Vote Fraud Allegations Gathers Steam

[Zhukov]

No, not insecurity - the context that statement ("I'll pray for you") was given was a put down,

No it wasn't. 'I'll pray for you' is not a put down. You only think it is. That's the sign of your insecurity.

 

[musicman]

No, not insecurity - the context that statement ("I'll pray for you") was given was a put down, and I chose to react to that putdown.

Perhaps, in retrospect, I might have clarified my reasoning there.


Andy

Where - oh where - did anyone say it was a putdown?

Getting a bit emotional, aren't we? Falling off our usual standards of brilliance?

 

[CivilLiberty]

His opening salvo was a cheap attempt to hype his blog. He has repeated these attempts throughout numerous posts in several threads. (I have taken a certain sadistic delight in removing them)

In other words, you've taken it upon yourself to censor even the links that were germane to the conversation. This seems to go against your stated rules.

This forum "claims" that "it allows more freedom of speech than any other chat room, or forum on the entire internet"

At the Civil Liberties forum I run for About.com I do not censor people's links, nor their commentary - thus, based on Merlin's actions, this forum doe NOT allow more freedom than any other.

Secondly, rule 5 states that a LINK to copyright material MUST be placed when said material is posted. My initial post is comprised of copyrighted material that I own, and thus I can post it in it's entirety. To comply with Rule #4 I also posted the LINK to this original material.

And link that Merlin removed, in what might be considered violation of rule 5.

2. We've been treated to a virtually endless parade of conspiracy theorists. Although CL is able to dress his arguments in more credible prose than most

Thanks. I don't dwell in the theories - I never stated that there was some conspiracy out there likely the alter the outcome of the election.

3. He is a bullshit artist. He starts the thread on one premise then when that is no longer convenient, he switches to another specious tact about "research". You betcha. Research. Right.

As I stated, the more time I spend here, the more fascinating you guys become. this is a forum NOT fully devoid of intellectual challenges - while there may be a drone or two, I am seeing a more diverse spread of opinions.

5. On a more personal note - his whole attitude just pisses me off.

Bush pisses me off - there's always someone who'll piss off somebody - can't walk on egg shells, and I won't for you.

I refuse to discuss issues with him because that is the trap in which he seeks to snare the unwary participant. I won't play the game on his turf or by his rules. One could cite proof, do research and present linked information until your fingers bleed and still make no progress with CL.

Untrue - I've made retractions even, when it's clear that I made a misstatement. When it's opinion, though, that's another thing.

Consider the fact that he comes in with nothing to back him other than an obscure study which raises a question regarding the disparity between exit polls and the final vote count. Apparently it never occurred to him that libs have made a science out of skewing polls throughout this election.

1) For what reason?

2) Are you claiming the republicans didn't?

THAT has been well documented. But rather than get bogged down with specifics which he would simply dismiss out of hand, I choose to go beyond the facade and attack the persona behind it because to me, that is the real issue in this case. That, and it gives me a little personal satisfaction to see him puff up like a blowfish.

That's just an empty excuse to flail ad hominems.

Have at it bucko.



Kindest Regards,


Andy

 

[jimnyc]

In other words, you've taken it upon yourself to censor even the links that were germane to the conversation. This seems to go against your stated rules.

Sorry, but those rules were stated by me, not Merlin. And it's far from censorship. If you want to advertise you can pay for it. Send me an email and will quote you a price.

This forum "claims" that "it allows more freedom of speech than any other chat room, or forum on the entire internet"

The Civil Liberties forum I run for About.com does not censor people's links, nor their commentary - thus, based on Merlin's actions, this forum doe NOT allow more freedom than any other.

Then you are free to return from where you came. I'd rather be at a board that doesn't allow any troll who enters the board to post links to their own sites as if this was some free advertising site. You don't need to like or agree with the rules, just abide by them. If not, you may leave.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Hmmm, wouldn't by any chance be a show previously spoken about here would it?

I mostly work on features (see my credits at my home page) - though this season I am working in TV - I work on several shows depending and the schedule.

Which show are you talking about?


A

 

[musicman]

I like to add hominems to my cornbread recipe. It's malicious!

 

[Merlin1047]

In other words, you've taken it upon yourself to censor even the links that were germane to the conversation. This seems to go against your stated rules.

This forum "claims" that "it allows more freedom of speech than any other chat room, or forum on the entire internet"

Peddle your fish somewhere else, beetle brain. You thought you found a loophole in the rules to get around the no-advertising requirement. I slammed it shut and now you're in a tizzy.

Want to cite a reference? Use something besides your own self-interest.

Have a problem with that? Tough cookies.

 

[CivilLiberty]

You know damn well that it was I who censored your links!

I had thought it was you, but Merlin claimed it was him.

And why not say relevant to the thread? you think your big words are going to lose us dumb conservatives?

What big words?


A

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey civilLiberty, As a writer, do you feel threatened by reality tv shows, which require less writing ?

Why or why not?

 

[CivilLiberty]

Ummm, your "germane" link! isn't that a little gayish?

It's a really common word:

ger·mane ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(jr-mn)
adj.
Being both pertinent and fitting. See Synonyms at relevant



And it's only TWO syllables - "relevant" is THREE syllables - so I find it hard to figure how "germane" is a "big word".


Antidisestablishmentarianism is a "big word".

Germane is not.


Regards

A

 

[musicman]

Hey civilLiberty, As a writer, do you feel threatened by reality tv shows, which require less writing ?

Why or why not?

Hey, CivilLiberty, as a writer, do you find it incredibly frustrating that you and your ilk have been patiently tutoring Middle America in what is cool, hip, and correct for over thirty years? And that, at a critical juncture in history, we judged you, your hateful, arrogant message, and your perverted, reprobate messengers irrelevant?

 

[musicman]

you dumbass conservative!

 

[Zhukov]

'Big' is little. 'Little' is twice as big.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Ohhh - I'm shakin' in my boots I tell ya!

Your instincts are correct; that is the appropriate response.

At least not the ones that stumble on your little red state part of the internet.

Oh, we get all kinds. I'm confident you'll fare no better.

Yes, specifically Shites.
I also think that zionist jews and fundamentalist xtians - in fact most fundamentalist religious groups - are a threat.

I believe fundamentalist islam is at an altogether different level of violent tumult and mobilization toward violence at this particular juncture in history. I do not see "extremist" christianity and judaism as being nearly the same level a threat. Anyone making this erroneous conclusion is obviously quite an obsequious flapjack taster.

Fundamentalists are a threat because they use their religious doctrine as a shield to perpetrate their hatred.

Again, I just don't see it being too similar to christian and judaic terrorism.

Not a specific area I've researched - I'd love to hear your theories on who has been bribed, and by how much.

google oil for food or un scandal and read for yourself.

I've lost all respect for CBS news over the years.

Good for you.

Rather needs a rubber room.


Regards,


Andy

 

[musicman]

'Big' is little. 'Little' is twice as big.

That's what SHE said.

 

[Merlin1047]

It's a really common word:

ger·mane ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(jr-mn)
adj.
Being both pertinent and fitting. See Synonyms at relevant

Oh thanks. All this time I was thinking that we were talking about certain European folks who like wearing lederhosen and are overly fond of sauerkraut und schnitzel.

How embarrassing. Ach du lieber!

 

[CivilLiberty]

Hey civilLiberty, As a writer, do you feel threatened by reality tv shows, which require less writing ?

Why or why not?

It's an interesting topic - I don't personally feel threatened as

1) I Rarely work in TV (my TV work this season is not writing but editing)

2) I'm focusing my writing more for print - though I am getting hammered with "rewrite" jobs for scripts that, in my opinion, will never be made.


However, reality TV has put alot of writers on unemployment. Many of them are now shopping feature scripts around.

Kinda sad - we have a saying here in H'wood, and it applies especially to reality tv:

"It doesn't have to be good - it just has to be cheap to produce"! There's very little quality in this town these days. Mostly spew.


Regards,


Andy

 

[musicman]

It's an interesting topic - I don't personally feel threatened as

1) I Rarely work in TV (my TV work this season is not writing but editing)

2) I'm focusing my writing more for print - though I am getting hammered with "rewrite" jobs for scripts that, in my opinion, will never be made.


However, reality TV has put alot of writers on unemployment. Many of them are now shopping feature scripts around.

Kinda sad - we have a saying here in H'wood, and it applies especially to reality tv:

"It doesn't have to be good - it just has to be cheap to produce"! There's very little quality in this town these days. Mostly spew.


Regards,


Andy

And on it goes....

 

[CivilLiberty]

I believe fundamentalist islam is at an altogether different level of violent tumult and mobilization toward violence at this particular juncture in history. I do not see "extremist" christianity and judaism as being nearly the same level a threat. Anyone making this erroneous conclusion is obviously quite an obsequious flapjack taster.

No, I hate flabjacks. And I'm not obsequious in the slightest - I march to my own drummer, thank you.

I never said xtian or jewish terrorism is on a par with muslims - I do agree that muslims are at their own level of self righteously violent behavior stemming from their narrow minded ignorance (a set of ad hominems I'm sure we can agree on).

However, the world still has Xtians that murder in the name of god, and jews that kill women and children citing their self righteous beliefs.

Fundamentalism may not be bad as a belief, but it certainly appears bad as a belief system that begets violent in the name of the lord.

It's useful to point out, that it is the fundamentalists that bring down the rest of a religious culture. If you think blue staters hate christians, you're partially right - in reality they hate the in-your-face fundies, and these fundies tarnish the whole perception of what a Christian is.

I was a Christian once - decades ago. I cannot get behind it today for many reasons, but i don't disagree with the teachings of Christ.

I do disagree how his teachings have been manipulated and abused through history by ignorant power hungry zealots serving their own immoral purposes.

But I digress.

Yes, Shites are the worst offenders in today's world. By ******* far, to use a big word.




Regards,



Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

STATEMENT:

I have been criticized for not responding to EVERY specific challenge presented to me, so (and at the risk of repeating myself) I'll attempt to do that now.

I got about caught up in other emotional issue to address everything yesterday.

First, as your link concerning the exit poll data itself indicates, those polls were never intended to predict a winner.

Actually, I believe it says they were never intended to validate the winner - this is true - but it is also true that discrepancies from properly conducted polls can point to problems in the election process.

Second, it would be quite easy for DNC supporters to be leaked information regarding which locations would be exit polled and then to pack those polls to skew them, either to discourage voters from voting for President Bush or in an attempt to lend an air of illegitimacy to the ultimate results should the President be elected.

Yes, this is possible - and it's equally possible that the GOP might do the same.

The GOP is as guilts of "dirty tricks" as the DNC - so be it, and welcome to America.

The first link does not indicate that votes for Kerry were counted for Bush like you say. Is this a mistake or a lie?

I looked at that - either I pasted the wrong link, or they revised that page. I did have a link to a story that supported it as I stated it. It was not an intentional spin on my part.

The second link clearly indicates that the excess number of votes was immeadiately discovered and not counted. Nor was their any evidence of tampering.

Sure. Of course it was fixed - it WAS discovered! I expect it to be fixed - don't you? Perhaps I was expecting too much of my readership to read into the implication - this example was caught - what about cases where it was NOT caught? We wouldn't know, would we?

I didn't bother to read any other links.

Okay, I won't bother to comment further.


A