Whoa. It scares me a little whenever this guy takes it into his head to approach an almost-gonna-be-reasonable mood. Feels sort of like maybe I'm going to fall off a cliff for a second....

With Olbermann reaching out to the wingnuts with his over the top rants, O'Reilly can't stand pat. I'm not trying to throw Keith under the bus, either, but it is what it is with his special comments.

Picture Lucy from Charlie Brown with the football. O'Reilly is doing a bait and switch. This goes to the fundamental nature of right woos left. One can tune into O'Reilly, Scarborough, Beck, even a Gutfield will make sense at times.

The best disinfo contains 80-90% truth?

Beware of the bait and switch. Think of all the fakes who have been crying for paper votes and "verified elections." They were crafty about it. They didn't admit that they meant paper receipts for electronic machines or paper ballots for electronic counters.

Think of the folks like Febble {Liddle} and OnTheOtherHand {Lindeman}. At first, they seemed open-minded about election fraud. Such people are masters of sophistry and limited hangouts. Once they have established their wiggle room and deniable plausibility, they then focus in on their true objective, which is to evoke authority while diminishing the heaps of evidence that both 2000 and 2004 were stolen elections.

Or think about Kos, how he rose to prominence. He never disclosed that he was a Reagan Republican, a big fan of the CIA, or that his family from El Salvador was on the side of the death squads rather than with the people. All these types hate the sunshine. They do not appreciate it when masses of people become aware of the concept of controlled opposition.

There is a great difference between the ability to think quickly on the air and express rational thoughts about such a matter. Given time, I suspect the far right wing pundits will come up with some more tired and false reasons to oppose marriage equality. They are very good at coming up with Biblical references that support their narrow views. I won't believe them until the express regret for the damage they do and publicly endorse equality for all.

Every time someone like O'Reilly makes a good point we can strip away one or two more of those who only pay attention to Fox.

Giving people a reason to agree with their "enemy" allows for a little humanization of each other which is the exact opposite of what has been going on the last 25 years.

While the best propaganda is 80-90% true I prefer the metaphor of a python. Every time the other side relaxes it's grip on lying we have the opportunity to squeeze it out of them a little at a time.

We can mix in a lot of other things into this but our job is to keep the pressure on them to do the right thing. Whether we're talking about individuals or societies with maturity comes the the opportunity for learning and growth.

The neocons have handed us an opportunity to do a lot of good and I think that McClellan's book will be a huge lever to pry away a lot more people over to the side of reason but that's a subject for another day.

And it's only the end of May.

BillO seems to be affected by the Fox Attacks movement. Brave New Films is doing a great job galvanizing people to complain to networks and to their advertisers about these hate-spewing shows like BillO's. BillO is more wedded to his income stream than he is to an ideology. He was a phony from the get-go. I'm not surprised at all at his apparent turnaround on this issue.

Without knowing for sure anything about Schweitzer, I'm going to assume that he's a mouthpiece for the extreme right-wing fundamentalist Christan crowd. Am I right? Those folks don't reason anything. They are a mindset, pure and simple.

There will never be a cogent reasoning for denying marriage rights to gays/lesbians, anymore than there was ever any cogent reasoning for denying women the right to vote, or denying black people their civil rights.

WOW!!!!!! I cannot stand O'Reilly, and I agree that this is truly a sign that conservatives have already lost this battle. It's just a matter of when the battle officially ends.

Gay marriage in the US was a matter of when, not if, years ago. It'll probably take another 50-100 years for it to cover all of the states.

The neoconservatives may have lost all but the most lunatic, extreme, right-wing fringe of the Republican Party, but that doesn't mean they'll lose the election. It also doesn't mean they won't declare martial law sometime over the summer, as a matter of national security. They could do this by intentionally inflaming Democrats during their convention in Colorado, by attacking Iran and then responding to grassroots objections to that attack, or any one of a number of ways. Under martial law, they coulddeclare that to hold a general election at that time would be too risky.

We are fools if we think this gang wouldn't do something like this.

I respect the positive vibes folks are getting because a fascist has started to make sense on one issue. Imho, it is a calculated move to slow down the anti-O'Reilly momentum.

{before I forget, sorry for posting deniable plausibility above. The coffee hadn't kicked in yet.}

I'll again use Mark Lindeman as an example of how elitists often use false fronts as smoke and mirrors obfuscating their true agendas.

Was fraud really responsible for Bush's '04 "victory" in Ohio?

His post #108 is a brutal ad hominem attack on Brad Friedman two days after the fact. With the way Democratic Underground structures its threads, there is a good chance Brad could have missed this. It was snuck insidiously in between other posts.

Brad caught Mark Lindeman in a lie. He does not identify himself in his profile. OTOH says it would take someone 20 seconds to figure out who he is. Instead of saying, "oops, I'll put the name into the profile," he attacked Brad as being a grifter. Where have we heard that angle before?

I read how much successful bloggers make. It is not that much.

The only reason I know Lindeman's name is because of John Dean mentioned it in his blog devoted to exposing election integrity fakes.

post#93
Lindeman:

...There's no secret about who I am; there's no secret about what I do. But if you keep asking loaded questions as if there were, I'm sure you get some people to assume otherwise. It's an interesting use of your time.

(On edit: it's not fair to treat Brad as representative of election integrity activists)

(On further edit: As a reminder to all, just because some armchair critics like to pretend that I spend all my time arguing against any and all evidence of election fraud doesn't mean that it is remotely close to the truth. I do spend some time cautioning people about specific arguments that don't hold water. I'm open to reasoned dialogue on those issues, but unfortunately, a lot of people aren't. If people like Brad spent less time making stuff up about me and more time marshaling facts, we could get farther.)

Lindeman is a professional debunker doing public relations work at the Democratic Underground. His arguments boil down to that he is a political scientist, and that most political scientists think GW won the 2004 election.

To Dr. Eldritch:

I really don't know what you mean by "massive fraud," so I can't say whether I agree or not. I think that various forms of vote suppression probably, but not certainly, outweighed miscounting. How much of that was "fraud"? Depends on definitions. My impression is that you've accepted a lot of weak evidence for fraud/error, but until you offer more specifics, it is hard to tell.

ModMom, maybe my favourite, I remember her because she was grilling Hertzberg. She exposed him having the Department of Defense gig. She wondered how he got chosen by Damshroeder. But anyway, on her post #128 she reposted some huge pile of evidence that election fraud did occur.

Lindeman made a bunch of posts after that one yet did not respond to ModMom's mountain of evidence.

Here are a few more Lindeman quotes showing what he is really thinking, how he is an ideologue, a shill for the status quo.

#27

I wish I thought it were unnecessary to add this, but: when I say, "The problem is real," I mean among other things that it stinks when people's votes are suppressed or miscounted --- whether it altered the outcome or not.

He is an astroturfer who has finally been exposed. He's been working the Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos. No way is he doing that for free, imho. It is part of his job description.

#96 evoking authority

It's one thing to make up excuses why political scientists are wrong. It's another thing to pretend they don't exist, which was pretty much the MO of the OP.

#95 Someone sounds jealous of Brad Friedman

Brad, you are misrepresenting my work. I haven't staked my reputation on any state not having been stolen. Why are you making shit up? If you can't be bothered to read it, why write about it as if you knew? Aren't you supposed to be a journalist? Wow.

Why is it certain that Fitrakis and Phillips know more about the Ohio election? Why is it even relevant whether they know more about the Ohio election? Wouldn't it be relevant to actually assess evidence? Or is that for the little people?

You cannot possibly believe that I am hiding who I am, so I have to wonder at your motives for saying so repeatedly. Or maybe you are operating under faulty assumptions about who I am. I don't know, Brad. Who do you think I am? Do you really find it suspicious that I seem to care so much about the 2004 election? Do you suppose I might find it suspicious that you seem to care so little about the 2004 election? Apparently you just want to wrap yourself, selectively, in other people's expertise. I think that's lame. So sue me.

For one, Brad didn't know who OTOH was until recently. Brad doesn't post that much at DU, here and there it looks like. Brad actually starts threads, something Lindeman never does. Clearly Lindeman has staked his reputation about being right about Ohio, 2004.I'd say doh, but that's a word that OTOH has made uncool to type.

And I know Brad likes Wilms, but check out post #135 where he stood up for Lindeman. This is the same guy who attacks Kster for having an activist's mentality.

Wasting our time, are you?

Wilms was chastizing L. Coyote on behalf of Lindeman. By saying "wasting our time" he implied that "we" was himself and that Bard College election fraud debunker.

Lindeman reminds me of this writer Tony Massarrotti of the Boston Herald. That guy had a good thing going until he called his readers yahoos and morons. Lindeman is getting paid to astroturf. There is no other explanation for his circular, repetitive posting patterns. "They" should take him off the Democratic Underground. I would not be surprised if he is somehow connected to the electronic machine/counter companies.

Something about him doesn't add up. I think it is fair to ask if he is paid to post.

Marriage equality, under virtually any legitimate conservative reading of the U.S. and most state Constitutions, cannot be denied.

False. I have stated that in California, gay couples in same-sex relationships already had equality protection with the state's domestic partnership law, which gives same-sex couples all the benefits of a marriage without the relationship being called a marriage. The California ruling is as liberal a rulimg, in that it is creating a right out of whole cloth and making up the law, as any that have come out (Roe v. Wade).

I've also asked what civil rights were being violated and got no response. Would someone like to provide one as it relates to this case?

By the way, this isn't about marriage "equality". This is about same-sex couples being given preferential treatment in regards to the law and the U.S. Constitution.

SteveIL, who curiously continues to protest too much, wrote:

I have stated that in California, gay couples in same-sex relationships already had equality protection with the state's domestic partnership law, which gives same-sex couples all the benefits of a marriage without the relationship being called a marriage.

Which, of course, is akin to having two different drinking fountains, one for White and one for "Coloreds". Hey, they both get to drink water! So what's the problem with that?

With SteveIL's already discredited, unconstitutional Plessy v. Ferguson-like "separate but equal" arguments here, we'll be back to the days of segregation in no time.

You're just wrong on this one, pal. But you'll figure that out eventually.

The California ruling is as liberal a rulimg, in that it is creating a right out of whole cloth and making up the law, as any that have come out (Roe v. Wade).

Wrong again. Where does it say in either the CA or U.S. Constitution that only certain rights may be given to certain people? If the the state grants marriage licenses to couples, they need to give it to all couples. (There are, of course, exceptions for things like health that come about from marrying your cousin, or in cases where one of the two parties is too young to decide for themselves, etc.)

So under what logic can you possibly offer to support the idea the Constitution bars marriage between same sex couples? Or are you another one of those liberals who wants to legislate from the bench and find restrictions in the Constituion that don't exist?

I've also asked what civil rights were being violated and got no response. Would someone like to provide one as it relates to this case?

Sure. The state provides privileges to married couples of all sorts. Property, taxes, hospital visitation, etc. etc. Not to mention, if the state recognizes a marriage as allowing for those things (and the joint filing of federal taxes, etc.) why should a same-sex couple be denied that same civil rights that everyone else in society enjoys?

By the way, this isn't about marriage "equality". This is about same-sex couples being given preferential treatment in regards to the law and the U.S. Constitution.

You'll have to let us know what that "preferential treatment" is. I'm unaware of it. Then again, I'm not the liberal that you are, so feel free to let us know what you're talking about.

SteveIL appears to have only one argument, and perhaps Scooter Libby might have a clue. If you let gay people get married, then what's next? Should a person be able to marry their pet?

Of course that's a ridiculous point, and one that is doubtful SteveIL will use. One in ten or whatever are born gay. Why shouldn't they have the same right to get married as anyone else?

Personally, I think marriage is stupid for anyone. Half of them end in divorce. It's pretty sad that people need to get married to have better tax benefits or however it works.

If two people are in love, what is the need for a piece of paper anyway? I thought if you love someone, you have to set them free. To me, a marriage certificate is akin to a lease. It's turning something which should be spiritual into something material.

But beyond my anti-marriage philosophy, I have to agree with the progressives on this board that if heterosexual people can get married, then gay people must be allowed the same right.

Brad Friedman said:

Which, of course, is akin to having two different drinking fountains, one for White and one for "Coloreds". Hey, they both get to drink water! So what's the problem with that?

Wrong. How in the world can anyone equate the institution of marriage with drinking at a water fountain? Or being forced to sit at the back of the bus? Or being forced to go to a different school? This isn't about "Jim Crow" discrimination. And then you come back with the following:

If the the state grants marriage licenses to couples, they need to give it to all couples. (There are, of course, exceptions for things like health that come about from marrying your cousin, or in cases where one of the two parties is too young to decide for themselves, etc.)

Already you have just discriminated against the definition of marriage that the homosexual lobby is trying to foist upon the U.S.: that two people in love have the right to get married. If the restrictions on marriage are to be lifted for one group, then they must be lifted for all; otherwise, there will be, in your terms, discrimination.

But at least you provide an idea of discriminatory practices:

Sure. The state provides privileges to married couples of all sorts. Property, taxes, hospital visitation, etc. etc.

First off, marriage between a man and a woman was already an institution when these privileges were codified into law. People in same-sex partnerships, the few that possibly existed when these laws were written, never had such an institution in place in the entire history of the human species, and definitely not since the advent of Christianity. But same-sex couples in California already had all these privileges in that state under the domestic partnership law. I do know that homosexuality was legal and acceptable in many cultures; but, that was, in almost all cases, only granted to the elites of those societies, not the general population, and usually restricted to the males.

Now, privileges for same-sex couples in California don't exist in all states, nor in regards to federal law. And as far as I'm concerned, I agree that these items do need to be addressed in regards to same-sex partnerships. But that is done through the legislative process (Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution; and, in California, Article 4, Section 1 of that state's Constitution), not through a judicial ruling. Again, there was no such ancient institution for same-sex relationships that was equal to marriage that endows some sort of guaranteed "right" for these couples to be legally married. The majority in the California Supreme Court made it up, as I said, out of whole cloth. But through the proper legislative process, the items you listed can be codified into even federal law; however, that requires those politicians who support such a measure to convince their constituents that doing so is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, most Americans may still feel otherwise, and the politicians have been loathe to do anything that threatens their own re-elections, preferring to let judges, like those on the California Supreme Court, do their jobs for them. That is another reason as to why this was a liberal ruling.

You'll have to let us know what that "preferential treatment" is.

I'll be happy to. The vast majority of Americans worship God through the mainstream religions, none of which, with very few exceptions, recognize a same-sex relationship as a "marriage" (they may one day, but not today). LA County has stated the following:

The city attorney said Monday that county workers authorized to perform marriage ceremonies must be willing to conduct same-sex marriages under last week's landmark court ruling, regardless of their personal views on homosexuality.

That's a violation of the U.S. Constitution in two places; the last clause of Article 6:

...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

and the opening clause of the Bill of Rights (the 1st Amendment):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

If county workers disagree with the idea of same-sex "marriage" on religious grounds, the county government has no legal means by which to force those employees to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Nor does it allow any level of government to keep from hiring otherwise qualified employees only because those individuals don't recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage. What LA County is doing is real discrimination, and a violation of the U.S. Constitution, not the "discrimination" that is being claimed by the homosexual lobby.

There was nothing conservative about the California Supreme Court ruling; it was a completely liberal ruling, creating a right out of whole cloth and making up the law.

The vast majority of Americans worship God through the mainstream religions, none of which, with very few exceptions, recognize a same-sex relationship as a "marriage" ...

This guy's forgetting about the separation of church and state.

Also, there are a bunch of people who believe in the Bible but twist it around to serve their ideology. Look at the Shrub. He alleges himself to be quite the religious person. Yet somehow "thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply when it comes to the death penalty. A similar hypocrisy exists when it comes to state versus federal rights. Depending on how an individual state votes influences their stance. Texas is the death penalty capital, so state rights are good. California stands up for gay rights and medical marijuana, and it's time for federal rights. If the tables were turned in 2000 and Gore had been declared the winner of Florida, and GW wanted the recount, the Supreme Court would have sided with the state rights.

Conservatives are all about the status quo and despise peace and love. They are about Big Brother, divide and conquer, endless wars, and greed.

Socrates said:

This guy's forgetting about the separation of church and state.

I didn't forget it and what LA County is doing has nothing to do with the idea of the "separation of church and state" (or synagogue and state, or mosque and state, or temple and state, etc.). The First Amendment explicitly guarantees that no level of government can make a law that either is "an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". A "free exercise thereof" would be a county employee not willing to conduct "marriage" ceremonies of same-sex couples on religious grounds. It also doesn't disqualify someone who exercises those same religious values from being hired by the county only because the person's views are supposedly "discriminatory" according to someone else, when the person is otherwise qualified for the position. What LA County is doing is violating the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution (and I believe the California one as well, although I don't know the exact Article), and trying to discriminate against those people who hold those religious views.

As I've shown, this is the preferential treatment being given to same-sex couples in regards to the law and the U.S. Constitution; the homosexual lobby is trying to give those they "represent" special rights above all others.

Sorry that I don't have time to dispute your absurd, endless responses, SteveIL.

Fact is, granting the special privilege of marriage to one type of couple, but another, merely based on their sexual preference is as discriminatory as forcing "coloreds" to drink out of one drinking fountain but not another. A right is a right.

There is no "special privileges" being granted here, yet there are those being taken away.

As opposed to your ridiculous charge that requiring county clerks to grant licenses to same sex couples as a violation of religious preferences...Where in Christian laws (or any other) does it say that Christians may not grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

I'm unaware of that anywhere in the bible.

Or, are you suggesting, that a law disallowing theat same county clerk from stoning an adulterer would similarly be a violation of their religious freedoms?

You're a dinosaur champ. Your days have come and gone. Your arguments against marriage equality will fail as the same ones made by your father and grandfather against interracial couples as well.

Freedom wins out eventually. As it will here. Even against folks like you who are willing to say anything in order to keep "liberty and justice for all" reserved for only those you approve of.

So I guess, Brad, you don't actually want to engage in debate since all you can come back with ridiculous arguments that have nothing to do with this:

Or, are you suggesting, that a law disallowing theat same county clerk from stoning an adulterer would similarly be a violation of their religious freedoms?

Or name-calling:

You're a dinosaur champ. Your days have come and gone.

And then, you tell me how my family thinks:

Your arguments against marriage equality will fail as the same ones made by your father and grandfather against interracial couples as well.

I didn't know you knew my father or grandfather or what they thought. Well you don't, but you still haven't come back with any kind of decent argument defendng your point, so you go to the gutter. How "classy". Typical liberal.

SteveIL is making the case that religions are extremely problematic in the world, esp when they try to zero in on governments, esp when those governments are of the people, by the people, and for the people, and esp when those people are a very diverse society, and esp when that diverse society depends on immigration to feed it in order to maintain a citizen base that cares more about their free and democratic society than they do about a particular religion's attempts to take it over.

He just isn't aware that's what he's doing.

Brad, how do you feel about your name being listed right before Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s in that Mark Crispin Miller spot at C&L?

SteveIL said-
That's a violation of the U.S. Constitution in two places; the last clause of Article 6:...
...If county workers disagree with the idea of same-sex "marriage" on religious grounds, the county government has no legal means by which to force those employees to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

So you hire an atheist for 5 minutes. What's the problem?

Oh. That's right. You imposing your views on others.

SteveIL -

It's amusing that you base your argument on the claim that I was "name-calling", then end your comment with "Typical liberal", apparently fully uninformed about my political beliefs on anything (despite your having read my arguments for the conservative readings of both state and US Constitutions.)

No, I don't have time to rehash endless debates (previously debated over hundreds if not thousands of previous articles and comments here at The BRAD BLOG over the years) when they are supported by nothing more than breathless rehashing of already discredited anti-rule of law, anti-Constitutional, anti-American, pro-treason rightwing talking points.

As to your claim that my argument is "ridiculous" in response to your silly argument that it is somehow a violation of church and state to require county clerks to follow the rule of law by giving marriage certificates to same-sex couples, I simply used your same argument in return.

There is no more a Christian "law" or "suggestion" or "guidance" or anything else that County clerks not recognize the rule of law by issuing marriage licenses, then there is that county clerks should stone adulterers.

Your argument was absurd, but if it wasn't then neither was mine. Your are nothing more than a partisan willing to put power and politics over country and constitution and you'll spew any words (endlessly and all long ago debunked) in order to justify your political position.

I've tried to be fair and give you the opportunity to make your case and support your arguments, but if you're going to do it with absurdities and long-ago discredited nonsense, I don't particularly feel I need to offer my private property for your personal propaganda.

And yes, you are a dinosaur. That's not name-calling, that's a description of fact. Your days have come and gone, though I realize that dead-enders such as yourself will fight to the bloody end, no matter how much self-respect you have to give away in the bargain.

BTW your video link is no longer working. Looks like a problem with Red Lasso. Can you upload your video someplace else?

Thanks!