Be Wary of Liberals Bearing Bloggs
By Leo Johnson
To all the honest bloggers out there, take note youre under attack and your beloved blogger-shpere will be hijacked by the leftist/liberal/socialist agenda
I will offer to you, a list of opinions on why I believe that is about to occur, (for the liberally impaired, please note: opinions are not facts).
Im well aware that bloggers come in all shapes, sizes and flavors; I (personally) thank God and the framers of the Constitution for that.
On the other hand Leftist/Socialist have to thank Darwin, The DNC, Madonna (no silly, the singer), Al Franklyn, little g god, MTV, Mother Nature, PETA, The NY Times, Random chance, The CBS news and of course the holiest of all holies, the one and only true god that all leftist/liberal/socialist pray to, the ACLU [pronounced AK-Loo] (holy music should play here)
Personally, I like the shorter route of; God and Country Ok, ok I know Im way out there in bias-opinion land but I just had to take that tangent, Ill get back to the point at hand.
I know some of you are already upset with me, but please let me offer some facts to bolster my OPINION. Before I start, I know that throwing facts at a liberal is much like throwing holy water at a vampire, both will get you bulging eyes and forming mouths along with a barrage of profanity and mostly un-intelligible comments. But no matter, here it goes
Fact: Bloggers where widely credited for exposing the CBS memo-gate debacle, and along with that, came the 1st resounding ring to the end of the old medias strangle hold on the news we digest. (Thank you bloggers everywhere)
Fact: That recognition has also brought along bandwagon jumping, fair weather, politically motivated old-media types jumping into the fray attempting to cash-in on that recognition.
Opinion: That cash-in may not be in money but in trying to mold the new media into a clone of the old media, thus maintaining control (I know Im on tangent again But I had to close in on that point)
Fact: Bloggers have already been used by the leftist/liberal/socialist groups. Case and point back before the election bloggers throughout the country where posting articles claming plots and plan for the return of the draft. The whole concept of the draft returning was a ploy used by the Democratic Party. They used bloggers and it worked! Now dont take my word for it look for yourself in this New York Times article (yes I did say New York Times);
October 6, 2004
Bill to Restore the Draft Is Defeated in the House
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Trying to quiet fears of a return of the draft, the House Republican leadership engaged in a hasty call-up of its own on Tuesday. The Republicans brought to the floor a Democratic-sponsored proposal to reinstate mandatory military service and presided over its overwhelming defeat on a vote of 402 to 2.
"We're going to put a nail in that coffin," said the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas. He accused Democrats of generating opposition to President Bush - especially on college campuses - by raising the idea that the draft might be re-established after the November election to provide troops for service in Iraq.
Democrats were outraged at the tactic, charging Republicans with a cynical political ploy on a matter that merited more thoughtful hearings and debate. The Democrats originally
introduced the measure early last year as a way to protest the war, even before it began, and to spotlight how low- and middle-income Americans shoulder much of the burden of serving in the military.
"It is a prostitution of the legislative process to take a serious issue and use it for political purposes on the eve of the election just to say they are against the draft," said Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, the author of the bill, who ended up voting against it.
With the military strained by its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, talk of a return of the draft - discontinued in 1973 during the Vietnam War - has persisted, fueled by e-mail and Internet chatter warning of a new draft once the election is concluded. The activist group Rock the Vote, which seeks to register young Americans to vote, has also broadcast public service announcements pointing to the draft as an important campaign issue.
Members of Congress are regularly asked about the idea as well, often by worried parents.
"This is the issue that will not go away," said Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington. He and other Democrats suggested again on Tuesday that Mr. Bush's re-election could mean a return of the draft, because the administration is already calling back reservists and halting the discharge of military personnel. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, has referred to such moves as a backdoor draft.
"How big a step is it from where we are right now to the president saying it is the national interest that everyone serves?" asked Mr. McDermott.
Republicans portrayed such claims as part of a pre-election fraud. "The reason we are doing this is to expose the hoax of the year, which has been needlessly scaring young people," said Representative Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Administration officials including Mr. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have said they have absolutely no plans to restore the draft and believe that the all-volunteer military is the proper way to field troops. Both of them have reiterated that position in recent days.
"We will not have a draft so long as I'm the president of the United States," Mr. Bush said to applause from a crowd in Iowa on Monday.
"We do not need a draft," Mr. Rumsfeld said during a radio interview with Sean Hannity. "We've got, you know, 295 million people in this country and we have an active force of about 1.4 million and we are having no trouble at all attracting and retaining the people that we need to serve in the Armed Forces."
Some Democrats said it was the administration's loss of credibility due to the failure to find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and its mishandling of the aftermath that was to blame for worry about the draft. "The president's foreign policy is scaring the kids of this country," said Representative Tim Ryan, Democrat of Ohio.
The Internet traffic on the draft often cites as evidence of a future draft the measure sponsored by Mr. Rangel, which would require two years of military service or the alternative of national service, as well as its companion in the Senate sponsored by Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina.
The issue has also gotten an airing from Rock the Vote. Officials of the group have said the draft is a subject that should be addressed in detail by the presidential contenders. "We are not saying there is going to be a draft," said Jay Strell, a spokesman for the group. "What we are saying is we need to have an open an honest dialogue about this based on the facts."
With lawmakers acutely aware of the potential political ramifications of backing a draft, the Rangel measure languished without much attention until the Republican leadership decided to force it to the floor to make a political point.
One lawmaker spoke in favor of the bill, saying it was time Congress gave some thought to future military manpower needs.
"I believe we have to start looking at this right now," said Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democrat on military issues. He was joined in backing the bill by Representative Fortney Stark, Democrat of California.
Senate officials said they had no intention of acting on a similar proposal, but the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle, said he doubted the House vote would put the matter to rest.
"I would expect you're going to continue to see debates about the viability of a draft as we move forward," Mr. Daschle said
Fact: Only two Congressmen voted for the draft and they were Dem-o-crates (the vote was 400 to 2). If you note, it was the Democrats that drafted the bill in the 1st place. It was the Democrats that raised the issue and it was the Democrats that leaked the whole thing to bloggers and it was Democrats that cried foul when the Republicans brought it to a vote in order to defeat it. Im sorry to say, but many bloggers got duped, plain and simple and with that success liberals see a fertile landscape for future plans.
Fact: Its happening again, the latest Leftist ploy is to spew out the crazy notion that the election was rigged on a nation wide level. Now I can see many of my leftist friends out there foaming at the mouth ready to pounce, but before you leftist get your Words of Wisdoms by fourteen olds book to quote from, let me make my case.
My friends and I have been posting and counter posting one another debating on that very subject. (Personally I think Im winning) in the following postings:
In the above posting Matthew and Joel cut and pasted an article by Larry Chin that laid out claims of a republican rigged election. (Good fiction I found it very entertaining) Heres a bit;
"They have been given millions of dollars by the Bush regime to complete a sweeping computerization of voting machines that were just used in the 2004 election. The technology involved had a trial run during the 2002 mid-term elections. Georgia had Diebold machines in every precinct. As a result, a popular Democratic governor and senator were both unseated in what the media called an "amazing" 16 percent swing.
"Diebold's Walden O'Dell, a top Bush fundraiser, publicly committed himself to delivering his home state Ohio's votes to Bush. At Diebold, the election division is run by Bob Urosevich. Bob's brother, Todd, is a top executive at "rival" ES&S. The brothers were originally staked by Howard Ahmanson, a member of the Council For National Policy, a right-wing steering group stacked with Bush true believers. Ahmanson is also one of the bagmen behind the extremist Christian Reconstruction Movement, which advocates the theocratic takeover of American democracy.
I refuted such claims with my posting (above) that in part said:
There is 3,007 entities named "County"
16 Boroughs in Alaska
11 Census Areas in Alaska (for areas not organized into Boroughs by the State)
64 Parishes in Louisiana
42 Independent Cities (1 in Maryland, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Nevada, and the remainder in Virginia)
1 District - the Federal District or District of Columbia.
Puerto Rico - 78 Municipios
U.S. Virgin Islands - 2 Districts
Guam - 19
Election Districts Northern Mariana Islands - 17
Districts American Samoa - 5 Districts
There are over 191,000 voting precincts.
(Source, USGS) http://interactive2.usgs...ry/get_answer.asp?id=785
Those numbers would translate into 3,261 Supervisors of Elections, plus that each supervisor would have employees (ranging from 6 to thousands, each) plus each voting district would have a canvassing board with a minimum of 3 people each (from both parties and or an "independent Judge"), each state would have a Secretary of State or comptroller to oversee the results before submitting them to the US federal governments plus each party has delegates to account for each electoral vote. Let alone the 191,000 voting precincts that each has poll workers and polling observers each. That would be by conservative averages involve a total of 2,194,570 co-conspirators. (That's 652,400 SOE employees + 13,044 canvassing board members + 50 Secretaries of State + 1,076 Delegates + 1,528,000 poll place workers and observers). Who would need rigged software? Just let the co-conspirators vote.
(Source, http://www.us.gov/ , my calculator and some common sense)
After some goading I got Joel to respond, but sadly it was yet another cut and paste, of Dr. Steven F. Freemans article from buzzflash.com. If youll take note: He keeps referring to buzz flash as his primary source. Heres an excerpt;
The Exit polls (which are used more and more in Democracies internationally to insure fair elections like in Ukraine) were consistently off in favor of Bush in Key state after key state on the night of election. Strangely enough, In "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Dr. Steven F. Freeman a Professor at the university of Pennsylvania says:
"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states [Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania] of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."
The odds of those exit poll statistical anomalies occurring by chance are, according to Freeman, "250,000,000 to one." That's 250 MILLION to ONE.
Read the full report at
Let me pause for a second I have to ask, what algorithm did the good Doctor use, to come up with the 250 million to one formula? I guess well never know, somehow the Doc failed to include or mention it.
I replied in the above post by demonstrating how a conspiracy in the other direction was more likely; (I wanted to play liberal that day)
But, on the other hand, to rig the exit polling it would only take a fraction of co-conspirators to pull it off. According to Edison/Mitofsky http://www.exit-poll.net/faq.html (the people that ran the poll) the exit polling was, in part, as follows;
How many polling places will be in your sample?
Sample sizes vary from state to state. There will be 1,480 exit poll precincts throughout the country. In addition, there will be 2,995 quick count precincts where the vote count will be collected. The vote count comes from the precinct voting officials after the polls
If I put 3 pollsters at each precinct, that would be 4440 pollsters (1480 x 3) and yet another hand full of technicians to do the quick count, but let's go wild and say that the techs aren't pollsters and it would take yet another 2000 more. That brings the total to, 6440 (4440+2000).
Now, let's take a look at the difference, 2,194,570 to 6440 that's 340 times smaller. Which group would be easier to handle? Oh by the way, the 6440 are employed by one PRIVATE company. The 2.2 million would cross over thousands of jurisdictions of varying political parties and bias.
Then Matthew pressed the CRTL-C key to cut and paste yet another article;
Cobb Sues Blackwell in Federal Court over Ohio Recount
I replied with more FACTS to refute Cobbs claims and I put Matthew, to task;
Why not try doing some research and stop just, cutting and pasting other people's articles.
I understand, the usefulness of cutting and pasting FACTS from various postings, but you're just using opinion and biased posting. Let me show you a better way...
You cut and pasted a paragraph or two from an article from the Green Party's website, http://www.votecobb.org/...004/dec/pr2004-12-02.php
Now you'd have to admit that it's a partisan view. But then again you're a liberal and you can bend common sense into liberal sense.
Now on the other hand, I went to the State of Ohio's Official election recount website http://election.sos.stat.../RaceDetail.aspx?race=PP
and got the following results. (Those are what we'd like to call FACTS)
President/Vice President Office Candidate Party Votes % of
Votes Statewide Totals
Bush, George W. Republican 2,858,727 50.82%
Kerry, John F. Democratic 2,739,952 48.70%
Badnarik, Michael 4,695 0.26%
Peroutka, Michael Anthony 11,907 0.21%
Cobb, David Keith -WI 186 0.00%
Schriner, Joe -WI 114 0.00%
Harris, James -WI 22 0.00%
Duncan, Richard A. -WI 16 0.00%
Zych, Thomas F. -WI 10 0.00%
Parker, John T. -WI 2 0.00%
Precincts Reporting: 5,625,631 100.00%
Please note that your "proof candidate" got a total of 186 votes and Kerry gained 17,708 votes. That's including counting the provisional ballots.
Joel then took over the cut and pasting job, (I think Matthews fingers got tired) and posted a short line or two that was mostly a link to;
I hope you still with me. I know the trail is a bit bewildering, but Im trying to establish a pattern here, no its not that Joel and Matthew are pretty good with the CTRL-C / CRTL-V keys... but youre close. Its the fact that they keep using postings from liberal biased BLOGGER sites, and presenting them as facts.
As it turns out, that link was to yet another left leaning website and I figured oh well Ill read it, (it was almost verbatim copy of an article posted on www.onlinejournal.com.) I became very interested when I came across this tidbit within that article;
(A link to a PDF that is on buzzflash.com, Yep you guessed a leftist web-log site).
As I read it, I was preparing my retort to dispel the whole notion that a conspiracy could be planned back in 2000, to rig a future election by using, yet to be created software on yet to be designed terminals in yet to be announced states using Microsofts Visual Basic as a cross platform program (grin). I had a smile on my faceIt was going to be an easy target. But then I came to the last two pages of this so called AFFIDAVIT. It was a flash back of CBSs Memos. The last page doesnt even come close to matching the other 3 pages the color of the paper was wrong the margins and the typeset didnt match. But this fraud was in reverse, it was the bloggers faking the documents!
Now heres the payoff, if we bloggers are to maintain or elevate our current status then we need to take a look at what we put out there and what our peers post and re-post. We need to make HONEST and RESPECTIVE commentary on the issues and if we can find facts to bolster our point of view then we should by all means use it.
All of us will sometimes find that we believe in an issue, a belief that goes right down to the core of our being, but we cant prove it as fact. Now here is where we need to be able to accept it for what it is, a belief or theory that is not yet a fact. We should feel free to express it as an opinion. A valued opinion, but still just an opinion
But for goodness sake, we can never consider the manufacturing of facts or promote the use of those tainted facts by posting them elsewhere.
For the Leftist Liberals themselves, they have yet a deeper problem. They need to take a look at their whole approach. Maybe they should look for REAL conspiracies going on right in front of them, like the UN Oil for Food program or those 500 Chinese Christians that are killed every day. But alias Liberals only like to search for, or create conspiracies that just happen to coincide with their leftist agenda.
I expect and hope for hardy responses to this posting, but mind you, look at the point of this article and the issue at hand and please use facts to support your response because in turn I will.
Ill leave you with this thought, many of you may disagree with my politics and outlook but hopefully none of you accept the concept Do anything to win no matter what. If we fall into that mind set, we wont be protectors of the New Media but instead well just be a bunch of Dan Rathers presiding over the New CBS.
Posted to Rizzn.com / Buzzflash.com and hopefully online journal.com
Source : https://bradblog.com/?p=1025.com3698