wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk"
> <shempmcgurk@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > A must read:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election
> > > > _stolen
> > > > >
> > > > > It should be at the top of the news but we know the crooks
> > that
> > > > now run
> > > > > big business and media will bury it. Call all the talk
> shows,
> > > > > newspapers, TV stations you can and harass them into
carrying
> > the
> > > > story.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, Mr. Grassy Knoll, I'm tripping over myself to make
sure
> > > > everyone is aware of this.
> > >
> > > Best to read it before you pass judgment on it.
> > > This is not, repeat NOT, tinfoil-hattery (even
> > > though it *is* Bhairitu recommending it).
> >
> > Yesterday I did read about a 1/3 of it before giving
up...despite
> > all the impressive footnotes.
>
> And you found that it was NOT tinfoil-hattery.
>
> <snip>
> > > > Perhaps it isn't at the top of the news because other media
> > > > don't give credence to crap...in the same way serious media
> > > > didn't give credence to all those right wing nut jobs about
10
> > > > years ago who said that Bill and Hilary Clinton engaged in
the
> > > > cocaine trade and routinely murdered their opponents...
> > >
> > > That was crap. This ain't. And it's dead easy to
> > > tell the difference IF YOU READ THE PIECE.
> >
> > I've read enough...but, yes, I will try to read the rest.
> >
> > Have you read all the crappy stuff on the Clintons? All of that
> > was "documented" as well.
>
> Um, no. Read "The Hunting of the President" by
> Joe Conason and Gene Lyons.
>
> There is, of course, no need for the scare quotes around
> "documented" in the case of the RFK piece.
>
Here's my problem with the RFK jr. piece...and why I stopped reading
it.
The piece dealt with a problem that is widespread in the US: there
is not one election taking place, as the piece citess, but 13,000
different ones. Each of those jurisdictions runs their own election
process with their own rules.
THAT'S the problem...not that the Republicans bent the rules to
their favour, 'cause the Dem's do it when they can do it, too.
So once I got to that part of the article I said to myself: why read
the rest when I know where it's going; this Democratic partisan --
RFK jr.-- is going to make it seem as if the Republicans are the bad
guys and stole the election when the problem is the system.
Did RFK jr. cite the problems with Illinois and West Virginia that
many felt were responsible for "stealing" the election for his uncle
in '60 when he ran against Nixon?
Probably not.
So, notwithstanding the very important issue of these 13,000
different elections, I'm not interested in reading what some
partisan had to say about it. I got the general gist of it and
bailed.
Now, if I'm off base here and there was something ELSE in the
article of importance, share it with me, by all means.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
