Wednesday, June 28, 2006


A conspiracy so vast...

A few weeks ago, I wrote a multipart series amounting to a detailed refutation of Farhad Manjoo's article in Salon on Election 2004 and the Bobby Kennedy article. I was as polite and balanced as one can be. Salon promptly mischaracterized what I said to invert its meaning. Well, whatever. I now regard Salon as infotainment. Buy it for the soft core porn, if that's your thing. It's not mine. Having my intelligence insulted isn't either. One of the big arguments that has always been made against the idea that the 2004 election might have been stolen is that it would require a massive conspiracy. Today, we learned from a report commissioned by The Brennan Center just how massive the conspiracy would have to be: it would require a gang ofone. I'll probably write to the senior authors of the study to point out that some of their assumptions on retail election theft are too rosy, but basically the meme has entered the mainstream: elections are not secure. In other words, you don't have to believe that this nation elected George W. Bush if you don't want to. And me, well... I don't.
Me, I've always effin' hated Salon. Bunch of creeps.
Back when Murray Waas and Mollie Dickenson mad regular appearances, I read Salon daily. But for years now, the only reason (besides Peter Daou and the War Room) to visit the place is Table Talk. I knew Salon was doomed as a serious news source when instead of dumping Joan Walsh, David Talbot turned over the keys to her.
Now can hate these guys, too. Their debunking of Kennedy's babble was much better. And from a Democratic source. Yay!
"Now can hate these guys, too." Erm, is that supposed to be English?
OK, so I left out a word. Oooooo, you must be right about everything then. Erm, yet again you all have been called out on another fallacy and again your "defense" has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter.
So explain how your link debunks Charles' post, John.

C'mon. We're waiting.

(crickets chirping)
Charles has a conspiracy theory.
He used RFK Jr's reporting to support his claim that the Ohio election was "stolen".
The link I provided not only deconstructs in a three part series that the RFK Jr. nonsense is nonsensical, but also seems to have fun doing it.
It's not surprising that you don't ever believe anything the "Right" has to say. But it's always amusing when your own wingnuts delegitimize your obscure findings... and then you cry about it.
C'mon, John. If you've got slam-dunk evidence to debunk the WP article Charles cited, please share it with us. This will be the second time I've asked you to do so. Will you finally pony up with facts in context, or will you just continue playing games as you always do?
John, you know, you're no longer welcome here.

It's not your ideas. I have friends and relatives who are lots wronger than you. They're just not juvenile, arrogant and narcisstic.

I read the post you reference long, long ago. Maybe when you figure out how to form a link, you'll actually be able to connect to it.

But this thread is about the Brennan Center Report. That report says that a single person could alter an election. The Washington Post headline read A single person could swing an election

If you want to discuss the Brennan Report, you may. If you're here to harass or disrupt, you'll find my patience isn't infinite.
PW, amazingly John can't even properly characterize what I did say.

I wrote a very long, nuanced piece, weighing what Manjoo said and weighing what RFK said. I found faults in both, but the faults in Manjoo are huge.

Now Mark Blumenthal has other criticisms of the RFK article. The overlap between my article and Blumenthal's is negligible. John hasn't read or understood anything. He's just flinging feces.
Indeed the post went to cite the Wp article. I have no evidence to refute it and acknowledge the possibility it suggests.
However, the post began with references to the RFK Jr. article. All I did was point out that it was disregarded quickly by a prestigous writer who hails from your side of the "aisle". It was disregarded by others as well but it would do me no good to point out things from sources you already believe to be suspect.

Aside from that, Charles, you are mean. It pains me to know of your faith and know of you. You might think about at least pretending to be polite. It is quite possible that you are diminishing what it means to be a Christian by being a jerk at the same time. You might consider the possibility that written words are just that. And what I've written could be perceived in speech as humorous or many other things that would not make me out to be the ass that you think I am. Correct me if I'm wrong. I know very well that you will.
Throwing religion in is yet another attempt at manipulation and distraction. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their stubbornness and hypocrisy and it was as a kindness. You've been behaving like a total ass, and the kindest thing anyone can do for you is tell you so.

Mark Blumenthal as "prestigious" ... it is to laugh. As for him being on my "side of the aisle," well... the people who admire him are Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, The Note, and Mickey Kaus.

The Brennan Center Report blew a huge hole in the defensive breastworks of those who want to claim that elections can't be stolen. This is a watershed moment.
You're right. I'm a twit who is just here to disrupt the thread. I don't care whether our elections are free and fair. I don't care about any of this complicated stuff you guys talk about, like law and economics. I just like to preen and prance.

I can't believe you've put up with me for this long, especially since I am a repeat offender.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder