On another thread concerning Kennedy's article, there was some discussion about JFK and the Illinois election. I would like to point out that what Cavuto is doing is exactly why Democrats must come out and unequivocably state that what happened in Illinois in 1960 was wrong and that it was no joking matter (this was RLM's point, and a necessary and correct one.) This is why Debra Bowen's remarks about looking into Kern County are so important - integrity must be maintained. The Republicans have no integrity, but any breach of integrity on the part of Democrats gives the Repugs an opportunity to cloud the present - something they are already VERY good at.

Cavuto is a low life ... like Coulter ... same mental and emotional distortions.

I guess I don't get how you bring in something from 40 years ago and try to relate it to anything about "today".. Especially since we're talking about someone from his "family" and not something HE did. Or do they think an 8 year old boy helped rig an election? If so, they would be admitting to being pretty stupid to be duped by an 8 year old..

It makes me sick how these assholes keep saying "well, well, THEY DID IT ONCE!!!" and use that as their justification for abusing the pubilc.

Here's a clue for those that don't get it yet.. WAKE UP! we NEED to save our Democracy, and ONLY the CITIZENS can do that. POLITICIANS, in general (these days), are the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR of corruption and greed. They lie, cheat, steal, manipulate.. all to get YOUR MONEY from you and get it in their own pockets. STOP LETTING THE RICH ELITE ROB YOU!! Stop falling into the same old traps.. FORCE our government to DO THE RIGHT THING NOW, -regardless- of who did what when. That includes DEMS (since this is a left-leaning blog, just so the trolls fully understand that we dislike ALL corruption, not just their over represented party of it).

Today, our Democracy is in jeapordy, period. We ALL need to stand up to the system and keep it from steamrolling us!

Demand FAIR AND ACCOUNTABLE ELECTIONS.. Don't let some damned machine tell you who your officials are, make sure you tell the officials who you want in office!

I'm still thinking.. by them buttheads even reporting this article, the curious of the Fox viewers just might take a peek at the RS article the evidence is pretty damning
It might backfire on their asses (I hope)

throw in electronic voting machines that can switch votes without the citizen realizing it, and RFK Jr is just getting started with the corruption which most Americans have no idea about. . .

I'm sure many here are familiar with --
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

Savanster - I'm not saying that Democrats should go out of their way to bring up the 1960 incident. I'm just saying that when it IS brought up, the reaction should be that it was wrong, and that Kennedy was wrong to joke about it. At that point, then yes, move on to today because obviously today IS far more important. Idiot R's will latch onto the 40-year old incident and say "see, the D's are corrupt, they fix elections" to which D's must respond that what happened was wrong.

I can't fathom the Balls that RFK Jr has to go on these ASSHOLES shows. Knowing that they will not let him even finish an answer to a question. RFK Jr was trying to tell the audience about legislation and C would not let him finish his point. I hate it that C was actually questioning RFK JR integrity. RFK Jr has more integrity in his little finger then Cavuto does in his whole bloviated self. Can't let the airheads get educated about anything. I was yelling at my monitor while watching this clip. I personally have no patience left with these people. I want to see what RFK Jr has to say, but I'm ready to rip somebodys, anybodys head off for the treatment they dish out. Can't the braindead who watch Faux see how they treat good honest people? My respect for RFK Jr shot up 100%. Run Bobby Run. Watch your back!

This article puts the Kabasch on Kennedy ripping Chicago 1960 Read here, and I also read that the RNC was doing the same thing they accused the Dems of doing in downstate Illinois at the same time

Soul Rebel, I wasn't directing my post at you.. it was directed at the article.

I agree with you completly.. we NEED to root out all "evil deeds" regardless of who comitted them. The -problem- is, the R's don't care about truth OR doing the "right thing", they only care about "winning".. If they didn't, they wouldn't be bringing up things from 40 years ago to begin with.

R's distract with pointless historical facts, and the rest tend to get lost debating -that- point, instead of dealing with the current issue. It's sad that R's can only win because they keep from having serious debate.. but then, us here know that the Truth is no friend to the R's..

Laura #7

Randi Rhodes was on Lou Dobbs yesterday - I missed it and I don't know what the subject was because she didn't go into it on air for the brief time I was able to listen to her. What she did say though backs up your point about RFk's "balls" and the way the media handles balance and partisan hackery (a la Jon Stewart facial scrubbing of Tucker Carlson on Crossfire last year.)

Randi basically said she's had enough of going on the TV news to debate people who have no facts and are simply heads dragged up to parrot party-line talking points. She said that she was in tears after Lou's show because she keeps expecting to go on and have a real debate and it never happens. She spends 3 hrs in makeup for a 5 minute spot that she has to share with Lou and two other useless hacks who have been doing radio for 6 months and have never served their country and don't do any research on the topics they are brought on to debate. She said she's done Lou for the last time. RFK must feel the same way.

Did anyone see Randi's spot on Lou yesterday?

"RFK Jr has more integrity in his little finger then Cavuto does in his whole bloviated self."

Yes I agree and its obvious. RFK doesn't need to prove his integrity, its a part of who he is. Rfk's very presence on Cavuto's show is great and will get people reading the Rolling stone article.

He didn't just take the shit he was being given but was yelling back at this guy in good Irish fashion.

.
.
.
Soul Rebel #10:

I just watched it HERE.

Randi is brilliant with the research she does on most issues and the way she pulls it all together.

She had absolutely no respect for the guests that she was on with and I think her heart was broken when Lou Dobbs mocked her at the end of the segment. (She used to say that she loved Lou Dobbs).

To be fair, I think her anger towards her co-pundits made her not as articulate as she normally is. That and the short amount of time she is allowed to speak on these stupid shows.

Here's a pic of her heart being broken...

.
.
.

"Neil Cavuto didn't give Robert Kennedy the chance to finish a thought or make a point. It was the same old hostile wingnut tactics of distractions, diversions, interruptions and unrelated questions."

From what I saw, RFK Jr. had ample time to make his point. I understood his stance and what he was saying.

I would like to address the comment "It was the same old hostile wingnut tactics of distractions, diversions, interruptions and unrelated questions"

The hostility was just not present. It was a very mild debate between two people who had plenty of time to make their case. There was also interruptions from both sides.

The case against the 2004 election is nothing but a diversion anyway. No one has proved anything remotely close to what is pushed as the "facts" that some fringe elements push around. So, at best, people are just quoting numbers and circumstances they would like to be representing the situation.

In all fairness, you will not hear the issue of the Kennedy election come up too often in debate with Republicans. You will, however, see the 2000/04 elections come up over and over in debate with Dems. Someone bringing up a past election, after someone has already brought up another past election, does not seem like a "diversion" to me. This is Point for point. If you are going to bring up past elections to support a theory, then expect the same as a counterpoint.

Besides all of that election stuff, I still do not see how RFK here was not given adequate time to present his case. He had roughly 5 minutes 10 seconds of talking time out of a 9 minute debate, which includes the time for Cavutos introduction. I hardly see where he was not given a chance to make a point.

Let's look at the facts, not what we would like to think happened in the debate. RFK says he is very bi-partisan on the issue of electoral reform. He also admits that absolutely nothing has been proved, yet he goes on to say how he knows that over 300,000 votes were stolen from Dems. The overtones of "Bush stole the election" are very prevalent in the discussion. The tones of "there was voting irregularities" is soft under the Bush stole the election connotations.

That is not being bi-partisan on an issue. He can't prove these allegations, yet he is saying they are a fact. How can that be?

I believe in electoral reform. I believe everyone needs the available amenities to get every vote voted, and counted. I know there were many allegations, a lot of which came from Democrat controlled districts (which is hardly ever mentioned). To date, I do not know of any allegations that have ever been proven to support the theory that Bush stole the election in 2004.

There are many examples of voter intimidation and fraud from both parties that have resulted in convictions though. No one is an angel when it comes to this issue.

I also think RFK did fine against Cavuto. He didn't back down from anything he said, and didn't seem like he was distracted or diverted from making his case, as Dave Edwards suggests.

It looks more like a sensationalized opinion piece, aimed at creating an unneccesary barrage...

Cavuto: But do you think there's any purpose, Bob, with the president in the White House, in a time of war, to say that he is an illegal occupant to that, ...essentially, he shouldn't be in there, is that what you're saying?"

WTF???
Cavuto pull the "In a Time of war" out of his pooty. OMG. What will Cavuto say in two years when it is time for Bush to step down, and we all know that "This Time of War" will fall onto the next president, as per Heir Bush's orders, that Bush can't go because "We're in a time of War?"

Kookaid he's been drinking. I tell ya.
WHAT WAR?
WHAT ENEMY?
WHERE'S THE DECLARATION OF WAR?

Now back on topic,
Cavuto completely missed the target and Bobby's being way too soft on these dolts. This is not a partisan issue, unless:
~ You feel corruption is a good thing to have in an election,
~ Well, if you feel corruption is a good thing all together,
~ You or your Party is in control of Government and it can be shown that the vote system used to put you there was rigged, FRAUDULENT, of course you want to resist. Not doing so would be seen as confirming the implications of fraudulent activity, while the longer you resist and the bigger the fight, the more your hold out posturing makes you look right.
~ But we all know, EVERYONE'S VOTE only counts when we control the process.

WHAT THESE DOLTS FAIL TO ARGUE AND THEREFOR DEFEND EVERYONE'S VOTE BY NOT ADDRESSING:
What would their position be if Bobby were a rich Republican sitting across the isle from them. Or it was the Dem's in 2000 and again in 2004 and Bush was the looser?

Think about it.

I have.
And my guess is that their toon would be a different one. WHY IS THAT?

Because they have been well trained to make every issue, even issues that affect the Republican Party, PARTISAN ISSUES.

Sorry to say this, and this is reality, Republicans will not ALWAYS be in power. Some day, and it will come, some day, they will be at the mercy of a controlling power, run by a President elected out of a more Despotic system than what we have now. And under his thumb of tyranny, will they then scream?

But who will be left to hear them, to rescue them?

I think if there is a more oppresive regime in the future the Republicans will be the suck ups. They will be the defenders of evil just as they are now, unless ofcourse it happens to them and they begin to feel the barbs of injustice.

"What would their position be if Bobby were a rich Republican sitting across the isle from them. Or it was the Dem's in 2000 and again in 2004 and Bush was the looser?"

That is a logical fallacy. You cannot successfully debate your point using hypothetical scenarios. The variables are unworkable.

I could say this:

what would Bradblogs position be if was the Dem's in 2000 and again in 2004 and Bush was the loser?

Would this be such a prevalent issue here? Would it be a prevalent issue on any Liberal leaning blog?

I highly doubt it.

I would never argue my point that way though. I would look at all of the facts that are available now. I would look at the suggested numbers of votes lost or gained due to anomalies, and I would then try and deduct how many votes went to who and in what areas this happened.

I know of only one documented and proven piece of evidence about only one person gaining any votes. That was the estimated 4,000 gained by Bush in Ohio. All of the other anomalies effected all candidates. This was not how it was presented by some though.

It was presented that 4,000 votes did go to Bush, and there were other anomalies, which will just be mentioned as a way to elude that they went to Bush. In reality they effected all candidates.

It was convenient for that to be left out of the argument, actually, it was more of a necessity to try and perpetuate a theory of a stolen election.

I don't want corruption in our elections, but unless real reform is obtained then these useless arguments will be all anyone has.

Here is reality:

• Bush won the election in 2004.
• Bush in office as we type here.
• Bush will be president until 2008

There is nothing stopping Dems from gaining control again. They have to come together and create a platform with substance. Right now they claim to be running on a platform of ethics, and they lambaste the Republicans for corruption. They do this amidst their own scandals. You cannot run on a platform of ethics when your party members are taking bribes.

My stance on this voting process is that it should be paper. I have worked in the Avionics on military jets for 12 years now. No electronic device is stable enough for the importance of presidential elections.

There were anomalies in 2004 no doubt. There were anomalies because electronic machines were used, and there were going to be anomalies. There will also be issues in 2008 if machines are used.

Back to logical fallacies now:

If a Dem candidate wins in 2008, will you care that there were some anomalies?

Partisanship drives this issue...

Buck B, you do a very good job of Trolling here.. Much more articulate than the regular trolls we get.

However, you keep saying "RFK Jr says they are facts, but none of it has been proved".. How about some examples of your point so we can go get the proof (if it's there)? That is, there is an assertion that 80,000 votes were flipped from Kerry to Bush. You say "not real, never happened (as applied to ALL the facts presented)".. Yet, I've not seen/heard anyone refuting that number in any of the debates (I've not watched this one, or the MSNBC one.. but on CNN, the "Repug talking head" kept on about registration problems and never countered the 80,000 figure despite it's being mentioned 3 times (or more).. explain that to me).

Republicans paid millions in defense of a guy that was involved in "phone jamming" in 2002.. and now they put the CONVICTED CRIMINAL who's conviction deals with election manipulation in charge of training election people for the Republican Party? Spin that!

There are many convictions in Ohio, some of which speak to "election fraud".. such as Triad admitting they "fixed the random sample" to ensure there was no recount. Are you saying their confession isn't a "real fact" that points to overall fraud? Why would they need to fix it so there's no recount?

You also keep saying "the irregularities effect all candidates".. but you don't say "equally".. and I doubt a scrubbing of the various incidents would bear out anything even close to "equally". It's a distraction to try and raise doubts.

I must say, you're the most professional troll we've seen here in a long time. But your saying it's so doesn't make it so. Back up your allegations, otherwise you're just spewing hot air.. You say "none of his facts have been proven", yet you don't cite anyone that is countering the "facts".. but people (read: the Repug talking heads and spin machine) keep trying to drag this back to "Jive turkey and Freddie Kruger were on the rolls!!".. and without citing any proof.

Spin Spin Spin!!! weeeeeEEEEEEEEEEE! Getting dizzy now!!!... weeeeeEEEEEEEEE *puke*

The only partisanship I see is from those defending the use of insecure, unreliable, inauditable, faulty, poorly manufactured, expensive electronic voting machines in our elections.

"Back to logical fallacies now:

If a Dem candidate wins in 2008, will you care that there were some anomalies?

Partisanship drives this issue..."

So you want to support some kind of accusation of partisanship based on "false logic" using false logic? NICE!

The only thing you mentioned that had (potentially) any merit is that if the Dems had "won" in 2000 and 2004, this site might not be what it is today. However, according to the Exit Polls, and forgiving Florida in 2000, the Dems DID WIN. Which is WHY this site is here.. right?

For your last bit (above).. If the Dems win in 2004 and there are hundreds to thousands of complaints of "problems", and witnesses and documentation to back them up, I'd guess THIS SITE will still be here, and we'll still be screaming about the HACKABLE MACHINES that have no REAL AUDIT TRAIL..

You've obviously missed all the posts where most people here want to see the corrupt Dems put in jail too.. Not that I'd expect a paid/professional troll, which you seem to be, to have actually been following this blog (or any blog, for that matter).

Savantster #19

Agreed that Buck B is a slicker slick than usual. But still lame.

Lets see what he thinks of the science of exit polls.

Exit poll science provides tools that have been used for decades successfully. Accurate predictions are the legacy of these tools.

The 2000 and 2004 official election results were at odds with the exit poll predictions.

Those doing the polls, Edison/Mitofsky, like trolls, were of the popular mindset "it can't happen here".

This mindset is not prepared to entertain any notion of election fraud as the reason for the massive first time discrepancies.

They instead offered the explanation that "republicans were more shy than democrats" and that is why the massive discrepancy. They did not even consider vote fraud, like Buck the Troll, but demand a debate without this fundamental consideration.

A study done by 8 Phd's and one MS pointed this out and that fraud must not be ruled out (link here). They said:

"3. Inaccurate Election Results [fraud]

Edison/Mitofsky did not even consider this hypothesis, and thus made no effort to contradict it. Some of Edison/Mitofsky's exit poll data may be construed as affirmative evidence for inaccurate election results. We conclude that the hypothesis that the voters’ intent was not accurately recorded or counted [fraud]cannot be ruled out and needs further investigation" (ibid. at page 3, bold and "[fraud]" added).

Other experts have said: "Flaws in any of these aspects of a voting system, however, can lead to indecisive or incorrect election results" (link here).

Edison/Mitofsky and the MSM, who used the data, can't bear to even consider that America could be corrupted in its election processes. A position entirely at odds with common sense and scientific inquiry.

In response to Savantster:

• “Buck B, you do a very good job of Trolling here.. Much more articulate than the regular trolls we get.”

I am not trolling by any means.

Yes, I am new to Bradblog, but I hardly ever comment on sites like these. I have my regular message boards that usually take of most of my time. I have been on Msg Brds for a long time, and I am over the “usual suspect” terms that get thrown around. They do not bother me, nor do they incite me in any way.

I also show respect for all sides of the political spectrum. I do not use “buzz” words, and I always seek both sides of the story before I make my own conclusions. That is how I come across sites like this. I research allegations before I hold them as truth.

• “However, you keep saying "RFK Jr says they are facts, but none of it has been proved".. How about some examples of your point so we can go get the proof (if it's there)?”

IF you watch the clip, RFK says that they are not proven.

• “Republicans paid millions in defense of a guy that was involved in "phone jamming" in 2002.. and now they put the CONVICTED CRIMINAL who's conviction deals with election manipulation in charge of training election people for the Republican Party? Spin that!”

I try to refrain from spinning, but I can give you some examples of Democrat electrion fraud that resulted in prison sentences for some Dem officials.

Look into Shiela Thomas and Kevin Ellis. They are from the St. Louis area. Those two and 14 other Dems were convicted of vote fraud. There is even one Dem being held for murder charges. He killed a witness in one of the cases.

I usually try to mention that this voter fraud issue is in no way limited to the Republican Party. There are many examples of abuse from both sides.

• “There are many convictions in Ohio, some of which speak to "election fraud".. such as Triad admitting they "fixed the random sample" to ensure there was no recount. Are you saying their confession isn't a "real fact" that points to overall fraud? Why would they need to fix it so there's no recount? “

There was a recount in Ohio in 2004.

• “You also keep saying "the irregularities effect all candidates".. but you don't say "equally".. and I doubt a scrubbing of the various incidents would bear out anything even close to "equally". It's a distraction to try and raise doubts.”

Some people don’t even mention that they affected other candidates at all. They let the assumption ride that they were either taken from kerry or given to Bush. This is the inherent problem with letting machines do this job. It is only be a source of controversy.

• “I must say, you're the most professional troll we've seen here in a long time. But your saying it's so doesn't make it so. Back up your allegations, otherwise you're just spewing hot air.. You say "none of his facts have been proven", yet you don't cite anyone that is countering the "facts".. but people (read: the Repug talking heads and spin machine) keep trying to drag this back to "Jive turkey and Freddie Kruger were on the rolls!!".. and without citing any proof.”

I don’t have allegations. I have statements that show that election fraud was not proven by anyone. I will concede the point that just because it was not proven does not mean it didn’t happened (I could say that about anything though).

The burden of proof is upon the people who support a stolen election theory to prove, and thus far, it has not been proven.

If there was proof of a stolen election there would consequences for the parties involved. From the evidence I have seen, I cannot support a stolen election theory. I would not stand for a stolen election, I don’t care who the candidate was. I am not the largest fan of Bush either. I am pretty moderate when it comes to political issues.

Also about the logical fallacy issue:

I was making a point that they are not good examples to use in a debate…

About missing the posts about wanting Dems in jail too:

Good, then we are all on the same page. I just seem to notice an air of "hate Bush" and "only Repugs" when it comes to discussing this voter reform issue.

I want fair voting too, but I also want accurate representation of the problem.

Buck B, #13 --- you've made well-reasoned points in your comments, but it would appear that you haven't actually read the RFK article that details the 'evidence' you 'haven't seen', or the copious, solid, resourced and verified evidence on this very site. did you even look?

because it would not seem so, based on your comments.

you say that partisanship drives this issue. in one sense, i would say DUH, of course it does. the unethical mechanisms to disenfranchise voters are now being institutionalized and codified into law, in ever state in the union. it should be a huge issue, and a no-brainer! what would you have the disenfranchised, and those who give a damn, do? say 'thank you sir, may i please have another?"

we'll never know what non-Republicans would have done if the situation had been reversed, because it is the Republicans who initiated, perpetrated, and perpetuate this unethical and un-American activity, it is Republicanswho are trying to institutionalize and codify this hi-tech disenfranchisement into law.

as a long-time participant on this blog, i can guaran-damn-tee you that the community here would be first in line to call for the ouster of anyone who f*cks with the integrity of our elections or the right of any eligible American citizen to vote. wait, let me re-phrase that: the folks here would actively work for the ouster of any and all who would seek to undermine the honesty and integrity of our great nation.

remove the partisan plank from your own eye efore laying it on another, and let's get to work to stop this crap from further poisoning our elections.

"I try to refrain from spinning, but I can give you some examples of Democrat electrion fraud that resulted in prison sentences for some Dem officials."

Were any of them then hired by the Democratic party to train Democrats how to 'work elections', and were their defenses paid by the Democratic party? Note: even if the answers are "yes", then we're also agreed that the Dems are doing the same kind of illegal and immoral bullshit that Pugs do. And, I don't approve of it (from either party.. and I'd guess most here don't).. But, at the end of the day, it would seem (to me) that the -vast majority- of "illegal and immoral" activites occurs with Republicans. They are "business minded", and in business, profits are all that matter.. so it stands to reason that people who value profits (gain, green, power) over all else will comit more bad acts to get there.

I also think one of the big things to keep in mind is, we (at this site) generally want "all corruption out".. and while I keep hearing "the right wing" making accusations of "Dems doing bad things", I don't normally find support of those allegations. At the end of the day, politicians are politicians, and in my estimation, mostly corrupt. However, the Dems -tend- to pass laws that "help people", and Repugs tend to pass laws that "help business" (or are just based in religion and not reason). I can't respect anyone that supports business and profits over human life. Therefore, I can't have any respect for 99% of all Repugs out there.

"The burden of proof is upon the people who support a stolen election theory to prove, and thus far, it has not been proven."

2 things.. First, something is "proved" when rational people accept that the facts leave no other explination. Therefore, when there are "facts" out there that "point to a certian action", we need to fully investigate before we can "prove or disprove" something. To date, the issue of a "stolen election" hasn't been "fully investigated" by the authorities. Nor have all the "facts" (many of which are not in dispute) been found or dismissed. There are "facts" that show that Blackwell prevented the dissemination of machines to "Democratic leaning districts". That is not in dispute (to the best of my knowledge).. You add "many facts" up that are related, and you get a picture.. that "picture" is the "proof".. yet, we aren't getting a painter to step up to the canvas (the authorities aren't properly or fully investigating this).

Secondly, do you believ in god? Are you a religious man? I've found that almost every Repug I've come across is.. and they tout "fact" as their basis of political affiliation.. yet there are no "facts" that prove god, and in fact, there are many "facts" that show modern christianity is a joke of a religion made up of a hodgepodge of many other ancient religions. Seems contradictory to me.

And I'll ask this again. There were 80,000 votes "shifted" from Kerry to Bush, according to Kennedy. From what I've seen/heard, he doesn't say "it hasn't been proved they were shifted".. he says "80,000 votes were shifted from Kerry to Bush in 12 rural prcincts". Where is the argument/proof that that "fact" is wrong? And, failing that, the "fact" is, it's a 160,000 vote total in the opposite direction, and since Bush won by just over 100,000 votes (total), that means that that one "mistake" (over 12 pricincts) shows Bush is not the President, but Kerry is. If the 80,000 shifted votes is in dispute as "fact", why aren't any of the talking heads even touching the subject? Why is the conversation shifted in a different direction?

"what happened in Illinois in 1960 was wrong"

This is the Great Canard. No one ever discusses all the votes that Nixon stole --- gee, I wonder why.

But I will fulfill this demand for Dem admission:

LBJ apparently stole every election he ever won. He took the country to an evil war to make his Brown & Root backers a ton of money. I despise LBJ, and what he did was wrong.

There, happy? The Vietnam war was a for-profit exercise, and LBJ should not have been allowed to steal all those elections.

Now let's make the comparison: Ohio, 2004 was like Texas in 1948, the year that LBJ first went to the Senate. After taking power in this illegal manner, LBJ went on stealing elections, and then took the country to a genocidal war, which profited his backers enormously.

GWB has done exactly the same thing, and it is exactly as disgusting.

JFK, however, saved the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis --- GWB would have blown the top of the earth off.

*Please make a note of it.*

What's more, unlike LBJ, who lived during a time of massive vote-fraud of the old kind, we have GWB and his cronies stuck to the flypaper of their crimes. I'm sure you'll join us in fighting for THEIR convictions, as they always claim to be doing.

Soul Rebel: That's called "projection", though, when you don't address an issue, by saying, "well the Democrats stole the 1960 election." That's the only way they'll talk about it, if Dems stealing an election is also brought up. It's like these nutcake rightwingers, who say "Clinton did this and that", when Bush broke some law. It's called "projection".

IE: They're saying, the only way we will address Bush stealing an election, is if you first talk about JFK stealing the 1960 election. That's our terms, for even allowing you on TV. We will not talk about the subjects YOU want to talk about, without bringing up something else WE want to say to make you look bad.

Remember when NSA spying first came out? They said Clinton and Carter did it, too. The first thing they said. Then it turned out not to be true.

Buck, you seem like a reasonable guy, and you don't seem to be a true troll. i welcome your comments, because it is important, useful and necessary to see where the evidence has failed to convince, or the message has not gone out sufficiently, or any other perceived weaknesses may be.

i sincerely hope that you will read further and be able to sift the facts from the spin, and separate the verified documentation from the canards and myths. 'partisanship' is a red herring when it comes to concrete facts of illegal and unethical behavior. we must all work to dispel the myths and spread the facts. our elections are too important.

by the way, a recount in Ohio '04 did occur, as you correctly note. what you may not realize is that the recount itself was fixed, and the story is detailed here and elsewhere in the MSM, and three OH elections officials (so far) have been indicted on criminal charges for conducting said recount illegally and unethically. i believe that was the point the commenter was making --- that that illegal, dishonest OH "recount" was a 'recount' in name only.

Oh, and I just want to say:

"Ohio Revised Code § 2901.13. Limitation of criminal prosecutions.

(A) (1) Except as provided in division (A)(2) or (3) of this section or as otherwise provided in this section, a prosecution shall be barred unless it is commenced within the following periods after an offense is committed:
s commenced within the following periods after an offense is committed:

(a) For a felony, six years;"

WE HAVE UNTIL 2010 TO INDICT KATHERINE BLACKWELL.

Send out the dogs.

Is there a place online that lists RFK's appearance schedule?

Actually, Des, I seem to have been mistaken in what I thought was the Triad issue. I thought the "random sampling" was fixed to avoid having a "real recount". That is, after an election you have "random samples" of some pricincts where the tallies are verfied (I don't call that a "recount", I call that verification). Several precincts were looked over, and only those with "tallies" very close to the "reported counts" were "used in the random sample".. That is, there was no "random sample", there was a "fixed verification"..

At least, that's what I understood it to be. This "Triad" thing might not be what I thought it was, or I may well have been mistaken on what the details are with the "fixed the random samples to avoid a recount".. Or we might be simply bantering around semantics.. I'm not sure... I shall look up the "fixed sample" article and see which it is

As for Buck being a 'true troll,' he has used a very selective method of LYING. Does that make him a 'true troll'. Maybe not. But the behavior of Katherine Blackwell doesn't make him a 'true' Secretary of State --- which is slightly more important. He's a CRIMINAL.

We did NOT get a fair and legal recount of Ohio. We paid $125,000 and got Triad Systems rigging the recount. We got Blackwell refusing to follow the law during the recount.

"Problems with the recount included a lack of security for the ballots and voting machines-including allegations of interference with voting machines by representatives of the Diebold and Triad corporations — and the refusal of some counties to do a full hand recount when Ohio law required them to do so. One of the most significant problems with the recount was that few of Ohio's 88 counties randomly selected sample precincts for the recount as is required by state law." http://www.iwantmyvote.c...005/feb/pr2005-02-08.php

Gee, you know what, Buck? Legal recounts require actually randomized recounting. Failing to randomize a recount is otherwise known as VOTE-FRAUD. It's a felony. Blackwell is guilty of multiple felonies, not least of which is CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE STATE OF OHIO AND ITS VOTERS.

Buck B,

I get what you mean by the fact that I shouldn't placate the Repub's with the idea of walking in the other guy's shoes. Simply put, by your logic, "those worn out shoes don't belong to me so why would I think that they might even fit?

SHALLOW, SHALLOW MAN.

The point is this;
~ Corruption exists in the election process.
~ A corrupt election process leads to corrupted results
~ Proof of said corrupt election process has lead to a majority party that has seen far too many of their leaders, later end up having to resign their position to none other than reasons stemming from corrupt business tactics. Some, in direct coloration to the election process in question. Others due to money laundering through their political state party, and some through the Federal GOP itself. I'm sure that there are more to come.

IF THIS IS A-O.K. BUSINESS AS USUAL, then you are no different than a Tony Soprano, a mobster.

Since it is you that wishes to choose a side, have you sided with the tried and true GOP tactics of illegitimate, illegal business practices that tend to result in a one way ticket, do not collect $200, go to straight to jail pass? Because your seemingly defense of the Party line leads one to get the impression that fraudulent elections are a good thing.

AGAIN, I WOULD SAY TO YOU, at what point is it no longer a good thing? When it is your party that has been shut out? Too bad, so sad, that you do not support the "OTHER" guy. After all, your worn out shoes don't fit.

Ok there was a lot asked of me since my last post, and a lot said about me.

My initial response to this article was the fact that it was a little sensationalized on the part of the author and his assessment of the debate.

I can try to answer a lot of the inquiries about what I had posted. Might have to wait till tomorrow morn though. I am making a loft bed for a friend so that takes up my late afternoons lately.

Real quick though I would like to highlight that comment about me being a liar.

I can understand that someone might know more about the situation than me. Maybe I have not seen some of the proof that this actually happened. So it would seem I am operating with what knowledge I have of the situation. If that information is wrong, then I could admit that.

Does that make me a liar? No. Does it make me uninformed? Maybe...

I have no problems discussing these issues, even amongst the hash slinging. So I will be back around to hit up on some of my points that were questioned.

See you soon...

Buck B.. just to make some observations to counter some of yours about the main article..

-------------------------------------------------
"Neil Cavuto didn't give Robert Kennedy the chance to finish a thought or make a point. It was the same old hostile wingnut tactics of distractions, diversions, interruptions and unrelated questions."

From what I saw, RFK Jr. had ample time to make his point. I understood his stance and what he was saying.

I would like to address the comment "It was the same old hostile wingnut tactics of distractions, diversions, interruptions and unrelated questions"

The hostility was just not present. It was a very mild debate between two people who had plenty of time to make their case. There was also interruptions from both sides.

--------------------------------------------

The first 2 times I see something serious in the debate and it's just getting started.. Just near 1/4 of the way through, and we have 2 subversions.. First, the host brings up "Salon" and says "they say the numbers just don't add up".. and while RFK is trying to speak to the point, the host keeps talking over him, and changes the subject. Personally, I don't think that's being "non-hostile" in a "debate" context, and it certianly doesn't let RFK get his point out, or refute the allegation that "the numbers don't add up".. The second "disruption" is just after that when RFK says Conyers did an investigation, and the host says "A Democrat.. and that was refuted".. but then tramples RFK again..

Tell me again how "both sides get to make their point"? RFK talks, says something, then the host "says the opposite" or "dismisses it as partisan" without talking about the facts, then walks off? That's NOT debate, that's putting on the appearances of a debate and "calling your oponent a liar" (in effect) and then not letting them show why you're mistaken.

During the first 1/4 of the interview, I see RFK making several "points", only to have the "host" say "bullshit, but lets continue" without offering any "reasons" for calling bullshit.

Ah.. then it comes back to Salon once the host quotes numbers from there, and Kennedy says "it's been debunked".. So, of course, now that the host said "Salon said your numbers don't add up", then, after a change of subject comes back to it (without saying where the numbers are coming from, implying it was the Conyer's investigation that had the numbers for absentee ballots..) and Kennedy says the numbers have been shown to be wrong?

Ok.. so, who's right? and if the numbers/article from Salon has been "debunked", why did it become part of the topic with the Host? and why did the host "accept that it was debunked" in effect by moving on to the "turned away" voters? (watching that now, I'll give you my assesment of that as well.. but I have to tell ya.. I heard the Kennedy assesment was 174,000, but the host says "it was only 129,000" or 130,000.. and we're talking about a Bush win of 100,000 or so.. keep that in mind.. that might or might not have been the "bit".. and now we'll never know)

Hmm.. so Salon says "the turned away voters were 1/2 and 1/2".. how the hell would you know that? You'd have to have them vote to now, or be in a VERY split distrcit.. I'd guess the accusation of "most of them were Kerry voters" is based on it being a typically Democratic pricinct.. I guess we'll never know.. Though, maybe we'll just say ALL elections would be about 50-50.. so why not just flip a coin?

Just past 1/3 and RFK saying "it can't be 'proved' " is a logical point... because the only "definitive proof" would be to count .. *drum roll* BALLOTS.. which don't exist in a lot of places because the machines DO NOT HAVE BALLOTS TO COUNT.. From what I see, Kennedy is SAYING that we'll never have a "smoking gun" because the system doesn't have guns anymore.. but he's showing that there is a HUGE amount of "circumstantial evidence" to support it was stolen.. 22 court cases (most of them won) -against- Blackwell? Hello?

"Why can't you turn it around and say 'Kerry botched it' " ??? Um, he said that WHILE Kerry was PROVING that Blackwell "disenfranchised Democratic voters".. Did you notice that? The host trys to turn it into "sour grapes" WHILE the statement of "Blackwell did it intentionally" is being made. Fair? Balanced? Able to get his point out? /sigh

Gotta love this too.. "Is there any point in pointing out that the pResident is illegally sitting in the office"??? And you don't think this was an attempt to spin the shit out of this? "Time of war"?? Uh, we're not at war, ask Congress. They did NOT authorize war, therefore we're not at war. This is a "military action", not a "war". Congress specifically avoided (and debated about) going to WAR. Can't you agree that this is SPIN and not a "fair debate"? They aren't discussing "facts", the host is trying his damndest to minimize the entire thing, culminating in "what's the point?"..

THE POINT IS, WE NEED TO FIX OUR FUCKED UP SYSTEM.. but you can't get people to understand that if you don't show how an election was stolen or how the fucked up system is thwarting the will of the people, right? And FOX is trying to SUBVERT the attempt to fix the system.. I call that "hostile", since there's no "real" debate, just spin and attempts to minimize the situation.

LOL.. just got to the bit where he tries to discredit the entire family, and make it look like everyone in a family is guilty of the crimes of their ancestors.. What a joke! And the SAME people say "you can't blame Osama bin Ladden's family! they deserved to be flown out on Sept. 11, 2001!!".. *snif* can ya smell the hypocricy!?!

Then the fucker has the nerve, after asking "do you think it was stolen in '60" to say "I don't want to get into that"???? Na, he's not trying to sway the right-wing to dismiss Kennedy over his opinion of an election from 44 years ago.. SHEESH!

Ok, I'm done commenting on the clip.. I'm just gonna watch the rest in disbelief that ANYONE who's being objective can try to say "they both had their say, it was fair ".. What crap. It was typical FOX bullshit and an attempt to shoot down this story.

This tells me that the Repukes are SCARED and doing their damndest to shut this down. The MSM FINALLY starts talking about it, and all they can do is cite debunked reports from Salon, and bring up 40 year old elections and question someone's integrity based on their family?

And he closes the interview with "we just disagree on this one little thing".. yeah... little..

and from the way he ran his interview, he's not looking to get facts, he's looking to hold on to his screwed up opinion no matter what.. in true Repug form..

Buck,

You make the implication that if a dem wins in 2008 (or had been recognized as the winner in 2004/2000) that Brad and others here wouldn't be concerned about election fraud.

You're completely wrong. However, implying such a thing is a direct insight into how YOU thinik. Clearly YOU would be all up in arms if a dem had won, but its 'ok' with you if a Repub wins under fraudulent circumstances.

This is a non-partisan issue. It goes back to the constitution and very structure of this country from before the time that political parties were even formed. The fundamental thing about america is the democratic process. If we lose that process, we fail to be americans.

I don't care WHO wins in 2008 (or 2006), I want to be sure that they win FAIRLY with an election which wasn't rigged and which can be verified with a non-faked paper trail.

Actually Independent, I was saying that after someone had used a logical fallacy about how Republicans might care more about voter fraud if a Dem had won in 2000/04.

I was showing how logical fallacies are not good ways to argue a point. I think that is the second time someone has pointed out the example I used to show another member why they are not good techniques in a debate.

I explained that I would not be up in arms anymore than I am now with this issue.

Once again this was all explained above if people would really read my posts.

So, by you saying "However, implying such a thing is a direct insight into how YOU think." you should actually be referring to Max 1. He was the one I had responded to about that.

One more time for assurance:

They were given as examples of why I think logical fallacies are a bad debate technique...

Kennedy sure has balls. He knew exactly what would happen when he entered the fray (hell we all knew) and he's staying in there taking the hits and swinging right back at them. Pretty impressive.

buck--
If you didn't see cavuto constantly interrupting, you're blind. This interview was absurd. Cavuto's points were absurd:
"Why bring it up now?"
Because it's critically important. Because our voting process is supposedly the cornerstone of our democracy.
Bringing up the theoretical question of
"Would you guys object if it were done by democrats?" nicely misses the point by a mile: the point being that it is being done NOW by republicans. The relevant question is "Why aren't YOU GUYS stepping up to the plate & saying "This is wrong."
Answer: Because you know perfectly well it's wrong, but since it resulted in your guy "winning" you don't give a rat's ass.

I would venture a guess that you haven't read the Conyers report, the Freeman report, Palast's books, Miller's books or the copious amount of material on Bradblog and on the BlackBoxVoting site.

No one is "bringing proof", buck, as I'm sure you're aware, for a number of reasons. Among them:
the machines are vulnerable to tampering without a trace being left (see Harris/Dean video);
some of the manipulation was done behind locked doors (see the fake "terrorist threat" ruse);
the manipulations were many, varied & unexpected in regard to the depths of illegality to which the perpetrators were willing to stoop (we knew they were crooked, we just didn't realize how unashamedly, unconscionably crooked);
That's just the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
But the most obvious reason is that proof is traditionally found AFTER crimes are investigated, not before. And it is extremely telling that AS SOON AS the election was over & some of us began to get vocal about the fact that it smelled, the IMMEDIATE response was ridicule, vilification and indignant cries of "Where's the PROOF?!"
Since, sadly for this country, we are still at the stage where we are begging people like our so-called "leaders" in congress to LOOK at the boatload of evidence that leads any rational person to the conclusion that our electoral system has been criminally compromised and begin a serious investigation of it--instead of focusing on idiotic & insultingly stupid non-issues like gay marriage & flag-burning--the elusive "proof" is not likely to materialize any time soon.

For every sin, spin, spin, spin,
There is a reason, spin, spin, spin,
And a time to welcome Buck B all together...

Well done, Brad - you're attracting the high-priced shills. Methinks he protest too much...

Like the phony paid protestors in florida 2000, Buck is probably paid by Bush to do this. He can read. If he doesn't understand he either doesn't want to or is beyond our help. Its pretty clear unless he just hasn't read RFK's article or many of the posts on this site.

Q. How can you verify a stolen election with no paper trail.

Q. Why are the republicans stopping democrat legislation to make paper trails mandatory.

Q. Why has Jeb Bush made it law in florida that machine counted votes are not alowed to be re-counted by hand.

ANSWER - So that it is impossible to verify the results of stolen elections.

GET IT YET.

Fie on Bucky B & Paul Whatever.
They're here to try & CREATE DOUBT re Kennedy's message & thereby win the perception war that this is not fact but opinion. They only show up for special emergencies like this where truth got out.
Shame on you both.
Your job is to make a patriot look like a liar. Your families must be proud....

It IS encouraging to know that the right believes this story is so damning to their cause that they're out in full force for damage control!

TESTING