Skip to main content

View Diary: Fear and Loathing at Daily KOS (153 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  False equivalency (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KateCrashes, CherryTheTart, dfarrah

    this is not Kos's "living room" and/or kitchen: it's his place of business. And yes, a tavern owner has the right to throw anyone he wants out of the bar, but I do think it's important to note that this is not Kos's "house"--it's a business establishment, with paying and non-paying customers.

    The way I understood the initial aversion to skepticism concerning 2004 election results, Kos saw it as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there wasn't even enough smoke in the air to merit the suspicion of fire.

    But that was then. This is now, and enough reputable people have cast legitimate doubt on the results of that (2004) election that I think it is unfair to declare anyone who remains skeptical about those results (or about subsequent results) a nutcase with a tinfoil hat. Conyers? Rolling Stone? Kennedy? NYT? etc.

    Conclusive evidence? We're never going to have that. But, holymotherofgod, to go around vilifying anyone who would so much as dare to suspect fraudulent activity in the electoral process? I dunno.

    There's only one letter's difference between VOTER suppression and VOTE suppression, and that letter is....

    I will never believe that the Repugs would limit their efforts to one form of suppression or the other. The less popular they become, the more they will need to engage in both forms of suppression in order to "win", or even come close.

    So I for one do harbor suspicions about our elections--and until serious changes are made to the system I will ALWAYS harbor those suspicions. The best I can do is seek to eliminate the options the Republicans have for engaging in any form of electile suppression.

    •  The point still stands (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, Lost and Found

      I said this is kos' "place." Yes, it's his place of business. That doesn't change the fact that it is right to enforce the rules.

      As for the rest of your comment, I'm not going to engage because it's precisely what kos said NOT to do. It is not about the difference between" VOTE suppression and VOTER suppression". It's the difference between voter suppression and vote FRAUD. That's where the line is drawn, and too many people have a hard time making that distinction.

      You are free to harbor those suspicions. Others are free to harbor suspicions about 9/11. But kos asked that it not be done here. QED.

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:32:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you made the analogy of throwing someone (3+ / 0-)

        out of your "house". That's what I was referring to.

        It is flatout insulting to compare 911 conspiracy theories to skepticism about the election. Why? Because no legitimate, reputable sources have advanced the "theory" that 9/11 was anything but a terrorist attack.

        This is not the case with the election issue. Sorry, but I still do have some faith in the editorial standards of such publications as the NYT (Bob Herbert), Rolling Stone (RFK, Jr.), and, not least of all, John Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee.

        These sources have seen fit to at least question the results and allow for the possibility that something untoward was amiss here. And anyone who dismisses those sources, then puts the suspicions expressed there on a par with 911 CT theory is again drawing false equivalencies.

        Nor is it my understanding that Kos has banned "opinions" or "suspicions"--the most recent meltdown came in the wake of "Anonymous'" claims to have prevented vote fraud electronically. That is a horse of an entirely different color.

        Sorry, but I stand with RFK, Jr., Bob Herbert, and John Conyers in remaining skeptical about the results of the 2004 election. If that is a bannable offense on this site, so fucking be it.

        •  Look, you are perfectly free to be as (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TexMex, Armando, Lost and Found

          skeptical as you like. Again, I'm not going to engage on this issue. I made the point that this is kos' place, so his rules apply. He has made his rule quite clear, and he has said that he considers talk of the 2004 election being stolen a CT. It's quite simple. You don't have to agree, but you also can't be shocked when you continue to engage in that discussion and end up banned.

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:11:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yep (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Armando, BoiseBlue

            It is kos's place.
            Thank goodness!

          •  I'm not talking about Kos, I'm talking (0+ / 0-)

            about your false equivalencies, your dismissal of highly regarded Democrats (Kennedy, Conyers), and news sources (NYT, Rolling Stone), and not least of all me--putting us all on a par with the crackpot 9/11 Troof folks.

            You say you're not a crackpot? Well, neither am I--neither is Conyers, nor Kennedy nor Herbert.

            To me, it's not even about the 2004 election: kinda water over the dam, innit?

            Smh.

            Asking myself, "Are you now or have you ever agreed with an opinion expressed by Bob Herbert in the NYT, RFK Jr. in the Rolling Stone, or John Conyers in his capacity as a member of the House Judiciary Committee?"

            •  I'm not dismissing them (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lost and Found

              I told you I'm not going to engage you on that topic and I'm not. My comment was about kos' rule/warning, and you keep trying to change it back to the 2004 election. That's fine if YOU want to talk about it, but I told you that I did not.

              P.S. I am not a crackpot.

              by BoiseBlue on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:24:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  People who think that (0+ / 0-)

        fraud doesn't occur or is unlikely to occur are just plain ignorant.

        Ask any forensic accountant or person who investigates fraud.  

        It's the people who are so convinced that it can't happen who make the systems [whether a voting system or a banking systems or a business system] vulnerable.  Not the others who sound the alarm.

        People who want to do something illegal will figure out a way to do it.  It's just that simple.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:17:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site