home

Reality Based

Kevin Drum writes about James Joyner's post on there being enough lunatics to go around:

James Joyner admits that there are lots of conservative lunatics running around these days:

But here’s the thing: There’s plenty of crazy to go around. Remember Bush Derangement Syndrome? The 9/11 conspiracy theorists who thought Bush and Cheney were in on the whole thing? The Diebold plot to steal the 2004 election? . . .

Now, obviously there's some truth to this, but . . . The Diebold folks couldn't even get a hearing at Daily Kos, let alone anywhere more mainstream. The 9/11 truthers have always been a tiny band.

(Emphasis supplied.) Kevin has this right. Indeed, it went beyond Truthers and Diebolders, who were not allowed to post at Daily Kos when I was there (I'll leave the primary wars for another time.) It was so for all lunatic conspiracy theories. More . .

Daily Kos' (and my) insistence on maintaining a reality based position was rewarded with much invective from these characters. Indeed, I was originally outed (my identity was revealed) by a Left Wing crazy in retribution for denouncing at Daily Kos a ridiculous conspiracy theory that Alberto Gonzales had quashed an indictment of Karl Rove.

The conservative world took and takes a much different approach to the right wing crazies for the most part. And Democrats are making political hay with it. Easy enough for Republicans and conservatives to stop if they want to stop it - don't tolerate the crazies.

Speaking for me only

< Sotomayor Confirmation Debate | Bringing The Right Wing Crazy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I assume we can all agree (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:20:30 PM EST
    that it is a self-interested decision by all involved.  Daily Kos has plenty of nuts as it is, but it turns away certain brands of crazy because those people have the potential to de-legitimize the site.  Similarly, the vast majority of elected Democrats seem to feel that their electoral chances are better if they don't pal around with Truthers and such.

    On the other hand, many elected Republicans do seem to perceive a political advantage in paying lip service to the birthers.  It's not about what those Republicans really believe about Obama's birth (who knows what they really believe), it's what their stance says about the numbers and political power of the Republican crazies in contrast to the Democratic crazies.  It's like the Terri Schiavo incident in that it reveals who really holds the power.

    All true (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    But my point is Joyner is being disingenuous. He knows what the Right could do to avoid this problem. But they will not do it.

    Parent
    Funny, though (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:35:47 PM EST
    The only place I read about / hear about constant attention to the birthers is on left wing media.  The conservative sites I pop over too don't really mention it, except maybe in passing if something "newsworthy" (and I use the term loosely) comes about.

    Am I missing something?

    Hooboy (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:42:37 PM EST
    The conservative sites I visit are all birther all the time. They're raving lunatics.

    Yes, you're missing something.

    Parent

    I guess Lou Dobbs (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    is a left wing site now.

    Parent
    No, but (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:42:02 PM EST
    FireDogLake, Kos, Huffington Post, Eugene Robinson, EJ Dionne, etc. are.

    I'm not saying the crazies aren't there - but it seems it's coming just as much from the left - maybe to keep the story alive?

    Parent

    No doubt (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:46:02 PM EST
    I  think I said so in the post.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#27)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:47:11 PM EST
    it is politically useful for the left to point out that the Republican Party is in thrall to a bunch of nutters.

    If there were truly little talk about this on the right, if it was all a big nothing being hyped up by left-wing blogs, you wouldn't see Republican congressmen and senators paying homage to the birther theories.

    Parent

    It was the fact that the left (none / 0) (#73)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:38:59 PM EST
    Did such a good job jumping on this insane idea, and exposing it, that stopped the right wing echo chamber from creating a "legimate" news story.  

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    But now the left is still talking about it - it's so last month.  You would think there would be more important issues to discuss than fringe righties.....

    Parent
    Yes the next thing (none / 0) (#106)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:37:36 PM EST
    Is to connect this fringe group to insurance companies.  Hope it works.

    Parent
    Ahhh (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:51:07 PM EST
    You haven't lived until you have your very own body count ala Mr. Bill Clinton.  The birther nonsense yata-yata-yata is just so small-time.

    Yes, Obama has his own body count, but some of the list are actually are actually Clinton casualties! so it's no fair.

    I bet (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    Obama doesnt have an entry on snopes

    Parent
    A very long time ago... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:12:54 PM EST
    I went to hear Michael Moore give a talk. This was way back when he was an obscure radical lefty and nowhere near the mainstream figure he is today (back in the times of Roger and Me).

    I remember very clearly how he spoke about his frustration with lefty wingnuts and chided the lefty audience re:  lunatic conspiracy stuff. He made a big deal about how the left and right are both filled with non-reality based folks.

    As may be Michael Moore? (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:38:11 PM EST
    An article in yesterday's NYT re Cuban ex pat MDs in Miami quoted on physician from Cuba who stated the medical books are 1962 editions.

    Parent
    Indeed! (none / 0) (#143)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:30:18 PM EST
    There are all kinds of 9/11 CT's (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:32:21 PM EST
    However, those buildings were designed to withstand airplane impact without collapsing, and NO steel framed towers had EVER collapsed in history before that day from EITHER airplane impact OR from fire.

    The "official" conspiracy theory wants you to believe in two utter statistical anomalies happening on the same day, in the same place. And never mind Building 7, by the way - it didn't really happen, since MSM won't talk about it.

    Whatever and whoever was in the planes, something else caused the collapses, and instead of preserving the evidence (the wreckage of the buildings) the government had it surrounded, blocked from public access or investigation, and carted off and shipped away and sold off as scrap metal.

    See Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, for a start: 747 architectural and engineering professionals have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.

    One thing I find really curious is that everyone, no matter where left or right they place themselves in the political spectrum, who believes the official stories about 9/11 is unquestioningly accepting the BUSH "conspiracy theories" and it's very surprising that so many on the "left" who reject virtually all of Bush administration lies and propaganda accept that version of 9/11.

    True conspiracy theorists think that anyone who doesn't believe the official government conspiracy theories about 9/11 is engaging in conspiracy theories.

    Here we go again (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:39:05 PM EST
    What? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:49:30 PM EST
    Are you about to engage in conspiracy theories now while trying to convince people that you're not engaging in conspiracy theories?

    Here we go again, indeed.

    Parent

    Not at all (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:58:13 PM EST
    I am simply suggesting that people who believe two planes were crashed into the World Trade Center in order to serve as a cover-up for a demolition are out of their minds.  I suppose it must be comforting to believe that anyone who doubts such a theory must necessarily believe 100% in the integrity of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

    It takes a strange sort of person to see the cleanup of Ground Zero as evidence of a cover-up, as if a normal government would have left it all there, running test after test to confirm that golly gee, these buildings fell down because planes crashed into them.  It is, in fact, rather similar to the demands that Obama release his birth certificate again and again and again until every last person in America has gotten to touch it and feels satisfied.

    Of course, there's no law against being a strange sort of person.  In fact freedom of thought is part of what makes America great.  That doesn't change the fact that every time I see the idiotic little punks in their black "9/11 Truth" t-shirts passing out leaflets by Ground Zero, I have the unaccountable urge to slug them in the face.

    Parent

    Just for the record (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 07:25:29 PM EST
    I agree with Steve, though Im still not sold on this not having been the result of a "gross incompetence" shading over into willful.

    Parent
    Edger posted several times on (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:12:18 PM EST
    the building collapse caused by Bush.... but that was years ago... He may have reformed.

    Parent
    I never figured out (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:30:40 PM EST
    how a gang of incompetents like the Bush administration, who couldn't even go to the bathroom without messing something up, managed to perpetrate a fraud and cover-up of such a magnitude.

    Parent
    Well I haven't seen anyone else here suggest that. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:19:14 PM EST
    You're the only one who has suggested it, or intimated that anyone else here has suggested it, as far as I see.

    I think your tinfoil is on too tight, man.

    Keep going with your CT's. This should be entertaining, judging from your opening act. ;-)

    Parent

    I will let the readers (none / 0) (#71)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:37:24 PM EST
    judge for themselves which of us is of questionable sanity, based on our respective posts.

    Parent
    That's easy , Steve ... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by cymro on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:00:00 PM EST
    Edger's posts contain reason, logic, and coherent argument. Yours do not; you reuse to engage , and simply dismiss him. Neither of you are insane, but you obviously have a closed mind on this subject.

    Parent
    Yep! (none / 0) (#140)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:02:34 PM EST
    The "reason, logic, and coherent argument" which says that if you believe two planes crashed into the World Trade Center and made them fall down, then you "thoroughly and unquestioningly believe the Bush conspiracy theories about 9/11."

    None dare call it sophistry!

    Parent

    Good choice. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:46:54 PM EST
    I think you'll be on much less shaky ground doing that than if you continue expressing your CT tendencies and how much you like the Bush mangling of reality. ;-)

    I'll be very busy with real world things all afternoon, so unfortunately I won't have much time to chat with you and spur you to express your true self, but I think you'll do just fine on your own, and I'll check in once in awhile when I need a chuckle, ok?

    Parent

    You are trying way too hard (none / 0) (#81)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:53:46 PM EST
    Heh! Yes, I know (none / 0) (#115)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:54:42 PM EST
    That's always been one of my failings. The real world things I'm so busy with today and most days take a lot of trying hard. I'm a programmer and software developer and some of the systems I work on are very complex. So I always try hard. ;-)

    But enough about me. How are you doing? Have you found anyone else yet, besides the house bush troll, who reveres bush and believes the bush conspiracy theories about 9/11 as thoroughly and unquestioningly as you do?

    Parent

    Thank you for proving my point (none / 0) (#118)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:59:47 PM EST
    that the only way 9/11 conspiracists can even hope to defend their crazy theories is by pretending that there is a binary choice between their theories and "thorough and unquestioning acceptance" of whatever George Bush happens to say on the matter.

    Even though I already made this point above, you still felt obligated to falsely claim that I am a full-throated supporter of Bush's story.  You need to make up lies like that because it's the only card kooks like you are able to play.

    If you had to articulate an actual narrative of your own, it wouldn't stand up to even the most passing scrutiny.  So instead you just stand and cast aspersions.

    Parent

    Ahhh. Ok, I've been wrong before (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    and I likely will be again occasionally. Thankls for the correction.

    What parts of the official "bush" conspiracy theories about 9/11 do you question? And why? What evidence can you point to that indicates the official story is bunk? And what are your alternative theories for the parts you question, if you have any?


    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#123)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    The most basic difference between me and you is that I believe the towers collapsed because two planes crashed into them.

    I'll just leave it at that.  You can continue to believe my theory is nuts, and I'll continue to believe your theory is nuts.  I doubt an effort at rational dialogue would be very productive.

    Parent

    Well, that doesn't answer (none / 0) (#132)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:41:44 PM EST
    any of the questions I asked you, and it is the official bush conspiracy theory.

    Which is a curious response from you considering that you just (falsely apparently) accused me of falsely claiming that you are a full-throated supporter of Bush's story.

    Perhaps you are right that an effort at rational dialogue will not be very productive here, if you are unable or unwilling to respond to my questions or respond rationally.

    Take your time. I have a meeting to go to now, so you have a few hours and maybe as much as a day to think about what you just said.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#138)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:59:18 PM EST
    well if your definition of the "official story" is simply that Bush and Cheney say that two planes crashed into the towers and made them fall down, well then yes, I guess I subscribe to the "official story" by that definition.

    Kind of a stupid definition, when the 9/11 Commission report goes on for 568 pages, but whatever helps you win the argument, I guess.  Have fun passing out those leaflets.

    Parent

    Leaflets? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:54:07 PM EST
    Good idea. Thanks. Maybe I should make them 568 page long, and put pictures of Dick and George on the cover, so they'll be believable when Glen Beck holds them up to the cameras.

    Parent
    A ten storey building in Houston had (none / 0) (#156)
    by suzieg on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 12:51:11 AM EST
    to be razed following a fire because the steel had been too weakened to continue to support the building as a result of the fire. So there goes that theory!

    Parent
    had to be razed... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 07:30:10 AM EST
    :-)

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    It is not a complete non sequitur. It was a building and did have some steel in it. lol

    Parent
    It was (none / 0) (#161)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 12:22:27 PM EST
    an interesting attempt, too, wasn't it? ;-)

    Parent
    Lame, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 12:36:58 PM EST
    The fact that the poster wrote it is interesting though..

    Parent
    When I was a 16 year old kid (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    one day I was walking down the street with my head turned watching a very pretty girl across the street... and I walked forehead first into a stop sign. ;-)

    Parent
    Well That Explains Alot (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 12:43:57 PM EST
    lol....   Me too..

    Parent
    Heh! (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 12:44:57 PM EST
    Thanks for your support. I think... ;-)

    Parent
    I'm all for reality-based (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:02:32 PM EST
    Lest all e-voting criticism, and indeed all e-voting conspiracy theories, get lumped into the crazy wingnut category, take a gander at this:
    (from the Brad Blog -- which is as reality-based as I've seen.)
    Posted March 19, 2009.

    KY Election Officials Arrested, Charged With 'Changing Votes at E-Voting Machines'

    A few excerpts:


     The Kentucky officials arrested and indicted today, "including the circuit court judge, the county clerk, and election officers" of Clay County, have been charged with "chang[ing] votes at the voting machine" and showing others how to do it!

    Quoted from Lexington, Kentucky's NBC affiliate (emphasis mine):

    The 10-count indictment, unsealed Thursday, accused the defendants of a conspiracy from March 2002 until November 2006 that violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)...According to the indictment, these alleged criminal actions affected the outcome of federal, local, and state primary and general elections in 2002, 2004, and 2006.

    I would be the first to say that charges are not proof.  But, surely something to take seriously.

    And what "thing" is that?  Oh yeah.  In short, an insider conspiracy to steal elections using electronic voting equipment.

    the Brad Blog (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:04:47 PM EST
    reality based? you must be joking.

    Parent
    My challenge (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:15:36 PM EST
    Show me an example.  I will clue him in.  I'm sure he'd like to know.

    In the meantime, I gave you a bona-fide election conspiracy -- at least one that made it to the indictment stage.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:23:07 PM EST
    Not playing.

    Parent
    Fine (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:45:14 PM EST
    No point in playing when you know you can't win.

    And there is that not-so-small matter about the Kentucky electronic election conspiracy -- NOT the product of deranged left-wing wingnuts, but actually in the courts.

    I hear a deafening silence from you on this matter.

    Parent

    That's what you will hear from me (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:04:45 PM EST
    on the subject of Brad Blog.

    Parent
    Not the Brad Blog (none / 0) (#88)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:09:22 PM EST
    Shooting the messenger?  How very unfair of you.  I asked you to comment about the Kentucky electronic election conspiracy.  Can't admit that there might be something to it?

    Parent
    Don't know anything about it (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    Clamshell snaps shut (none / 0) (#99)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:24:34 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#60)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    the allegation is that local officials, in order to fix a local election, misled voters concerning how the electronic voting machines work, by leading them to believe they had successfully cast their votes when, in fact, they still needed to push another button to confirm the vote.

    These are serious allegations but it's hardly what I would call high-tech voting fraud.  It's not like they're alleged to have invisibly changed the data on a chip or something.  They just took advantage of voters' unfamiliarity with how the new voting machines worked - something that could even be accomplished with manual voting machines, for that matter.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:01:21 PM EST
    High-tech or low-tech, this does blow out of the water bald-faced assertions that electronic voting is safe and secure and that we must trust our election officials and not worry that there might be some sort of insider scam going on.  NOT!

    The indictment.

    Parent

    They did more than that (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:11:27 PM EST
    They then changed the vote that was cast.

    They also bought votes and insured they were cast by "helping" the vote-sellers who were so "unfamiliar" with the new equipment.

    Parent

    Well right (none / 0) (#98)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:23:18 PM EST
    I thought it went without saying that the entire point of tricking people into thinking their vote had been completed was to allow them to then change the vote before it was completed.  Otherwise, it wouldn't be much of a scam to trick someone into not pushing the confirm button, just so you could press it yourself.

    As for vote-buying, that strikes me as an even more mundane allegation.  If I pay someone to cast their vote a certain way, the use of electronic voting machines doesn't make the crime any easier or harder to complete.

    Again, none of the facts alleged in this case are specific to the use of electronic voting machines at all.  The scheme could have been perpetrated equally well if the county had purchased new machines that were entirely manual.  But if your sole purpose is to debunk the claim that election officials are always trustworthy... uh, who believes that?

    Parent

    Um... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:32:05 PM EST
    Again, none of the facts alleged in this case are specific to the use of electronic voting machines at all.  The scheme could have been perpetrated equally well if the county had purchased new machines that were entirely manual.  But if your sole purpose is to debunk the claim that election officials are always trustworthy... uh, who believes that?

    Well, yes they are specific to e-machines.  How many people do you think you could fool like that with the lever machines?  How many booths could you go into and show people how to "use" it?  Lever machines are shockingly easy to use and once the curtain opens, the votes are cast.  Yes, lever machines can be altered...one at a time.  That would take a conspiracy too.  I would not be surprised if it has happened.  However, one guy trained a bunch of people on how to alter an e-vote on any machine of that type.

    And unfortunately, too many people do believe that their election officials are honest -- otherwise we would not have so many electronic voting machines or counting equipment in use.

    And one of my purposes is to show that e-voting is not secure and cannot, with current technology and methods, be made so.

    One of the main arguments of the proponents of e-voting is that we who doubt the security of e-voting are wingnut conspiracy theorists who need to relax and trust in the system and the people who operate it.

    Oh, wait...

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#110)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:41:10 PM EST
    having lived in four different states, I know there are a wide variety of manual voting machines.  If your county bought a new type of machine, it's entirely possible that you could trick people in terms of how they're operated.

    My point was that if you want to talk about the lack of security in electronic data, the ability to hack electronic machines, the lack of a paper trail, or any of that stuff, a case like this doesn't seem entirely on point.

    Parent

    A machine at a time (none / 0) (#150)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 07:13:51 PM EST
    You could perhaps trick people more easily with a new manual machine.  However, with e-voting, it seems to be a given that people will have trouble with it and need help.  That makes a perfect set-up for the election officials to step in and "help."  With the old manual machines, I think it was very rarely if ever that people would ask an election official to step into their booth and help if they had trouble.  No one wanted anyone in the privacy of the booth -- secret vote and all that.  People seem to have accepted that they will need help and the officials might have to step in there and see their vote.  That troubles me on a lot of levels and apparently it was a perfect set-up for fraud in Kentucky.

    While apparently we're not talking here about manipulating large amounts of electronic data, we are still talking about electronic voting machines and the many ways they can be manipulated.  And any way you slice it, this particular alleged conspiracy was carried out on the e-voting machines, not manual ones.

    From my linked article:

    Clay County uses the horrible ES&S iVotronic system for all of its votes at the polling place. The iVotronic is a touch-screen Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) device, offering no evidence, of any kind, that any vote has ever been recorded as per the voter's intent. If the allegations are correct here, there would likely have been no way to discover, via post-election examination of machines or election results, that votes had been manipulated on these machines.


    Parent
    Right on, Lori! (none / 0) (#142)
    by jen on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:26:11 PM EST
    I was reading along in disbelief that apparently everyone who reads/comments here believes that e-voting is a-okay. Wow. You may be interested in a website a friend of mine wrote in 2004/2005. It's a masterful piece of work with extensive references and entertaining writing. Check it out:

    Who's Counting

    We (I) was doing updates for a while, but real life has stopped both of us from putting anything in to it recently.

    Parent

    Thanks, jen! (none / 0) (#151)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 07:18:32 PM EST
    And thanks for the link.  I've saved it as a favorite and I look forward to checking it out.

    I believe in looking at the evidence, whatever it may show.

    Parent

    there (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:28:29 PM EST
    were also plenty of demonstrations of how easily hacked those machines were.  

    Parent
    Different issue (none / 0) (#67)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:31:07 PM EST
    Troubling to me, but not at all what that criminal complaint is about.

    Parent
    Truthers and Nirthers (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:14:47 PM EST

    The 9/11 truthers have always been a tiny band.

    I know one fellow that is both a birther and a truther.  I keep asking him if it was the same CIA black-ops squad that wired the WTC towers that tricked the Honolulu officials into creating a phoney birth cert for Obama.  He is (oddly) not sure.  

    Kos' policy (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:10:39 PM EST
    to the extent I understand it (not being a regular over there) just seems to sweep with too broad a brush.

    Consider the past, say, 50 yrs of US history and you come across numerous instances of high-level conspiracies (political, gov'l, corporate) -- successful, unsuccessful, and those merely on paper which didn't get final approval, such as with Op Northwoods.

    I wonder if Kos had started up in 1999 instead of a few yrs later, whether he would have allowed discussion of the stolen 2000 election.

    Or had their been Kos and an internet back in 1980, whether he would have permitted discussion of the evidence in favor of the Repub October Surprise in the (probably) stolen election of that year.  And so on.

    The problem with nutty conspiracy theories on a subject (Truthers, We Never Went to the Moon, etc) is that they give the entire field a bad name.  Yet reasonable people accept that conspiracies happen -- and probably a lot more often than we realize since the well-executed ones remain a secret forever ...

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#101)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:25:40 PM EST
    Kos had a rule against 9/11 conspiracy theories, and later, against Diebold/2004 election theories.  That's it.  He hardly had some kind of global prohibition against conspiracy theories in general.

    For example, if you wanted to allege that Bush fabricated evidence to start a war with Iraq so that he could get reelected as a "war president" -- well I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have gotten anyone banned at Kos!

    Parent

    I believe there was and is (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:35:52 PM EST
    a general prohibition against unsubstantiated conspiracy theories there.

    Parent
    I am unfamiliar (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:43:26 PM EST
    with any other type of conspiracy diary that got people banned.  I don't think there was exactly a rush of moon landing diaries.

    Another exception to the "rule" is that you could say anything whatsoever about Hillary Clinton and not get in trouble.  Unsubstantiated?  Pfft!

    Parent

    I didn't say it was enforced. . . (none / 0) (#116)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:59:09 PM EST
    Except against Toquedevillle, who (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:20:20 PM EST
    I notice now posts at Docudharma.

    Parent
    Well I posted in (none / 0) (#111)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:41:48 PM EST
    response to Steve, but andgarden's pov is what I understand (again not being a Kos regular or expert on same).

    Parent
    Well, I did qualify (none / 0) (#108)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:40:02 PM EST
    my remarks (see my first sentence in prev post).  It was just my sense of things as I read a lot over there in the wake of the 2004 election.  

    Good to know that apparently I am mistaken.

    Though I disagree with the decision re 2004/Diebold.  NOt that I think it was proven, but whenever you have non-insane and prominent people on our side suggesting there might be some there there, then I think that automatically deserves not to be out of bounds.  

    Quite a difference between an RFK Jr promoting a theory (agree or disagree, he has cred with most of us on this side of the political divide) and some unknown Truthers out there screaming about explosive devices ...

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#114)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:46:10 PM EST
    the prevailing wisdom was that the legitimate arguments had all been played out and there was nothing further taking place except people ranting with no evidence.  And it does distract from legitimate concerns about electronic voting in general.

    There was a time when you couldn't have even the most innocuous discussion about political strategy without someone jumping in to say "None of this matters, you fools!!!! Rove and Diebold will make sure that the GOP never ever loses!"  It got more than a little annoying.

    Parent

    The diebolders did (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    get a hearing at Kos. I remember rec diary after rec diary about diebold years ago.

    Then they were banned (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:26:49 PM EST
    This was the beginning of my Front Page stint so I remember it well.

    Parent
    In fact (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:27:57 PM EST
    It ended with this.

    Parent
    The challenge (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:34:09 PM EST
    is that there are obviously very legitimate concerns with respect to electronic voting in general, with the inadequate practices that are followed in some states, but it's hard to make those points when everyone lumps you in with the cranks who insist the 2004 election was stolen.

    The Diebold thing really got so far out of control.  You could have a Republican win the race for drain commissioner of Wichita, and someone would instantly shout Diebold.  Heck, we had Diebold theories after Hillary won the New Hampshire primary, as many TL readers will recall.  The funniest part is that people would often shout "Diebold!" without even realizing that the jurisdiction in question used paper ballots.

    Parent

    Ah, but... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:13:21 PM EST
    The funniest part is that people would often shout "Diebold!" without even realizing that the jurisdiction in question used paper ballots.

    How were they counted?

    BTW, I do not shout "Diebold."

    I do however shout that you cannot verify any individual vote cast or counted on electronic voting equipment.  The only way to verify votes is to vote on paper, then count the paper by hand.  The Minnesota recount is an excellent example.  Without paper ballots that were then hand-counted, we would have been unable to truly determine who was elected Senator by the people of Minnesota.  Machine re-counting should never be acceptable.

    Parent

    I confess (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    that when I watch the British elections on TV, and I see the election judges sitting at a table counting up the little slips of paper and announcing a result, I am awfully impressed by the simple elegance of it all.

    Parent
    Link to your challenge? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:41:19 PM EST
    Your challenge is not accessible from this link.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:10:29 PM EST
    I do not know where and how I issued it.

    This was 5 years ago. Lucky I found that link.

    Parent

    Perfect: (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:35:27 PM EST
    I agree! (4.00 / 2)
    Who the hell is Armondo anyway?  I hardly think anyone is going to say, "Hey, read this!  Armondo approves."  
    You do not need Armondo's approval!



    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:37:21 PM EST
    Good thing that we were allowed to talk freely about 9/11 conspiracies and deibold rigging here at TL with abandon..

    Ah the good old days, fun stuff, imo.

    Were you? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    Glad I missed all that.

    Crazy stuff.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:10:31 PM EST
    good times... everyone loves a good political mystery novel. And the extreme secrecy of BushCo helped fertilize a good many conspiracy theories.

    In a way the whole Plame affair was a conspiracy and theories abounded on that topic as well.

    We had the wingers outraged about our BushCo theories here..

    loads of fun.

    Parent

    All true ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    but ...

    Easy enough for Republicans and conservatives to stop if they want to stop it - don't tolerate the crazies.

    Shhh ... don't tell them.

    Just imagine if there was a blogosphere during the (none / 0) (#15)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:30:11 PM EST
    JFK assassination.

    It would have been Castro/CIA/Mafia/KGB to the n-th degree.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:34:18 PM EST
    Wait (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:37:33 PM EST
    You have to be a crazy conspiracist to think it was Castro?

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    Just asking! (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    I think so (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:48:47 PM EST
    But it is the least crazy of the theories.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:56:08 PM EST
    Maybe (none / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:00:16 PM EST
    I have no clue myself.  But I think it is indisputable that the CIA, as an institution, was terrified that it would turn out to be Castro, so they must have seen it as at least a realistic possibility.

    Parent
    It's pretty well documented (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    that there was a faction in the CIA that would've loved for it to have been Castro.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:07:43 PM EST
    considering such a conclusion would have put the CIA out of business, it's hard for me to understand why.

    Parent
    "well documented" (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:09:31 PM EST
    is such a lovely phrase.

    Parent
    I forgot,, well documented (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:43:12 PM EST
    always means discussed by a source vetted by you.

    I dont see any history that major intelligence lapses have ever put the CIA in the position of being put out of business.

    Parent

    If the public had learned (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    that Castro had Kennedy killed in retaliation for freelancing CIA attempts to assassinate Castro (which might or might not be what actually happened), there most definitely would have been a public outcry that would have put the CIA out of business once and for all.

    You cannot compare screwing up the intelligence on Iraqi WMDs with the blunder of getting a president assassinated via cowboy antics.

    Parent

    Wmds. lying about NVA (none / 0) (#87)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:07:54 PM EST
    troop strength, dosing unsuspecting people with hallucinogens in the fifties, lying through their teeth to congress in the eighties..

    The public-outcry dosnt give a sh*t about most of this and or they forget about it as soon as the next news cycle starts.

    Forgive my cynicism.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#96)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:18:03 PM EST
    getting President Kennedy assassinated would be about a trillion times more explosive than any of those things.

    Parent
    From another angle (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:38:47 PM EST
    I tend to think that the off-the-rails minds that would seriously consider something like Northwoods wouldnt be at all put out if the Cubans were ever so astoundling stupid as to assassinate an American President.

    Parent
    hallucinogens/CIA (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    that went way beyond the 50's.  
    they experimented with mind controll during the 70s
    I just saw a documentary on one of the history channels a couple of days ago.


    Parent
    watch it (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    streaming
    (pretty sure this is the one)

    By far the best video exposing top secret government mind control programs is the History Channel's excellent documentary Mind Control: America's Secret War. Though available for purchase on the History Channel website, this disturbing, yet incredibly important video can also be viewed free at the link below:

    Parent

    MK-Ultra (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:43:25 PM EST
    just another program pursued by an organization deeply concerned with it's public reputation and bent on protecting us at all costs.

    Parent
    I read recently that, although the CIA (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:40:11 PM EST
    was poised to knock off Fidel, JFK called a halt to the project after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

    Parent
    The recieved wisdom now (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:41:52 PM EST
    seems to be that no ever conspires -- unless conspirators are caught redhandedly holding smoking guns practically on camera and are vetted first by the NYT, the WSJ, Newsweek and Kos.

    Otherwise it never happened, and you're some kind of nut for publicly speculating that it ever could've happened.

    Anyone here ever heard of Operation Northwoods?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    Would be good to have some evidence of that conspiracy.

    The reality is that the connections Oswald had would, if you are insistent on a conspiracy, lead to the Soviet Union and Cuba.

    But that's not a fun conspiracy.

    Parent

    Evidence (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:48:47 PM EST
    There's a fair amount of info on it in Wikipedia, that is, if you trust Wikipedia.

    Parent
    I do not (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:08:03 PM EST
    The full document (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:21:43 PM EST
    signed off by the head of the joint chiefs, is available online.

    Parent
    There was a program (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:53:04 PM EST
    in the late fifties to send intelligence operatives to the S.U posing as disaffected American citizens; this according to researcher Anthony Summers.

    Also, according to the Warren Commission, at some point, while still in the military, Oswald was sent to the Monterey School of Languages, presumably to study Russian.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:08:40 PM EST
    The plan to assassinate Kennedy was hatched in the 50s.

    Good theory.

    Parent

    Not the point (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    the point is, if they (possibly) lied that much about the history and background of one person, what else are they lying about.

    I have no idea who killed JFK.

    Parent

    Um ok (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:24:22 PM EST
    he also (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:54:48 PM EST
    had mafia connections.  

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:07:33 PM EST
    He didn't actually. Only in Oliver Stone's version is that true.

    Parent
    so (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:18:00 PM EST
    you believe in magic bullets


    Parent
    Oy (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:23:59 PM EST
    Not this again.

    All right, I  am done here. Not playing.

    Parent

    just kidding (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    couldnt resist.  I agree with the other commenter.
    we dont know what really happened and probably never will.

    the most interesting part of the whole thing to me is how difficult some people find that to accept.


    Parent

    Good for Ollie Stone (none / 0) (#85)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:02:22 PM EST
    I say.  

    And I can't think of many movies that have been so influential as to directly lead to the passage of important legislation in Congress, as Stone's film did in forcing the gov't to declassify many thousands of previously secret docs on the assassination (not that anyone expected the find a CIA smoking gun document conveniently lying around).

    Btw, Castro did it is probably the least intelligent conspiracy theory, though it has appeal to the reflexively anti-conspiracy corp media and some Kennedy detractors on the right and left (i.e., blowback by FC for the BoP).  Castro would never have been so stupid as to leave himself and his country so vulnerable to a US military strike/invasion if that theory really were valid.

    My view has long been it was primarily the CIA running the Dallas operation, and plenty of sane and sober assassination researchers reach the same conclusion.

    Also believing the CIA had something to do with it was that well-known conspiracy theorist ...  Lyndon Baines Johnson ...

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:14:55 PM EST
    "Castro would never have been so stupid as to leave himself and his country so vulnerable to a US military strike/invasion if that theory really were valid."

    You must be joking.

    Parent

    I kid you not. (none / 0) (#103)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:34:21 PM EST
    It would have been stupid of him to send out a guy with that (phony) Free Play for Cuba/I'm a Marxist/Leninist sign around his neck.  Not to mention someone with a track record for being a lousy shot using a lousy WWII Italian rifle that was misaligned and had a cheap scope.  

    Plus illogical to go after Kennedy in that by the 2d half of 1963, in the wake of the near-disaster of the missile crisis, Castro and Kennedy were secretly arranging, using 3d parties, to reach some new understanding in the US-Cuba relationship.  Both sides truly seemed sincere, as the record shows, in their secret efforts.

    The evidence is greatly in favor of Castro and Kennedy trying to talk post-missile crisis -- and not shoot at each other ...

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:23:54 PM EST
    I do not believe for a second Castro was behind it.

    I am pretty much convinced it was Oswald alone.

    Parent

    Fast forward past Cuban missile crisis. (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:44:42 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    Part of the 'get out of jail card' is to do such crazy stuff that it the meat of conspiracy theories, is that it would be foolish for any Politician, or 'reality based' person to pursue prosecution of people involved in nutty conspiracies.

    Does anyone here think that Bush, Cheney Addington, et al will ever pay for war crimes? That is the stuff of conspriacy theorists.

    That is why Obama shied away from touching the last administration with a ten foot pole. That is why Cheney and BushCo understood that they could get away with almost anything.

    Russ Kick has a great synopsis (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    detailing how much, and how specifically, we were warned beforehand of the possibility of a 9/11 type event.

    It's worth reading.

    Idiocy and incomptence (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:06:10 PM EST
    is not the equivalent to a conspiracy.

    Parent
    a conspiracy of incompetence? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:31:29 PM EST
    A fitting subtitle to the Bush admin. at any rate.

    Parent
    Bin Laden Determined To Attack (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:05:32 PM EST
    Not at all the same thing.

    But it is to the folks (none / 0) (#144)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:42:37 PM EST
    who think a large percentage of Dems are into 9/11 conspiracies.  To them, that document was made up by Michael Moore for Fahrenheit 9/11, and anyone who believes it's real is a truther.

    Parent
    As I recall... (none / 0) (#69)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:32:35 PM EST
    ...TL had it share of early adapting birthers.  As well as those who were waiting breathlessly for the release of the Michelle Obama "whitey tape".

    You recall wrong (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:36:39 PM EST
    No I don't. (none / 0) (#72)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:38:30 PM EST
    Yes you do (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:43:37 PM EST
    No discussion of the whitey nonsense was tolerated here.

    The birthers were never an issue during the campaign and never discussed here sat all until recently.

    You recall wrong.

    Parent

    Perhaps you should go check... (none / 0) (#78)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:46:55 PM EST
    ...the archives then.  

    The birthers were never an issue during the campaign, huh?  Riiiiiiiiiight.  I only imagined the posters here who fully bought into the crap that No Quarter was putting out.  

    Nice selective memory you've got.

    Parent

    You certainly did imagine (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:51:06 PM EST
    ANY tolerance of it here.

    You check the archives and stop with the BS.

    Parent

    I recall (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    that Jeralyn was very, very emphatic that there would be no discussion of the "whitey tape" here.

    That said, she must have been laying down the law in response to something!  But I have no recollection that anyone here actually believed that crazy story, they just wanted to chatter about the rumor.

    Parent

    You're dealing with obsolutes... (none / 0) (#89)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    and yet I'm the one who's BS'ing.  LOL.  Too funny.

    Parent
    Plenty Birther BS That You Missed (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:59:23 PM EST
    Check your links (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:13:58 PM EST
    I Did (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:23:29 PM EST
    Only went through the first page and found several birthers or sympathetic comments about birthers.  ppj does not count, imo even though his is one of the first on the list.

    Parent
    Hey! (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:25:39 PM EST
    The second search result quotes me.  That's dirty pool.

    Actually, even talex sounds reasonable in that particular thread, although he was factually wrong as usual.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:33:53 PM EST
    For example. Someone long gone.

    Parent
    Thanks squeaky. (none / 0) (#121)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:14:01 PM EST
    Like I said, selective memory.  

    Interesting how some of the same players in those threads are still with us.

    Parent

    Jim is your example? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:21:59 PM EST
    For whatever reason, Jeralyn enjoys having Jim as the resident troll.

    IF you meant Jim, why not just say so?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:24:37 PM EST
    He gets a pass.

    Parent
    Aside from the fact... (none / 0) (#130)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:27:08 PM EST
    ...I wasn't refering to PPJ at all?  

    Man, you sure are defensive about this.  Makes me wonder why.  One would almost think there was some sort of conspiracy.  LOL.

    Parent

    Jeralyn recently stated no using (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:44:03 PM EST
    commenter's past comments against them.  But hey, it's only her blog.

    Parent
    Another Distortion (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:48:46 PM EST
    You can't seem to keep it straight. Just as you claimed that I swore off talking about those who supported Hillary and said that they would not vote for Obama.

    I guess you read what you want to hear.

    Parent

    Whatever. Here is Jeralyn's comment: (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:55:06 PM EST
    link

    I'm finished commenting on your comments as I think you and ppj both get a pass here.

    Parent

    I'm still wondering... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 07:36:05 PM EST
    ...why you choose to reply to my comment in such an accusitory tone.  Especially given that I was careful not to single anyone out.  

    I didn't see Squeaky speaking about anyone in specific either until BTD brought it up.

    What gives?

    Parent

    Sorry. Misfire. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:17:58 AM EST
    Exactly My Point (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 05:16:52 PM EST
    Your characterization is not only something you wanted to hear it is incorrect.

    Jeralyn recently stated no using (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:44:03 PM EST
    commenter's past comments against them.  But hey, it's only her blog.

    Quite different than:

    As for trotting out a commenter's past comments on threads of different topics, that is almost never warranted or relevant. [emphasis added]

    Of course you decided by posting the link that this was one of those exceptions. Try to keep it straight, oculus.

    Parent

    Why not... (none / 0) (#135)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:48:54 PM EST
    ...just accuse me of stalking and/or "compiling personal information" and be up front about it?

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:50:27 PM EST
    Good one. I think that comment of hers was deleted, lol

    Parent
    I've never see you do that. (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:19:03 AM EST
    Seems to me there's (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 06:32:47 PM EST
    been a fair number of times when "not tolerated" posts have stayed for a few hours before they were deleted.

    I have a feeling this is what some people are refering to.

    Parent

    They were definitely posted (none / 0) (#166)
    by CST on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    To be fair, I believe there was a serious effort to get rid of that stuff, and it was officially rebuked.  But all the threads filled quickly in those days so I'm sure stuff fell through the cracks.

    It was there though.  I remember too.

    Parent

    Jeralyn! (none / 0) (#93)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:14:52 PM EST
    Speaking of "reality based" what is your take on the Bachelorette and the Ed Swiderski expose?

    Speak to this please, in one of your threads.

    Put it in an Open Thread (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 03:16:05 PM EST
    or e-mail Jeralyn about it.

    Parent
    This probably won't assist in debunking (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    conspiracy theorites, but at least a savvy person can now track them:  NYT re mediacloud

    Pravda says (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 07:12:17 PM EST
    no one ever conspires to do anything until we tell you that they do.

    Personally, Im getting a little tired of smart aleck yuppies who went from college directly to the Beltway trying to tell me what to think and when to think it.

    I wonder if anyone here would be so daring as to characterize say, Watergate or IranContra, as conspiracies.

    Parent

    Post about not tolerating the crazies... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Addison on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 11:18:28 PM EST
    ...and all the crazies leap out to say, unlike the other crazies, they themselves are not crazy. Every time!

    And then there (none / 0) (#167)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 03:23:46 PM EST
    are the slightly timid who havnt entertained a thought in years that hadnt been already been encompassed in a press release somewhere.

    Parent