people? Why would I think they (or you) would have any more comprehension or ethics on this issue?

That's a question, Robert.

Oh haha! buckshoot has just invaded the absolute territory of Catherine! Sweetie --- it's not "voter fraud," it's "election fraud."

Catherine, maybe you'd like to take over from here since buckshoot will listen to you.

Buckshot ironically said:
"Look at the dishonesty you have coming from the left on the issue of the tax cuts and who pays income tax in this country."

I've now finally reviewed the discussion on this matter, and it's clear that Buckshot lost his challenge. So "dishonesty" is not so much a question as is a lack of honor. Period.

You lost your challenge, Buckshot. And if you have any honor, you will pay what you promised to Unirealist.

I don't suspect I'll be surprised here unfortunately and you'll fall back on the "definition of is is" game that you're now trying to play.

You've lost the challenge, now don't lose whatever little credibility you have and welch out on what you distracted this discussion with. Pay him, Buckshot.

I gotta agree with buckshot, the right will win this one. Great conversation though, UNIREALIST makes good points.