[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
It’s that sweet accent!
[/QUOTE]
Palast is actually an American, but lives in the UK and works for the BBC. By his account, this is at least partly because BBC News is willing to report on American stories that American media persistently ignore, such as this one.
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
How did an English journalist end up with documents that can’t even be gotten by Congress with a subpoena?
[/QUOTE]
From the article, it appears that the emails were mistakenly sent to GeorgeWBush.com, a parody site, rather than to GeorgeWBush.org, the campaign site. Presumably, someone at .com handed them over to Palast.
I don’t understand why any American citizen, regardless of party affiliation, would NOT want Congress to look into this. It sounds as if there’s some evidence that people were attempting to tamper with voters’ rights. That’s profoundly not okay. Congress should investigate, see if there’s any credible evidence of wrongdoing, and tell us what they find out. Why would you object to that, Bricker or Shodan?
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Sounds like maybe the appropriate Congressional committee should buy a few copies, to reach their own conclusion about there’s anything worth investigating.
[/QUOTE]
Good point, and fine by me.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Note to Shodan: Dan Rather wasn’t running for President, and wasn’t a deserter. *He * didn’t matter. Bush was, and did.
[/QUOTE]
Really? Since he was a deserter, he must have been dishonorably discharged, right? That’s what they do with deserters (unless they shoot them or send them to prison or something).
So now all we need is a cite that Bush was dishonorably discharged.
Of course, if we don’t, then we will know that you are a liar, just like Dan Rather.
So, let’s do see what Cecil has to say -
So I guess you are a liar after all.
Imagine that.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Aholibah]
Congress should investigate, see if there’s any credible evidence of wrongdoing, and tell us what they find out. Why would you object to that, Bricker or Shodan?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t object to that.
I object to the usual BrainGlutton method of posting a biased accusation or a one-sided source, and asking, wide-eyed, what we should so in response.
Indeed, when I did the same thing:
You immediately infer that I am making a statement, when in fact I’m asking two questions.
And well you should infer that I’m making a statement, because, despite the technique, I am obviously suggesting something, much in the same way the OP is. His passive-aggressive method of asking innocent questions was beginning to piss me off, so I thought I’d return the technique and see how it played.
Shodan – don’t waste your time. ElvisL1ves has zero interest in the truth. He will simply repeat, over and over, the claims he’s made, like a mantra. It does no good to rebut them. They simply rise again, like the phoenix, in the next thread. It’s a matter of ElvisL1ves orthodoxy (which I distinguish from honest liberal orthodoxy, mind you, with the simple tactic of the word ‘honest’ - liberal orthodoxy has honest claims and honest adherents) to claim that Bush deserted. The honest rhetor can certainly find some support for that claim, but would acknowledge at the end of the day that while there is evidence for it, it’s not proven to the level of certainty of a crime, or even a civil claim. The dishonest rhetor never acknowledges the fact that there is doubt or lack of certainty in his claims; he simply repeats them, again and again.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
His passive-aggressive method of asking innocent questions was beginning to piss me off, so I thought I’d return the technique and see how it played.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Really? Since he was a deserter, he must have been dishonorably discharged, right? That’s what they do with deserters (unless they shoot them or send them to prison or something).
So now all we need is a cite that Bush was dishonorably discharged…
[/quote]
By that “reasoning”, ObL is not a terrorist, having not been tried and found guilty. Neither was Jack the Ripper a murderer. Feh!, as they way in Lubbock.
Being rather fond of Elvish, I take exception. Yes, he is an excitable boy, a partisan. But he exaggerates the truth, a concept I have no confidence that you are familiar with.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
That word, it does not mean what you think it does.
[/QUOTE]
I think it means exactly what he says. Just because passive-aggressive personality disorder is defined X way does not mean the term doesn’t have other connotations.
It’s like calling someone “obsessive compulsive” and then having a psychologist explain to you that the person does not actually suffer from OC disorder or OC personality–which is totally irrelevant because the term obsessive compulsive (just like passive-aggressive) has a very widely accepted meaning outside the one supported by clinicians.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
By that “reasoning”, ObL is not a terrorist, having not been tried and found guilty. Neither was Jack the Ripper a murderer. Feh!, as they way in Lubbock.
[/quote]
Terrorist isn’t strictly linked to being convicted to a crime. Lots of people are labeled terrorist who have never been convicted of acts of terrorism. However, in the U.S. there’s a very easy system to label who is and is not a deserter. If someone hasn’t been convicted of the crime of desertion, then that suggests no sufficient evidence existed to bring up such a charge, which means the factual conclusion is said person did not desert.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t object to that.
I object to the usual BrainGlutton method of posting a biased accusation or a one-sided source, and asking, wide-eyed, what we should so in response.
Indeed, when I did the same thing … <quote snipped> … You immediately infer that I am making a statement, when in fact I’m asking two questions.
And well you should infer that I’m making a statement, because, despite the technique, I am obviously suggesting something, much in the same way the OP is. His passive-aggressive method of asking innocent questions was beginning to piss me off, so I thought I’d return the technique and see how it played.
[/QUOTE]
Huh. Well, I don’t spend a ton of time in GD, so I didn’t read BrainGlutton’s OP as anything but straightforward – “Here’s a link to a rather alarming story about vote tampering. {excerpt} Should the Judiciary Committee investigate this? Can the use of caging lists ever be legitimate?” This seemed like a reasonable way to kick off a discussion in this forum, and I would have been interested to read such a discussion.
Instead, your immediate response just seemed like a blow-off – “Your source sucks so I refuse to engage your topic seriously.” It seems to me that if you don’t want to participate in a discussion, you should just not participate. If you want to point out that his source sucks, you could perhaps provide some evidence of that – I’d never heard of Palast before so some cites or background on him would have been helpful.
If you actually don’t object to a Congressional investigation into this incident, I’m further confused by your initial response. It looks to me like you just don’t like BrainGlutton (or his posting style), so decided to be snarky right off the bat.
On preview, I see that the thread is now entirely about DSM-IV definitions of pathologies, Bush’s military service or lack thereof, and whether or not Osama can be called a terrorist. Looks like you and Shodan managed to derail this one pretty thoroughly. Perhaps I can get my ignorance fought about this somewhere else, because it sure doesn’t seem like we’re going to learn anything about vote-tampering, caging lists, etc., here.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It was good enough for BBC News. Would you accuse the BBC of anti-Pub bias?
[/QUOTE]
I’m guessing you didn’t notice this, but that story was from 2004. If nothing has come of the accusations in the 3 years since, don’t you think it might be because the accusations are groundless?
Back when Clinton was president, I was sure that the media had a major liberal bias, and was constantly giving Bubba free passes on all kinds of things. Now that a Republican is president, the liberals are seemingly all convinced that the media has a conservative bias, and is constantly giving Bush a free pass on stuff. Funny how each side thinks the media is biased against them.
I say meh. Show me the evidence. I don’t want to hear about what evidence Kennedy says he has, and I really don’t want to hear about how I’ll see the evidence if I give him money :dubious:
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
…However, in the U.S. there’s a very easy system to label who is and is not a deserter. If someone hasn’t been convicted of the crime of desertion, then that suggests no sufficient evidence existed to bring up such a charge, which means the factual conclusion is said person did not desert.
[/QUOTE]
You are blessed with very flexible standards. Calling someone obsessive-compulsive is acceptable as a characterization outside of its clinical meaning, but "deserter"is a very strictly defined term of art. So much so that any use of the term without a judicial finding is slanderous, regardless of the facts that support such a characterization. As you know, the facts that support such a characterization are thick upon the ground, as illustrated by The Cecil.
Would you folks like me to move this to the Pit where you can express yourselves freely? Or would someone like to return to the purported topic of the OP?
[ Weary Moderator Mode ]
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Would you folks like me to move this to the Pit where you can express yourselves freely? Or would someone like to return to the purported topic of the OP?
[ Weary Moderator Mode ]
[/QUOTE]
The latter, I hope. I think it’s highly significant that this Tim Griffin is a newly appointed U.S. Attorney! Something everyone posting so far seems to have ignored.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The latter, I hope. I think it’s highly significant that this Tim Griffin is a newly appointed U.S. Attorney! Something everyone posting so far seems to have ignored.
[/QUOTE]
Bricker and I seem to agree on two points here: a Congressional investigation of the evidence is fine, and neither of us have seen any evidence.
If true, then sure - it’s absolutely egregious, probably criminal, and yet further proof of the political nature of the U.S. Attorney firings. How can I say that it is true based on what is in this thread?
The real villainy of this sort of thing lies in its deniabality, how it offers the Pubs the opportunity to stick it to the Dems, but good, all the while batting big brown innocent eyes and blubbering copiously about how much you revere the sanctity of the voting booth.
The return on investment for false registration is puny, be like counterfeiting pennies. But schemes like described above are effective, it can reasonably be argued that just such a scheme led to GeeDub’s current infestation of the Oval Orifice.
The more genteel form is simply to make voting as inconvenient as possible for the underclasses. The current “system” of local financing for voting machines and polling stations virtually guarantees that the voter registered in an economically disadvantaged area is going to find voting tiresome and vexing, while his more comfortable fellow citizen has no such disincentives. Every voting cycle we hear stories of black and/or poor citizens standing on line for hours to vote, while the suburbanite breezes through. This inbuilt bias probably adds more electoral clout to the Pubbies, year in and year out, than any of these schemes can usually deliver. Except, of course, in such situations as Florida 2000, a perfect shitstorm.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I think it means exactly what he says. Just because passive-aggressive personality disorder is defined X way does not mean the term doesn’t have other connotations.
It’s like calling someone “obsessive compulsive” and then having a psychologist explain to you that the person does not actually suffer from OC disorder or OC personality–which is totally irrelevant because the term obsessive compulsive (just like passive-aggressive) has a very widely accepted meaning outside the one supported by clinicians.
[/QUOTE]
Moreover, the objection he raises would have had more teeth prior to the publication of the DSM-IV. As the linked report indicates, PAPD was relgated to an appendix, removing from the pantheon of “official” diagnoses and permitting people such as me to use it without transgressing the bounderies of official definitions.
[QUOTE=Frank]
Bricker and I seem to agree on two points here: a Congressional investigation of the evidence is fine, and neither of us have seen any evidence.
If true, then sure - it’s absolutely egregious, probably criminal, and yet further proof of the political nature of the U.S. Attorney firings. How can I say that it is true based on what is in this thread?
[/QUOTE]
Yup. What he said.
[QUOTE=Frank]
If true, then sure - it’s absolutely egregious, probably criminal, and yet further proof of the political nature of the U.S. Attorney firings.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s just the problem. Some Dopers won’t admit the plain and obvious fact that it is per se and ipso facto a crime, an instance of treason, and an impeachable offense for the Administration to draft the Justice Department into its service for partisan electoral purposes (which is far, far worse than anything Nixon or CREEP ever did) – even in theory, apart from evidence that has actually been done, as it has. See, e.g., comments by Airman Doors in this thread.