READER COMMENTS ON
"'New Times Broward-Palm Beach' Jumps into Feeney, Yang (YEI), Curtis Fray! [UPDATED]"
(56 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2005 @ 3:27 pm PT...
*grins* Oh boy oh boy oh boy..been waiting on this one.
This place ROCKS!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2005 @ 4:30 pm PT...
Yeah! Good news. BTW if anyone is interested, ACLU won FOIA lawsuit, posted thousands of documents that confirm widespread abuse/torture and cover-up. This suit started back in 2003.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2005 @ 5:03 pm PT...
Very, very good news! Thanks for the hope, Brad.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2005 @ 5:06 pm PT...
Brad, your link to Curtis' affidavit [PDF] is not-functional. Could you reset it for us? Thanks much.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2005 @ 6:25 pm PT...
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2005 @ 6:36 pm PT...
Feeney will get his just rewards. However, forgive me.. I know this is off the subject ... but I was moved by this poem.
Here is a poem by Carly Sheehan, little sister to dead American soldier Casey Sheehan :
Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?
The torrential rains of a motherís weeping will never be done
They call him a hero, you should be glad that heís one, but Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?
Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?
He must be brave because his boy died for another manís lies.
The only grief he allows himself are long, deep sighs Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?
Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brotherís grave?
They say that he died so that the flag will continue to wave
But I believe he died because they had oil to save Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brotherís grave?
Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep?
The leaders want to keep you numb so the pain wonít be so deep
But if we the people let them continue another mother will weep
Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep?
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2005 @ 6:42 pm PT...
Keep in mind ...it would be necessary to control the vote in south Fl brcause WE are heavily dem. down here. Unlike those up in crackerville. Makes sense.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2005 @ 7:05 pm PT...
Thank you, G #6 - It's not really off subject, since it's what brought us and the world together against the Bush administration in the first instance.
I copied it to an "ex" friend of mine in Arizona - she thinks Bush is a "man of God". She also has two sons in their early twenties. Guess she's pretty confident they won't be drafted into the military. She has also blocked my e-mail. I was sending her anti-war essays from the net. But, who knows, may be this one will get thru - to her computer screen, but more importantly, to her consciousness.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2005 @ 7:42 pm PT...
I am wondering how we link Feeney to Rove?
One congressman falling for doing bad stuff is how they may try to spin it. Feeney fall on your sword or take the hemlock is going to be the order to him.
Who is going to indict Feeney? Forget impeachment ... with repubs in power and accountability a "quaint" concept.
But I digress. If this can happen other powerful and good things can also happen.
America could even wake up from the current hypnotic trance ...
But I am not holding my breath unless you guys are going to hold yours too ...
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2005 @ 7:49 pm PT...
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2005 @ 10:19 pm PT...
Dredd - #9
Mine is held. Because, in the final analysis, I have this hokey notion that the truth and honesty will set us free and that humanity, in the aggregate, is moral. Please, humanity, don't disullusion me. I want to love you.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 2/8/2005 @ 11:13 pm PT...
Before we get too excited we should remember that Porter Goss has called off the anti-terrorism meetings, signaling that Bush is encouraging another terrorist attack. Then, the Enabling Act.
I want all the facts to come out, but do not have a positive attitude. These people don't plan to be pulled down by this kind of stuff, even if they are caught red handed.
So, yes, let's know what happened, but let us not get too excited about it.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 2:53 am PT...
I am reading "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast and am becoming more convinced than ever that Bush, Blair and Co. are the symptoms and NOT the disease. The disease is IMF, WTO and the World Bank and the problems are:
1. Not being elected, they don't give a shit what we think, do or say.
2. They like dictatorships and if they can complete the takeover of the US, the rest is plain sailing.
3. If Bush is deposed, assasinated or incapacitated, they'll just replace him with another puppet.
Until we depose this unholy and inhuman triumvirate, the misery and suffering will not only continue, but will gather pace until the whole world is under the Corporate jack-booted heel. Removing the liars is only the first step (but a vitally important step), we MUST disband the IMF and the WTO or Bushes two terms will be looked back on fondly by future generations. You want a look at their plans forworld domination? Take a look at the PNAC.
Bush is merely a tail, we need to focus on the head. Chipping away at the lower levels is important, if can remove the people used to legitimise their thefts then we can bring about the downfall ofthe incumbent, but WE WILL NOT HAVE WON. We must remove the corporate cancers to prevent Jeb from carrying on his bros' "good works".
Yes, bring the Feeney/YEI mess to the attention of the masses and (hopefully) to indictment, but the chase the brains behind it or we just get a rerun next election time.
Keep the faith people.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 3:41 am PT...
You are so right, Dawookie. These people have been in power with the royal families of the world for a long, long time. I haven't heard anyone with a plan to overpower them. The only thing we can hope for, I think, is warring from within.
The Tri-lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations are big players. You would be shocked to know who is involved. As many Democrats as Republicans.
Kerry, however, is the odd man out. He has never belonged, although his wife does.
I got a heads up on one of the really major players if someone wants to do some research. I will, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
Name: Count Barnard Willhelm... connected with David Rockefeller and the World Bank.
I think we should know as much as possible about this. Study the enemy.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 4:15 am PT...
One added thing... I'm not exactly sure how the PNAC is connected. We should find out. There are dissenting views among the banking families as to how to go about achieving this world domination.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 8:04 am PT...
Brad! You're on Raw Story! Good one!
On another note: awww
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 8:35 am PT...
Hi Dredd (#9),
Don't despair! The wheels of justice turn slowly (it is true). However, our snowball is tiny now; it will become an avalanche in time. You infer that Karl Rove will get hit with this avalanche of justice. Perhaps. It will be interesting indeed to see who else (or how far up the chain) this thing goes. Does this remind you of something in the 70's?
ARE WE WITNESSING THE EARLY STAGES OF THE NEXT WATERGATE?????
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 10:50 am PT...
Thank you for the link to Jeff Gannon. He quit!
"Because of the attention being paid to me I find it is no longer possible to effectively be a reporter for Talon News. In consideration of the welfare of me and my family I have decided to return to private life."
But, Rawstory says Mr. Gannon was handling a GAY ESCORT SERVICE (military).
Rawstory posted links to his articles and pictures and they are not working, I wonder why......
Another one down..
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 12:11 pm PT...
Y'all do realize we are sooo off topic - sorry Brad, maybe you could move these to an open thread?
RE: Jeff Gannon - Wow, talk about a quick self-destruct!
I did a google on "Jeff Gannon", check this statement out, under "Talon News - file not found"
"Talon News is your source for unbiased news coverage and no-spin reporting. If you
want the facts without all the slant, Talon News is the place to go for political ..."
Yeah, I know, I'm laughing about it too.
Then I found this:
I don't know if these sites have anything new or not, don't have time to read any more right now, I'm supposed to be teaching my kid about infrared astronomy today so I'm looking up websites and answering questions in between reading bradblog and related sites. AAAAAAAACK!! I SUCK at multitasking!!
Oh what I'd give for just a few more hours in the day....
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 12:41 pm PT...
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 12:52 pm PT...
Jeff Gannon is definitely an enigma. And is this Morton Blackwell any relation to Ken in Ohio? Just asking.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 12:53 pm PT...
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 12:54 pm PT...
I suspect they are planning another terrorist attack. For the draft, or before the next elections since they are losing their Republican base. Also, I think they have a sick desire to institute martial law, since their achievements at attaining power are not satisfying them. At any rate, they certainly want to try out their crippling law of the land plans.
They seem to be losing their stanglehold rapidly. That's when they can become most dangerous, or else lose it entirely. So many people are hip to their games. I don't know if they can pull it off anymore.
And I can't really see it. 911 was their great moment, and I don't see them succeeding again.
Whatever transpires, I am counting on their own weakness to do them in.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 2:10 pm PT...
Whooooaa! these guys are going to town on Gannon. They're having way too much fun from the sounds of things.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 6:56 pm PT...
BLOGS should get more respect.
The MSM are curr dogs in general.
They must be prosecuted in the end.
HEY JOURNALISTS give some freaking credit when it is due. OR we will not support your selfishness when daddy warbucks kicks your ass!
This ain't no freaking DC champagne party. This is where the freaking rubber meets the road dude!
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 7:07 pm PT...
How'd you do that?
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 10:29 pm PT...
Oh Cheryl, you're SUCH a card! He won't let on because HE LIKES POWER. Power over Smilies!!! He holds the tool of nuanced expression in his hands. He rules the Smiley-faction and he will NEVER relinquish control.
The DREDD enemy!!!
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 2/9/2005 @ 10:32 pm PT...
Also, the D likes all this attention.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 2/10/2005 @ 4:53 am PT...
Correction, Brad. Or at least to pose the question:
"In truth, it's not really the credit that we want for ourselves in general, but in an age where bloggers like us and other Internet-only news sites (like RAW STORY, for example) are breaking stories that the corporate media is missing, and getting those stories right in the bargain, it's important that alternative newsweeklies like New Times give credit where it's due."
Is it a sin of omission, or commission? Are they "missing" stories or actually covering them up instead of covering them? They are useless to us in either case. You are not useless, and the credit you are owed will come in due course. Thank you for your efforts. The Robert Parry pieces and the scandal about Gannon and Talon News, which is developing rapidly, led me to speculate to a friend on another site that I wouldn't be surprised if they had moles in the DNC and Democratic party during the campaign. This is what he said:
"I was assured last summer by a 'nearly-reliable' source that there were high-placed GOP moles in the Kerry campaign who not only reported on his activities, but also influenced his decisions. It also wouldn't surprise me to find out Alan Colmes and such pseudo-libs as Jeff Greenfield of CNN and Ron Brownstein of the LA Times were on the take. Judy Woodruff used to be a lib at PBS who went over to the Dark Side, and I'd bet she's getting a little extra under-the-table for her efforts. Wolf Blitzer has peddled his ass to the Repugs for as long as I've known of him."
And when I asked who he felt might be suspect:
"Well, it wouldn't surprise me if Bob Shrum is one; he certainly has all the earmarks. Bob Bennett, Gambler Bill's brother, is another very likely candidate for the spotlight; he has played both sides of the fence, quietly, for years. I'll try to track down some more authoritative sources for you, although they are in short supply these days."
We would love to see you break that story, someday.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 2/10/2005 @ 5:41 am PT...
Most interesting, LGM.
Puzzles always come with a solution. I believe crimes are meant to be uncovered. The clues are always dropped. It's all in the grand game.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 2/10/2005 @ 5:58 am PT...
Had a lot of trouble finding a copy of New Times, had to go to 5 or 6 places . It is a very popular news print in this area. However, I thought the piece was good front page coverage. Sent a letter saying so , from a BRADBLOG reader.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 2/10/2005 @ 7:37 am PT...
#26 - #28. I revealed the secret. Teresa knows where.
If you are good girls I will show and tell how to make a bradblog library for your smilies.
But it'll cost ya cause I like all this power and attention.
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 2/10/2005 @ 10:07 am PT...
Feeney is guilty of not taking down or updating his campagin website...... a "good reporter" would be able to figure out that the office moved to the research park a long time ago..... I am sure if having an office in the research park fueled conspiracy theory they would have checked the local phone book.....
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 2/10/2005 @ 10:26 am PT...
Teresa! You know? You have to share with us because we can't handle Dredd having all this power!!
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 2/10/2005 @ 1:22 pm PT...
Just curious, Chuck (Chuck, as his Email address will tell you is the editor of the Oviedo Voice who has been giving Yang and Feeney the opportunity to air their point of view without bothering to print facts and hard evidence that demonstrably shows they are not telling the truth)... If I sent a donation by check to the address given on Feeney's official campaign webpage, the address at 1420 Alfaya Trail in the Yang Building where he encourages supporters to contact him and/or send money, would he get that money?
Was there a cheap sign posted on Suite 103 stating that it was the "Tom Feeney for Congress" office on Dec 20th of 2004?
Or is that too just something that you and your friend Tom consider untrue despite the facts.
Have you considered changing the Oviedo Voice's tagline to "Who ya gonna believe? Us or your lying eyes?"
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 2/10/2005 @ 5:06 pm PT...
Hey Brad-Glad to see you are cooking again on this Feeney/Curtis thing. What happen to the other FODT person that was fired along with Clint?
Has any body done a Bio. on her,Interviews,and etc?
Could you expand on this area of the investigation without creating a time and effort hardship?
Peter in Oregon-home of the mail in ballot
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
Terri in S. FL
said on 2/10/2005 @ 9:04 pm PT...
Now maybe the chicken shit Palm Beach Post and Ft Lauderdale Sun Sentinel will print the Feeney story so the masses can see who really stold our vote here in the BLUE counties of south Florida!
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 2/10/2005 @ 9:58 pm PT...
LOL @ Chuck (#33).
Good one, Brad (#35).
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 2/11/2005 @ 8:38 am PT...
My point is SO WHAT! if his campaign office was or is or always will be there? The fact that his office moved long ago (dial 411 and ask) is what I was trying to point out, for whatever it matters anyway, but I suppose that doesnt fuel the paranoia that is nessesary to justify this "news". Wouldnt someone so devious brilliant and evil as to steal our democracy think to take down that site if it meant anything? I think the quality of attention this matter has drawn shows quite clearly "who ya gonna believe"......... and by the way, the article WAS well done and just like our coverage it did not overstep the bounds in any way I could see that would justify a lawsuit. .... unlike the blog-like methods used by another publication which in a front page headline suggested that it was an established fact that there was a "vote rigging scandal" and that feeney was "implicated" not to mention the rest of the article which in my opinion reflected an inexperienced journalist caught up in a woodward and bernstien fantasy..... not that it couldnt be true,.. just that it was made impossible to believe by their overzealous drive to make it be true. much like another we know. In closing, as I have pointed out to brad in private e-mails I believe anything is possible in this story but the fact is that if this was watergate, brad and curtis were woodward and bernstien, then watergate would have been dismissed as a wild fabrication before any talk of it ever reached the public. Sorry, but if anything "real" ever is uncovered and "reported" on in this way you folks become the bad guys best friend....... try to think about it.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/11/2005 @ 5:54 pm PT...
Chuck: Woodward and Bernstein had Deep Throat. They also had Ben Bradlee, who was brave enough to let them go with the story without being totally convinced himself.
The media universe has changed. Big-city papers and TV networks are part of Corporate America now. They don't challenge the system, because they are themselves they system. You can't be part of the solution if you're part of the problem.
So Brad and Curtis have to operate outside the box. They have to go directly to the public over the Internet blogoshpere, or at a ski resort in Utah. They have to find the occasional reporter from a local paper to run the story. They need word of mouth and e-mails being forwarded constantly.
The good news is that people are listening. The other good news is that as with Watergate, the party in power has so many arrogant fools doing and saying dumb things that it will sink its own ship sooner or later.
Remember John and Martha Mitchell? Remember Colson and Hunt, and Haldeman and Ehrlichmann?
Remember Ron Ziegler? Today's counterparts are Blackwell, Petro, Feeney, Glenda Hood, and Rove. You might throw in the journalists on the White House payroll, and others who might as well be.
Don't shoot the messengers we have, Chuck.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 2/11/2005 @ 7:34 pm PT...
While we like Chuck and find him amusing, it must be pointed out that as the Editor of Feeney's hometown paper, and a friend of his, the paper blasted the Seminole Chronicle (that's the paper which Chuck refers to in it's tirade) for "tabloid journalism".
They said, in a front page splash, that they preferred "balanced coverage".
Two weeks later they ran the YEI website statement verbatim in their paper without response despite my having supplied Chuck previously with information (hard evidence, like time-reports from YEI) showing that they were not telling the truth.
None the less, the Yang (YEI) statement ran verbatim.
That's the "balanced coverage" we presume Chuck must have been referring to.
After my complaints, he decided to run the YEI statement again the following week. This time in seperate paragraphs where they outlined Clint Curtis' response to them, followed --- in every instance --- by a statement from YEI's attorney (and Feeney's former law partner) Michael O'Quinn who was given the last word. In every paragraph.
Get that "balance" yet?
In the meantime, an email back and forth between Chuck and I still seems to have made it impossible for him to understand that when Feeney says he has had no relationship with the Yang's since 2002 but has received thousands of dollars from both them and their attorney to finance an unopposed campaign and still RENTS (or is given?) OFFICE SPACE for the campaign in Yang's own building...well, it doesn't bode well for Feeney's credibility now, does it?
We don't care where his "other office" may or may not be. The professional association still, clearly, exists.
Unlike our friend Chuck's, apparent, ability to produce "balanced coverage" or opinion.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 2/12/2005 @ 10:09 am PT...
That other FDOT person (Mavis Georgalis) has been re-instated to FDOT after her Whistleblower suit was filed. Curtis filed the same suit, but his attorney delivered it one day late, and so it was not allowed.
Georgalis was ordered back to the FDOT with full backpay, but the FDOT appealed the decision. The Appellate court upheld the Circuit Court and once again she was ordered back to FDOT with full pay.
Still, the FDOT wouldn't take her back, so she went to Circuit Court again to have them demand that FDOT comply with the court. The Circuit Court then gave FDOT 24 hours to re-instate her and give her full backpay.
The FDOT finally gave in, restored her to employment with full back pay, and gave her a job 150 miles from her home.
She continues in that job, living in a separate apartement during the week that is closer to the job, and she has been harrassed by several FDOT suits (all of them have been unsuccessful to date).
Her fight continues, she backs up Curtis' efforts 100%, but she will only speak on the record with her attorney present due to several pending suits that FDOT has against her for the moment.
For now, we'll leave it at that, barring any other specific questions you may have.
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 2/12/2005 @ 1:25 pm PT...
Brad, thanks for updating info on Mavis Georgalis. Have been able to find court documents which supported her, and it appeared she might have returned to FDOT, but couldn't get any further. Every little detail helps to clarify and strengthen Curtis' assertions.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 2/14/2005 @ 6:12 am PT...
Well, just have a moment but,
I explained to Brad that I was not a friend of feeney and even (in response to his written questions) went into exactly how many times I had spoken to him over the years and whether (as he accused) feeney owned the place ,or if we donated money to him....... all the wrong answerers for brad evidently as I have seen no mention of them! Also, pointed out more than once I am not the editor, for whatever that matters, it is the family business and this is our e-mail..... doesnt matter I suppose just another example of seeing and hearing only what you want to hear and see that further erodes the credibility of the rest of the content..... as for the reporting by my paper, brad never mentioned the offer I made for him to write his own col. or letter to the editor did he? Or the fact that curtis was interviewed and alloweed to say whatever he wanted which was also published verbatum did he? It was a series of articles which covered the story completely in a fair and balanced manner, feeney didnt like some of it and brad didnt like some of it. too bad, they should both go get a newspaper of their own if they want to control content otherwise they will just have to hear both sides wont they? Great place here for research and getting an extreme left view to balance your thinking but those of you who depend on it for balance ,or even the whole story, better think about it..... there will not always be someone willing to point out to you the parts left out of the commentary, parts that change the story alltogether . Like I said, I think it should be considered that whoever this site goes after might in fact be thankful that brad is on them because as it is, that pretty much precludes anybody else doing it. The only way that attitude dies and this site becomes effective is that the people reading perk up, stop following blindly, and question, question, question(as brad will undoubtedly claim he wants)...... now slam away and convince yourselves I am wrong but I suspect a few of you are bright enough to see the logic.
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
said on 2/14/2005 @ 11:47 pm PT...
I'll try to hit only the most notable of your noise. Your comments in italics:
I explained to Brad that I was not a friend of feeney and even (in response to his written questions) went into exactly how many times I had spoken to him over the years and whether (as he accused) feeney owned the place
Are you seriously suggesting that I said "Feeney owned the place"?? Aside from the possibility I was speaking metaphorically (if I actually said what you mention), it would seem someone as sharp as you might have figured that out. As you've told me, Neil Boortz is your idea of a responsible journalist, so drawing from that brain pool, I'd have assumed you'd understand a metaphor. If I even said such a thing.
As to your friendship with Feeney, do you *really* want me to go into details here --- publicly --- concerning what you told me about how you received certain documents directly from him?
or if we donated money to him....... all the wrong answerers for brad evidently as I have seen no mention of them!
And there's much more that is also irrelevant that you told me that you haven't seen here as well, Chuck.
I try to post only what is relevant.
Kinda opposite from when you had my detailed reply to Yang's statement on their website, including hard evidence to prove they were lying, but you chose to simply run their statement --- without comment --- in your paper.
Apparently you had determined that hard evidence showing they were not telling the truth was not relevant, so you didn't run it.
Now why would that be, Chuck? Have you run it today? Like the copies of the weekly time reports showing that Nee worked for Yang in contradiction to their statement? The ones I sent you *before* you ran their statement without comment? (a couple of them are right here in case you'd like to run them in this weeks paper).
as for the reporting by my paper, brad never mentioned the offer I made for him to write his own col. or letter to the editor did he? Or the fact that curtis was interviewed and alloweed to say whatever he wanted which was also published verbatum did he?
Given that your papers website hasn't been updated since the summer hurricanes, it's not likely I'd be able to read that interview. As you likely know, you neither sent me a copy, nor did you add any of the stories to your website. (As you had promised to do after your first report. And *I* even volunteered to do it for you!)
As to your offer to write a letter to the editor. I sent you many letters, including the above mentioned reply to Yang. You never ran that.
If time allows, I will try to send a letter to the editor if I ever see the remaining stories you published. You have my address. Feel free to send me a copy.
For now though, the work here reaches far more readers on a daily basis, and is much more important than retreading old, already debunked information printed by a small local newspaper who is willing to re-run propaganda as "news" in their paper.
As you know, I told you that you are free to run any of my pieces on the Curtis story in your paper any time. I ask only that you do so unedited and without comment. As you did for Yang.
Great place here for research and getting an extreme left view to balance your thinking but those of you who depend on it for balance ,or even the whole story, better think about it
I'll let your previous mention of "fair and balanced" speak for itself. These aren't Republican monkeys you're talking to here, Chuck.
But as to the mention of "balance" in the above paragraph, I don't give a rats ass about "balance". I care about fairness, and my work here shows as much, but "balance" is the last hope evildoers hoping that the premise of "balance" will somehow force someone like CNN to show two Bush mistakes and two Kerry mistakes in a post-debate round-up.
Never mind the rather *unbalanced* FACT that Bush made 10 mistakes and Kerry only 2, "balance" of the Fox "News" sort that you pretend to give a damn about, means there will be a levelled playing field to keep the bad guys looking as swell as the good.
Sell it to Boortz and your other wingnut buddies. That crap doesn't fly here, Chuck.
And I suspect it doesn't fly in Oviedo either for some of your local readers who may recognize when a press release is reposted as "news". I have a feeling they may see that as neither fair nor balanced.
Then again...didn't you say Feeney lives right around the corner from you?
I suggest you show some professional self-respect and take this conversation off blog. You know my phone number and you have my email address.
But, of course, you're welcome to continue here if you prefer. But do us all the favor of hitting ENTER every now and again to add a paragraph so it's a bit easier to read your nonsense.
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2005 @ 6:38 am PT...
Wow! hit a sore spot or two huh Brad? I think anyone who reads both entries, (yours and mine) with an open mind can pretty much figure out who is avoiding the issues and who is addressing them, who is making a point and who is ranting. Get some rest and start damage control Brad, I doubt more than 10-15% of the eight or ten people I see posting here will take the time to consider the possibilities and they would just become easily replaceable "wingnuts" in your mind anyway wouldnít they? Now quote me some "hit" statistics if you like but we both know, donít we Brad? Funny you never mentioned that you hadnít read our series before..... Anyone following all you have said about the series would have thought you had read it I bet!. We both know the truth there too donít we? Even if anyone did believe that you hadnít, do you really want those same minions to believe you would rant so much and take such positions about something you hadnít read? Good luck all! Try to devote some thought to all this, I expect my postings will be blocked from now on as it appears difficult to maintain composure for some of us in a public forum.... much harder to just say anything you want I suppose when it might start a "thoughtstorm" and threaten the base followers...... maybe yall should chime in and tell him he is right and righteous its what he needs to hear......Wow Brad.... just try to get some rest and I will try not to be "silly" but I do care a "rats ass" about balance and the distinction you try to make between that and "fairness" as if they have no relationship here is just .. well, "silly" (and I will work on that hitting enter thing too).
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2005 @ 10:50 am PT...
Now you seem to be just babbling.
You sent me the first three stories in your "series". You didn't send the last one where you have said you ran a Curtis interview.
Don't know what to tell you, Chuck, but you sound desperate. No, there's no reason to "ban" you. Why would I want to do that?
You're doing a brilliant job of (forgive me) making an ass out of yourself here.
Keep up the good work! (Unless you'd like, as I say, to demonstrate some personal and professional self-respect, and take your rantings offline. Up to you though.)
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2005 @ 11:26 am PT...
Who sounds desperate? Thats at least twice you suggested this conversation be held where no one else can follow and I did not see a single response to any of the points raised..... "silly" Brad. You were more fun when you felt safe saying anything you wanted.
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2005 @ 12:19 pm PT...
Sigh...was trying to do you a favor, Chuck. You seem to be making a public ass out of yourself.
If you wish to continue doing so here, that's up to you.
As not seeing "a single response to any of the points raised", again, I don't know what you're talking about.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here (hit ENTER twice after each to insert a blank line for clarity, if you would be so courteous) and I will do my best to answer any "points" you wish to "raise" that you feel I have not answered to already.
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2005 @ 12:49 pm PT...
Really dont know how I could be clearer...... I am confident even the most mindless of your followers can read back and see the points raised that you choose to ignore. Not the least of which would be the ongoing commentary on my coverage of the feeney/yang story without having read it. What would you say if someone "not of your political leanings" took such a stand? Gee... I wonder?? What if that same person publicly said "I dont give a rats ass about balance"?? Spin it all you want, hide behind "blogger" if you like but dont try to pass this off as a news source...... when challenged to support your rants it is obvious you are playing out of your league and serving the same purpose for the radical right that the people dancing in the desert at roswell with aluminum foil antennas on their heads serve for those that believe there in no intelligent life in the universe. Sorry to be so harsh, I like you and find you amusing to be sure, its just that I see a brighter future for you in hydroponic tomatoes.
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2005 @ 1:12 pm PT...
Again, no clue what wasn't commented on and apparently you don't wish to tell us. Which speaks for itself it would seem.
The offer is still open to ask me any question you like (provided you use a blank line to separate them so it's easier to follow what the hell you're asking).
It has been made quite clear several times in this thread that my complaints stemmed from your "report" wherein you reposted Yang's website statement verbatim, without comment, several weeks after they had posted it on their website, and long after I had already published information that included hard evidence to directly refute several of their claims.
That, of course, would be in addition to one week's report in which you left out Yang attorney O'Quinn's longtime partnership with Feeney, and another wherein you printed Yang's statement yet again, this time, giving Curtis one short reply to each graf, followed by the "last word" given in each case to Feeney's friend and Yang attorney O'Quinn.
For the record, you have yet to send me a copy of your purported interview with Curtis and as far as I know, it is still not available online, so I cannot comment on it.
I would have no problem with *anybody* who eschewed the absurd Foxspeak of "balanced" reporting. Particularly when they are discussing "news" which is neither fair nor balanced as your coverage has woefully been.
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2005 @ 7:16 am PT...
Looks like you have gotten a little rest and are at least beginning to minimize the ranting and bouncing between subjects a bit...... not quite sure if you are feeling relieved or worried that nobody but us seems to be reading this but if you leave it here a bit perhaps someone will and maybe they will point out the shorcomings of your commentary reguarding my paper before you put up your deaf ear defences. It has all been said, and as you put it so aptly in the beginning of your last comment, you have no clue..... Thats good I suppose but a little sad also.
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2005 @ 10:23 am PT...
So in other words, there were no "points that [I] chose to ignore".
You were as full of hot air then as you were when you stated on the front page of your paper that you "preferred balanced coverage over tabloid journalism".
Well done. You've learned your Bush/Foxspeak well.
The country thanks you for your great patriotism.
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2005 @ 10:39 am PT...
Dont mean to keep upsetting you its just that there are only so many ways I can say the same thing to you before I feel you really may understand and are just trying (in vain) to provoke me for some reason.... I used to think it was just because you thought it would make me mad and I would re-hash more unsubstntiated drivel from this dead end story...... to which the country owes you a thanks in some part at least for bringing it to a possibly premature end..... but now I think you really just dont get it.... dont worry, unless you can find a credible mouthpiece, nobody is listening anyway.
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2005 @ 7:22 pm PT...
"Upsetting me"? Quite the contrary, chief. Your silly little single paragraphs without substance or point are indeed amusing.
But alas, despite the "so many ways" you are indeed "saying the same thing", you are also *not* saying the same thing over and over.
And that is, what are those "points that [I] continue to ignore"?
You have failed to answer that question so many times, some might start to believe that, in fact, there are no such points.
Now that couldn't possibly be true...could it?
Let me know what I "continue to ignore" or you may, if you wish, continue to use many many words to say nothing at all. You seem to have quite a gift for it!
Up to you.
COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2005 @ 7:12 am PT...
Silly Brad, You and I both know, and obviously nobody else is paying any attention (must be a trekkie convention going on) so whats the point of wasting my enegy on you any further. I had hoped some of your followers might read this little series and begin to wonder if the world is really the way you tell them it is but I suppose with 15 active readers and as many pages of "content" as you have going they can only spread so thin. As I said, what I fear about you guys is the damage you might do if anything real ever did fall in your laps..... you are smart enough to know that, and I have seriously considered that it might be your real mission. Anyway, either way it is, wheather your intent is to smokescreen for the bad guys in government or to bring down the government for some socialist utopia to move in is really irrelevent..... You are all alone and impotent, as it should be.
I like the "many many words to say....." thing you said! did somebody write that for you? See, I even made a paragraph fo you for that one!