We received a FWD of an email from David Griscom Ph.D in Physics, who among other things, writes a blog.
Dr. Griscom writes:
"If you'd like to know how hard some of your fellow citizens have been working to expose insider election fraud -- and the degree of malfeasance your "elected" officials will rise to in order to cover up this fraud -- read this!:
Arizona Microcosm: If you think an election was stolen and you spend thousands of hours gathering the evidence and pursuing the matter through the courts, all your efforts may be foiled by your state's Attorney General...even if he is a Democrat!"
*************************************************************************************
We are NOT trying to make a political statement. Our intention is to keep our readers aware of what political issues impact us as Arizona & Oro Valley citizens.
Please log on to Dr. Griscom's blog and read what he has to say.
....
75 comments:
"...even if he is s Democrat!"
As if it would be understandable if it was a Republican? What kind of trash is that??
Because the folks who initiated the whole thing about the RTA election were democrats, it could be assumed that "even if he is a Democrat" is meant to indicate that a democrat would be sympathetic to other democrats....
Chris--- You and I, and I'd venture to say, most readers would have gotten what you stated out of that statement.
I didn't say anything on the first post implying that something about this election was wrong. If that is your opinion, Art, please state it. If it is more than imagination, please provide evidence.
But please spare us from these articles citing someone who claims that "all hijacked 9/11 passengers survived" (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/09/david-griscom-all-hijacked-passengers.html) and openly states that 9/11 was an inside job! (http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com/Political.html)
Come on! Do a little background research on whose words you put on here!
OVDad--- Instead of "throwing out red herrings," why not focus on the issue of irregularities in the election.
You and our readers may wish to read what Brad Friedman (The Brad Blog) had to say on July 14,2010.
Art, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, the definition of a "red herring" is "something that distracts attention from the real issue." Might I suggest that this is what you are doing in this thread (and others) when you suggest there may have been some improprieties in our recent local election? Ask yourself if you would be bringing up these same concerns if your man, Zinkin, had won the race.
Why not read what David Safier --who I don't know-- (BlogforArizona.com)had to say just prior to the OV mayoral election results.
Election integrity issues in Oro Valley election
by David Safier
Here's what I've heard. If anyone knows more, please comment.
Oro Valley held city elections May 18 along with the Prop 100 vote. Two candidates ran for mayor. Satish Hiremath was the conservative candidate who ran with lots of local business support. Mike Zinkin was the more progressive candidate, supported by Oro Valley progressives.
The election still hasn't been decided. Last I heard, Mike Zinkin was ahead by only 12 votes. If his lead shrinks to 10, there will be an automatic recount.
Here's the problem. This is a nonpartisan election. That means the political parties don't have the right to observe the election process, as they do in partisan elections.
If there's a recount, it will happen under the watchful eyes of Brad Nelson, director of Pima County's elections division, and his staff.
Anyone who is familiar with election integrity battles knows that many people don't consider Brad Nelson an honest broker. The best you can say about him is that he is very sloppy in an field where precision is paramount, especially when a few votes separate the candidates. The worst you can say is that he has participated in influencing or changing election results. Whether one believes the best or the worst, very few people think highly of Nelson's competence, and I would agree.
Someone I talked with today said, if the election comes down to a recount, the fix will be in. Hiremath will come out ahead, no matter what a fair count reveals.
Jay D,
You asked Art if he would be bringing up these same concerns if Zinkin had won the race.
What about you? Are we to believe that if Zinkin had won the race and there were some suspicions about the integrity of the outcome, that you would be silent about it and you wouldn't write anything about it on this blog?
You would just accept that he had "won" even if there were indicators that it was fixed?
I don't find where anyone on this blog has said or insinuated that there were voting irregularities in the May election.
VC, I am not a conspiracy theorist, like some posters on this blog...I do not see any real evidence that there were any irregularities in the recent Town of Oro Valley election.
Zee Man, I must be missing something, but you said "I don't find where anyone on this blog has said or insinuated that there were voting irregularities in the May election." The number of comments regarding possible voting irregularities, continues. Just read VC's comment before yours! Or more importantly, what about Art's thread from Monday, July 5, entitled "Does Anyone Recall the Issue with the 2006 Pima County RTA Election?" In Art's thread, he states, "Might there have been any 'irregularities' in this election?(referring to the Town of Oro Valley) We don't know, but perhaps it would be worth looking into..."
Art's comments include:
"Might 'similar anomalies' have occurred in the recent Oro Valley Mayoral election?"
"James--- Yes. I am suggesting that statistical data suggests that our mayoral election may have been ---using your word---'falsified.'"
"There are, however other means to correct a situation if a "wrong" has been done."
AND...VC said:
"An e-mail going around town (which I received) contains DETAILS about the differences as they pertained to the OV Mayoral election. The information certainly raises an eyebrow."
So based on the numerous comments on this blog, it does seem like there are a few posters who believe there were voting irregularities...I am not among them!
Congratulations Artmarth! This blog has officially become the homepage for reclusive conspiracy theorists and angry minority view-holders in Oro Valley.
Excuse me if I don't take the word of a guy that thinks 9/11 was an "inside job" and that all 9/11 victims actually survived and are all still alive... That's offensive to me as an American and particularly to those that knew people who died in the attack.
David Griscom, Ph.D, in his own words:
"...An underlying postulate, or working hypothesis, of my earlier Pentagon model was that the passengers on AA-77 volunteered to feign their deaths in return for cushy “witness protection” programs... So, here I extend my “all passengers survived” postulate to all four 9/11 “hijacked” flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of “true believers in the cause” willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts)... the plane that actually struck WTC2 was captured on film and digital video cameras by many dozens of individuals – and widely-published frames from these films (some even appearing on magazine covers) show the impacting aircraft to have unmistakable external modifications..."
"For the sake of argument, let us assume for a moment that the passengers did die... Thus, I arrived at a quandary: I had concluded that both AA-11 and UA-175 must have been unmodified airliners that took off from Boston Logan with real (though relatively few) passengers – and I hypothesized that these passengers survived... IF what you saw in these videos was the actual UA-175, where would it have landed with its still-safe (but terribly shaken) passengers? ... In my "all passengers survive" hypothesis, it is easily surmised that AA-11 with its transponder turned off could have landed safely at Griffiss AFB after having been replaced over Amsterdam, NY, by a transponder-less drone attacker out of Griffiss."
Artmarth - this is the guy you're quoting... need I say more?
If you have an allegation to make, then make it. Otherwise, stop promoting baseless conspiracy theories.
Non of your candidates were successful in the election. That does't mean someone stole the election. Move on with your life.
For the record, the post that Artmath links to is David Griscom's reposting of my original article (originally published here).
So, if you wish to attack the messenger, that would be me, not David nor Artmath.
To that end, feel free to have at me, but do try to read the actual article first.
AG Goddard's office tells me late this afternoon the will have their own response to my article on Monday. We will, of course, publish an update to cover it.
Thanks for picking up the story, Artmath. And for giving a damn about your democracy.
Brad Friedman
The BRAD BLOG
Brad---For the record, you & I do not know each other, but I certainly appreciate you taking the time to partake in our discussion.
As for fome of our detractors "having at you," I'm perfectly willing and able to have them "have at me" as well.
You may have missed it, but in an earlier comment on this thread, I referenced you and your blog as a source.
In response to "OVDad," I wrote:
OVDad--- Instead of "throwing out red herrings," why not focus on the issue of irregularities in the election.
You and our readers may wish to read what Brad Friedman (The Brad Blog) had to say on July 14,2010.
I'll repeat my point of "red herrings."
The issue is not Dr. Griscom, you, me, or for that matter, John Brakey who did much of the research on the 2006 RTA election.
The issue is whether or not there are ongoing "irregularities" in Pima County elections.
Perhaps the detractors were too busy reading about other issues on Dr. Griscom's blog that they failed to read the issue at hand.
Perhaps they'll take your advice and read your blog now.
Thanks again for your input, and please email me at art@letorovalleyexcel.com with any additional info. I'll be happy to post it on our blog.
Art
Thanks, Art.
In re: "You may have missed it, but in an earlier comment on this thread, I referenced you and your blog as a source."
Nope. I caught it. Was just trying to re-iterate the point who seem to have decided to get side-tracked by everything *but* the news you were posting about.
Hopefully some of those folks will take your advice (and mine), to read the article, and actually criticize it, if they wish, on its merits (or lack thereof, if that's how they see it), rather than what they believe to be the opinions of someone (either you or Griscomb) who tried to let folks know about what seems to be a very serious concern.
Given the ease by which these machines can be manipulated, in a nearly untraceable way (note: it's been four years since the multi-partisan folks in Tucson have been *trying* to get to the heart of this matter), I'd think all of your readers would be concerned about this, and appreciate that this issue rises far about petty partisanship.
Thanks again for linking it up, Art. Will keep you upped on further developments. Should have some coming on Monday.
Regarding Brad's comment - I don't think anyone has an issue with Brad or his taking issue with the 2006 RTA election. That is his right and if there were some nasties going on, we all hope bad guys are exposed.
What people here are objecting to is Artmarth's implication that the recent Oro Valley Town elections were somehow manipulated. It's Artmarth's flaccid propaganda machine at work. As Jay D points out, Artmarth is using comments and references to Brad's blog to create skepticism around the recent Oro Valley election in a desperate attempt to create a new reality for himself. Suddenly, he's a victim.
Artmarth - Do you have any facts to substantiate that the recent Oro Valley election was manipulated in any way? If you have an allegation to make, make it. If not, let's move on to real issues.
Otherwise, the facts remain this blog failed to elect a single candidate it promoted in the recent elections. Time to move on.
Doyousmellthat? said:
"It's Artmarth's flaccid propaganda machine at work. As Jay D points out, Artmarth is using comments and references to Brad's blog to create skepticism around the recent Oro Valley election in a desperate attempt to create a new reality for himself."
Um, apparently you haven't bothered to read the article in question here.
If, after reading it -- and about the sworn affidavit from a County Official who says the programmer of the 2006 RTA election told him it was "fixed", and about the fact that the County officials had access to the evidence for years, which has now gone MISSING, and that those election officials are still in place and running your elections! -- and you DON'T have concerns about elections in your county, then I might suggest it is YOU who has "a desperate attempt to create a new reality".
"Artmarth - Do you have any facts to substantiate that the recent Oro Valley election was manipulated in any way? If you have an allegation to make, make it. If not, let's move on to real issues."
Um, if you had someone accused by a colleague of fixing an election, and that election has hundreds of pieces of first-hand evidence now missing, isn't that reason enough to have concerns that subsequent elections might have been manipulated, since those accused are still running the elections?
And, if I understand the election in question (just from reading comments above), one that was as close as just 11 votes at one time???
Has every ballot in that race been counted by hand? Has the chain of custody for those ballots been documented as secure? Have all ballots -- blank, spoiled, voted and unvoted -- been accounted for in a post-election audit?
Those are just some questions I'd be asking and that I'd suggest ALL citizens should be asking, given the type of voting system used in Pima County, and given the history of those who run it.
(And, in case you don't know, here is your Pima County Election Division Chief Brad Nelson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpDFUjUILrs -- Would you buy a used car from that man, much less simply *trust* him to oversee your sacred elections?! Seriously.)
"Smell" ---You might have not noticed, but I made NO allegations.
I asked questions.
In case you missed it, Mike Zinkin had a 600 vote lead AFTER 67% of the vote was in----the early mail ballots.
The folks that are more familiar with election results will tell you, it is almost inconceivable that a lead that Zinkin had with 2/3 of the vote counted would totally evaporate with the last of the ballots---those in the final 1/3 vote, and he loses by 30 votes out of almost 15,000 votes cast.
Another point to ponder.
There were almost 1300 "under votes."
That means that approx 1300 voters that voted for or against Prop.100 did NOT vote for an Oro Valley Mayoral candidate.
Those ballots were left BLANK. No little blue or black circle for either candidate.
Might there have been others that were left blank by the voter? Hmmm!
And finally, the vote differential was just enough to avoid an automatic recount. Was that a coincidence?
So----as you can see, NO accusations. Just some inquisitive questions---with the knowledge that there were many questions about the 2006 Pima County RTA election under the direction of the same individual, Brad Nelson..
Jay D,
(1) You didn't answer my question...
Are we to believe that if Zinkin had won the race and there were some suspicions about the integrity of the outcome, that you would be silent about it and you wouldn't write anything about it on this blog?
(2) You said, "I do not see any real evidence that there were any irregularities in the recent Town of Oro Valley election."
Did you see the e-mail that went around town that revealed some detailed information about the election? If not, what evidence DID you see that you determined was not "any real evidence that there were any irregularities in the recent Town of Oro Valley election?"
I'm just wondering if you think there were no irregularities because you haven't actually seen any of the evidence, or if you've seen some evidence but you felt it wasn't noteworthy.
Can you elaborate on what you have or haven't seen?
Brad F,
I just watched the YouTube video you provided on Brad Nelson. I had heard a lot of unflattering stories about him, but I never saw anything first hand.
Now that I have, all I can say is that this man is arrogant and childish. Really...how do people like this rise to the top anyway? And how do they STAY there?
VC:
1) You are not the blog police, and I am not required to answer your questions, which often seem either rhetorical in the case of "...if Zinkin had won the race..." or absurd. Just so you can sleep well tonight, I have not seen any legitimate suspicions regarding the town election outcome, only the illegitimate ones posted by the conspiracy theorists and some on this blog.
2) I have not seen the email you have referred to on more than one occasion. If you feel that it is legitimate, why don't you post it? Apparently, I'm not on that conspiracy email list.
Jay D said:
"I have not seen any legitimate suspicions regarding the town election outcome, only the illegitimate ones posted by the conspiracy theorists and some on this blog."
Are you suggesting an undervote of 1,300 in an election with just some 15,000 votes is not a "legitimate suspicion"? (As I understand that Art has noted up thread -- I haven't looked into the election myself.) Or are you saying you don't believe that there were 1,300 undervotes?
If the numbers Art proffers are accurate, and you don't find that to be a "legitimate suspicion" worthy of, um, actually *counting* ballots, particularly when the election was run on easily manipulated systems by very untrustworthy officials, than I'm not sure what you would deem to be a "legitimate suspicion".
If you don't give a damn about democracy and actual self-governance, that's one thing. But I suspect most of us in this country do. So sliming someone with the pejorative "conspiracy theorist", in this context, seems inappropriate, obnoxious, and ultimately a disservice to yourself, and to all of us who believe in those quaint ideas such as democracy and self-governance.
Best,
Brad
Suspicion, suspicion, suspicion - Arizona has been rife with 'irregularities' since even before it's incorporation as a State. Land barons, power brokers, deception, evasion, and so forth.
First, let me address the David Griscom allegation:
As in many a conspiracy theory 'considerations' there are those (most) who formulate a CONCLUSION as a FIRST consideration and subsequently 'find' pieces that might imply support for same. And so we are fed, and some of us eat, a whole plate of baloney.
As to the accomplishments of David Griscom, yes they are extensive, however, even geniuses can 'lose it'!
Now to the main subject at hand, the election: one can speculate to whatever degree they wish based on past histories and statistical analysis or whatever; however, if one or more persons or group might have a certain amount of concrete evidence or suspicion of possible fraud relative to THIS election (Zinkin vs. Hiremath), then I would encourage that you seek out and find a LEGAL avenue to prove or disprove the allegation.
Whatever really happened within the 2006 RTA issue is, in reality, a moot subject. Remember, in a court of law, even proven guilt or regarded suspicion in a prior and/or similar instance does not definitively allow for the presumption of guilt in another. (Disclaimer: I am not a legal authority).
Personally, because of such a close 'result' (in actuality 15 persons = a 30 vote spread), I would have preferred that a recount be executed.
Well, I wonder what would happen if there was a recount, or if fraud were detected? Would we have to cut the police budget to fund another election?
The best observation in this very disturbing (on many levels) thread is that we all MUST give a damn about democracy and actual self-governance. America's ideals such as democracy and self-governance are important.
Jay D,
You said, "You are not the blog police, and I am not required to answer your questions..."
My response?
All I ask is that you answer my original question. Then I am more than happy to move on.
Do those words sound familiar to you?
I love how you expect others to answer YOUR questions, but you have your litany of excuses as to why you can never answer anyone else's questions.
Today's excuse was that my question was rhetorical. No it wasn't. You asked Art if he would be bringing up these same concerns if Zinkin had won the race. I then asked you if you would bring up these same concerns if Zinkin had won the race. But somehow your question deserved an answer and mine didn't even though it was the same question!
It is easy to answer my question. The answer is either...
Yes, if Zinkin had won the race and there were questions about the integrity of the outcome, I would be questioning it in a public forum...
Or
No, if Zinkin had won the race, I would just accept the outcome even if there appeared to be some discrepancies in the process.
Jay D,
(1) Now you want me to provide the e-mail to you? OK. When you ask Roger to provide proof of all the endorsements that Zinkin tried to get, and Roger then provides that proof, I will then provide the contents of the e-mail.
That sounds fair to me. Otherwise, we have one set of rules for the Good Old Boys and another set of rules for VC. (The GOB aren't required to prove anything. Art and VC have to prove everything.)
(2) Remember what I said about the GOB tactics? Whenever they can't defend their positions they resort to one of their Battle Cries which are:
Character assassination.
Name-calling.
Word-twisting.
I won’t discuss that because it’s old news.
No once cares.
You only see what you want to see.
Today you pulled out...
NAME-CALLING...you called us conspiracy theorists.
I WON'T DISCUSS THAT BECAUSE..it's a rhetorical question and you're not the blog police.
(3) You have been presented with the following FACTS:
a) With 67% of the votes counted, Zinkin was ahead by 600 votes.
b) Suddenly Hiremath wins by 30 votes, which is just enough to avoid an automatic recount.
c) Brad Nelson is a snake.
And your response to this information is to say,
"I do not see any real evidence that there were any irregularities in the recent Town of Oro Valley election."
To use a Good Old Boys Battle Cry...
That's because you see what you want to see.
VC, As always, it's impossible to have any discussion with you...This is not the first time you've referred to "Roger," and I have NO idea who that is! You go on to say, "All I ask is that you answer my original question. Then I am more than happy to move on." So funny, because on more than one occasion, when Art has thrown out some theory and I've asked him over and over to back it up with facts, he does not do so...I don't ever remember you needling Art to answer a question...
VC, you are the pot calling the kettle black...In your words, "That's because you see what you want to see."
I will no longer respond to you...This thread is out of control.
Zee Man, do you still say, "I don't find where anyone on this blog has said or insinuated that there were voting irregularities in the May election."
There are those detractors out there that will do whatever they deem necessary to avoid the issue.
So there will be no misunderstanding, I'll repeat what I've said---- (You'll note I don't need anyone to interpret my words for me.)
I stated there were issues with the 2006 Pima County RTA election.
I referred to John Brakey. I referred to David Griscom. I referred to Brad Friedman.
I never met any of these three gentlemen, but I believe any reasonable person will be impressed with their respective credentials. (The key word is "reasonable.")
The issue of the 2006 RTA election is one thing.
The bigger issue, as far as I'm concerned, is our recent mayoral election.
Those that throw out "red herrings" such as "it's a conspiracy," refuse to study the facts, or just have no desire to accept the facts.
The issue here is whether or not there were any irregularities in our Oro Valley election.
I prefer to use the "duck theory."
If it quacks, looks, walks, flies and smells like a duck, it may just be a duck.
There were the same people involved with the two elections. There were the same opportunities to do things in the two elections. The outcome of the two elections left a number of questions.
Might we have a duck here?
And, by the way, if I remember correctly, O.J.Simpson was found not guilty of a double murder.
That jury thought there was not enough proof! Sure!!!
Without firm evidence in this PARTICULAR matter we just might have a 'rubber ducky'!
This "reasonable" person can not be impressed by the credentials of at least two of the people Art seems to be enamored with:
From David Griscom’s website, http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com/Political.html, with comments like, “9/11 was an inside job…Just because the mainstream media "don't go there,"
doesn't mean it's not true.
From John Brakey's website: John Brakey is a co-founder of AUDIT-AZ (Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency in Elections, Arizona) and the Special Task Force Leader of the Arizona Democratic Party Election Integrity Committee, in which he works with EDA Investigations Co-Coordinator David Griscom.
So David and John are associates..."Reasonable" people should be concerned about these two!
VC, whatever you do, please don't interpret my words...Art doesn't like it...neither do I! :)
Geez JayD---- I could be like you, OVDad & Zev, and say, "I've had it with you three. I'll never do other posting on this blog again."
But, emulating the three of you---I'd soon find my way back.
And yes---- I am enamored with intelligent people that do good on behalf of others---especially when there's no remuneration, other than than self satisfaction that you're doing the right thing.
I want our readers to know that I'm very grateful to Dr. Griscom, Mr. Brakey & Mr. Friedman for their efforts and behalf of the citizens of Az.
He also said:
"This 'reasonable' person can not be impressed by the credentials of at least two of the people Art seems to be enamored with"
Here's the swell thing about Election Integrity, Jay: You needn't be impressed with *anybody's* credentials. There is no need to trust *anyone* in matters of EI. You needn't trust Brakey or Griscom anymore than you should be trusting Nelson or Crane (or Art or me!) You can, and should, make all of them prove any allegations (including who "won" or "lost" an election).
You also needn't believe in their theories about 9/11 or immigration or water rights or commercial development or health care insurance reform. NONE of that matters to Election Integrity and transparent democracy and self-governance.
Election Integrity is not about "trust" or "credentials", it's about transparency and oversight and your *right*, as a citizen, to *know* that your favorite candidate -- or least favorite -- won or lost in *your* public elections. If you find yourself having to trust in someone -- anyone, whether it be an election officials, a voting machine company, or an EI advocate -- rather than being able to see things for yourself, then something has gone terribly wrong. As it has in Pima (and in much of the nation).
It's quite possible that the mayoral election you all are discussing came out *exactly* as has been reported. It's also quite possible that it didn't. Nobody should have to *guess* which one of those is the case. Citizens should be able to *know*, for themselves -- without needing to "trust" in someone who has a personal stake in the reporting system used for the results, or in a rocket/computer scientist -- that their election has been accurately tabulated.
If you can't, you've got a problem. If you don't *care* about that (perhaps because your candidate won this time?), then I'd suggest you also have a problem. You just may not know it yet, until it's *your* candidate whose ox gets gored (pun intended).
To disparage those who give a damn -- even if you don't -- is insulting, and against all of the American Values (like those spelled out in the Constitution) that this nation is supposed to stand for.
If you don't care about your country, its Constitution, its values and its democracy, I hope you'll not mind getting out of the way so that those of us who do can do something about all of the above -- including fighting for *you* when *your* candidate or initiative has lost in a way that cannot be overseen as accurate.
It's remarkable that you've fling this kind of bile at folks who are fighting for *your* democracy.
Best,
Brad
Brad--- Thank you for adding class, dignity, information and common sense to our blog.
I'm not sure if any of OUR detractors will find anything to refute in your most recent eloquent statement.
It is our honor to know that you are taking the time to partake in our blog.
You are more than welcome to continue to comment if and when you wish.
Thanks again.
Art
Brad, sadly you've voiced opinions on this blog based on information you read here, without researching the local facts. Unfortunately, as is often the case in many arenas, and definitely so on this blog, people do not do their homework, respond to craziness, and get worked up without educating themselves. Personally, I can not give credence to anyone who is a 9/11 naysayer, just like I would not trust or respect opinions voiced by Holocaust naysayers. That is my right...You can choose to do the opposite. The bloggers here are not "fighting for me," just "fighting." Art, the reason any of us who get fed up with this blog "find our way back," is because sadly, there is often misinformation here...or posters who make assumptions about the goings on in this community, based on what they've read here, without going to the source. This is irresponsible and lacks the "common sense" you love in Brad.
JayD said:
"Brad, sadly you've voiced opinions on this blog based on information you read here, without researching the local facts."
Actually, that's not entirely true. Nonetheless, I'm not sure what opinion I've voiced, sad or otherwise, that you are disputing. Feel free to let me know specifically which opinions of mine you find to be sad or inaccurate, and I'll be happy to respond with *specifics* in return.
"Unfortunately, as is often the case in many arenas, and definitely so on this blog, people do not do their homework, respond to craziness, and get worked up without educating themselves."
If I responded to your craziness, JayD, it's only because you seem so sadly out of touch with the way democracy works (or should) and stuff. Other than that, I'm not sure which "craziness" you're referring to. But again, feel free to share specifics and I'll be happy to respond.
"Personally, I can not give credence to anyone who is a 9/11 naysayer, just like I would not trust or respect opinions voiced by Holocaust naysayers."
Again, I hope you'll go back and read what I wrote to you last time. You needn't "trust or respect" anybody's opinions here. You just need to make sure the person sitting in office is the person the majority of voters actually voted for. If you're not certain that's the case, I hope you'll do something about it. If you ARE certain that's the case, I hope you'll let us all know why, and what your evidence is for that assessment, so we can all rest easier tonight.
"That is my right...You can choose to do the opposite. The bloggers here are not "fighting for me," just "fighting.""
Those who are fighting for you don't need you to thank them. They don't even need you to know that they are fighting for you. It's just kinda sad that you've yet to realize that.
"Art, the reason any of us who get fed up with this blog "find our way back," is because sadly, there is often misinformation here...or posters who make assumptions about the goings on in this community, based on what they've read here, without going to the source. This is irresponsible and lacks the "common sense" you love in Brad."
If you're suggesting that *I* am one who has made "assumptions about the goings on this community" without "common sense" or solely on what I've "read here", again, I hope you'll share with me where I went wrong, but so far, you've only flung absurd generalities and insults, without offering me a clue what the hell it is that you're talking about.
Art - Thank you for the kind words, the invitation to stick around, and for giving a damn about what's going on in your community, democracy and country. Could use a few million more like you, and your blog!
Brad
Unlike many others on here, I am not spewing "craziness" nor am I "out of touch" with anything...But honestly Brad, you might need to go back and read what I wrote..I did not say that you were making "assumptions about the goings on in this community..." That is a common practice on this blog...full of complaints, riled up posters, but no one willing to go to the source, do some homework and research, then report here with accurate information.
And in terms of your comment, "...so far, you've only flung absurd generalities and insults, without offering me a clue what the hell it is that you're talking about..." I guess that will be your opinion...If you spend enough time reading comments and threads on this blog, you'll come to realize that it's full of "absurd generalities and insults," not coming from me!
The easiest way to dismiss the truth and cover a crook's tracks, is to label those who bring it to the surface "conspiracy theorists". This is an old, often used, and unfortunately very effective way to divert much needed attention and silence anyone from whistleblowers to activists.
More often than not, those "theories" prove to be true...but too many years too late to do anything.
Of course, the flat earth people will always insist that those conspiracy theorists are ridiculous for thinking the earth is not flat.
There is an old saying about following the money. Elections are less motivated by Republican or Democrat partisanship, and more motivated by $$$ and corporate power and greed.
Great article, btw, Brad, and great linking to David G. and Art.
That dfatucson comment, btw, is from Cheryl and my opinion only, not the representative opinion of all of DFA.
Jay D,
Can you answer the question posed to you by Brad F?
I'm paraphrasing--
Are you SURE the person in office (Hiremath) is the person that the majority of voters actually voted for? And if you are, what is your evidence for this?
Two simple questions, really.
JayD said:
"That is a common practice on this blog...full of complaints, riled up posters, but no one willing to go to the source, do some homework and research, then report here with accurate information."
I keep seeing your riled up complaints, but so far the homework and research has come from Art who has reported some specific numbers about the Mayoral race (which have basis in hard analysis, according to those I've hear from who have gone to the source to analysize what appears to be very accurate information).
True, I'm a stranger here, so can only judge on what I've read -- and only in this thread -- but you keep complaining, riling up other posters, hurling attacks at others (suggesting they are "conspiracy theorists" and comparing them to Holocaust deniers), claim there is a lack of homework and research, yet add none of your own, nor offer specifics on *anything*. You won't even answer direct questions that have been asked of you, after you asked the same question of others.
Guess every show needs *someone* to throw tomatoes for no apparent reason. But if folks are giving you no crededence and finding your opinions not worthy of respect or trust, I'd hope you'd not be surprised about that.
"And in terms of your comment, '...so far, you've only flung absurd generalities and insults, without offering me a clue what the hell it is that you're talking about...' I guess that will be your opinion"
It's not my "opinion". It's a fact. I don't have a clue what you're pissed off about. But perhaps if, like the Election Integrity investigators Brakey and Griscom, you bothered to go to the source, do some homework and research, and reported here with accurate information about something -- anything -- we could have a discussion about something other than you and your flying tomatoes.
"...If you spend enough time reading comments and threads on this blog, you'll come to realize that it's full of 'absurd generalities and insults,' not coming from me!"
So far, that is decidedly NOT the case. But maybe you're just having a bad day.
Best,
Brad
Brad--- You may not want to be too harsh on JayD and those of his ilk.
They proved that if the don't like the message, they turn on the messenger.
The other option is, they tell us they will never comment here again----only to show up like a bad penny when our postings are not to their liking.
Perhaps the alternative would be for those that don't like our blog to start their own.
After all, we live in a democracy and that is their right.
It's almost the same right and privilege as voting.
Except in Pima County, you can never be too sure your vote is being counted.
I'm done with this nonsense, except to clear up two important things:
Brad, again you didn't read my post well. You claim I "...hurled attacks at others...comparing them to Holocaust deniers..." What I said was, "...I would not trust or respect opinions voiced by Holocaust naysayers." I NEVER ACCUSED ANYONE ON THIS BLOG OF BEING A HOLOCAUST DENIER!
Art, as always, you provide some good comedy. You said, "They proved that if they don't like the message, they turn on the messenger." Again, as I've said before, this is you calling the kettle black...Let's not forget that for quite some time you blocked commenters...That is the ultimate example of "...if they don't like the message, they turn on the messenger."
"They proved that if they don't like the message they turn on the messenger" - hmmm, lots of hypocrisy in that statement, eh, Art?
Yeah! Like, "I've had it with this blog. Our never comment here again."
Sound familiar Zev?
How about, I won't run for council because I don't have the stomach for it"----and then submit your name for council thinking those you supported will appoint you.
Zev---you're hardly the one to talk about hypocrisy!
JayD said:
"Brad, again you didn't read my post well. You claim I '...hurled attacks at others...comparing them to Holocaust deniers...' What I said was, '...I would not trust or respect opinions voiced by Holocaust naysayers.' I NEVER ACCUSED ANYONE ON THIS BLOG OF BEING A HOLOCAUST DENIER!"
JayD, again you didn't read my post well -- or even your own poast as quoted above. I NEVER SAID YOU ACCUSED ANYONE ON THIS BLOG OF BEING A HOLOCAUST DENIER!
In the meantime, instead of waiting for your apology in having misread and mischaracterized my post, I'd still love to hear what evidence you have that allows you to know that the recent mayoral election was counted accurately, so that neither I, nor anybody else reading this blog, or living in Oro Valley, has to worry about whether the person in office is actually the one who received the majority of votes.
That would be a great service to us all, so thanks in advance for your evidence and information!
Brad
Art, there is a difference between changing one's mind and hypocrisy - and YOU should be WELL aware of the difference.
Let me put it this way:
"They proved that if they don't like the message, they turn on the messenger"; your statement, Art,'a case of the pot calling the kettle, black'! There, now, is that better?
Zev---Rather than continuing a dialog with you, that is going nowhere,I believe most of our readers would prefer to read the intelligent points raised by our new blogger BradF.
EVERYONE,
Please note the following:
JAY D ASKED ART:
"Do you have any facts to substantiate that the recent Oro Valley election was manipulated in any way?"
This is an excellent question.
ART ANSWERED JAY'S QUESTION BY PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING FACTS:
"Mike Zinkin had a 600 vote lead AFTER 67% (2/3) of the vote was in----the early mail ballots."
When "the final 1/3 vote" was counted, Zinkin lost "by 30 votes."
"The vote differential was just enough to avoid an automatic recount. Was that a coincidence?"
BRAD ALSO OFFERED THE FOLLOWING FACTS ABOUT THE RTA VOTE AND HOW THE SAME ELECTION OFFICIALS WERE RUNNING THE ORO VALLEY ELECTION:
a) There is a sworn affidavit from a County Official who says the programmer of the 2006 RTA election told him it was "fixed."
b) County officials had access to the evidence for years, which has now gone MISSING.
c) Those election officials are still in place and running YOUR elections!
Notice that Jay D's question HAS been answered, and quite thoroughly! Notice also that Jay D refuses to accept any of these facts.
Everyone,
Please also note the following:
BRAD ASKED THESE QUESTIONS:
"Has every ballot in that race been counted by hand? Has the chain of custody for those ballots been documented as secure? Have all ballots -- blank, spoiled, voted and unvoted -- been accounted for in a post-election audit?"
These are also excellent questions.
Notice that not one of the always vocal Hiremath supporters on this blog (eg. Jay D, OVOT, OV Dad) have come forward to answer any of those questions!
BRAD HAS REPEATEDLY ASKED JAY D:
"I'd still love to hear what evidence you have that allows you to know that the recent mayoral election was counted accurately."
PALOMINO THEN PARAPHRASED THE SAME QUESTION TO JAY D:
"Are you SURE the person in office (Hiremath) is the person that the majority of voters actually voted for? And if you are, what is your evidence for this?"
Notice that Jay D has refused to answer these questions, which means that he has NO EVIDENCE to support his belief that Hiremath won fair and square.
At least the rest of us HAVE provided evidence as to why we believe that the election was fixed.
Everyone,
Notice also than whenever Jay D is losing an argument he resorts to one of the following responses:
a) I'm done with this nonsense
b) It's impossible to have a discussion with you.
c) I will no longer respond to you.
I have a feeling that in his younger days he was famous for using the excuse, "My dog ate my homework."
ANYONE WHO THINKS 9/11 WAS AN "INSIDE" JOB NEEDS TO HAVE HIS HEAD EXAMINED.
Thank you. N Watanabe
It's quite funny to see what a little storm came after I showed that David Griscom, Ph.D. (in Physics...) in fact is a conspiracy theorist. After being absent for a couple days, I just want to respond to a few points. Thanks to VC, all the evidence has been summed up. Just a few points:
Irregularities in a 2006 election tell us ABSOLUTELY nothing about this election. Not one of you brought them up BEFORE the result of this election, and only AFTER Zinkin had lost it did you come out with this evidence. Furthermore, I remember Art claiming repeatedly that this election was going to be close and every vote was needed. Now it is suspicious that it was close? There is an internet abbreviation for this kind of thing: WTF?
Brad, VC, Art: It is on you to PROVE that this election was not correct and not on us to show that it was. VC likes to talk about GOB or Fox News tactics, but that's exactly what you guys are using. Here's a little analogy for you: Yesterday, I ran to California, swam to Hawaii and back. Fact. Disprove it.
The point is, you can throw out all kinds of conspiracies that cannot be disproven --- and that's the kind of thing you are doing:
"Are you SURE the person in office (Hiremath) is the person that the majority of voters actually voted for? And if you are, what is your evidence for this?"
YES, BECAUSE THE BALLOTS WERE COUNTED CORRECTLY AND THAT WAS THE RESULT! You have to prove the above statement is incorrect. And if you could, you'd be up in arms and taking this to the courts. But you can't! That's why you use this blog to create this alternate reality for yourselves.
Fact is, nobody brought up any of these concerns until after the result. You are trying to fault others for what you could not achieve. That's what's colloquially called 'a sore loser'.
Art said: I referred to John Brakey. I referred to David Griscom. I referred to Brad Friedman.
I never met any of these three gentlemen, but I believe any reasonable person will be impressed with their respective credentials. (The key word is "reasonable.")
Could I please get you to retract that statement? Unless you meant to say that Griscom's credentials for his physics work are impressive (I wouldn't disagree with that), but wanted to exclude his political 'beliefs' from that statement (because, as I have repeatedly said, he IS a conspiracy theorist), you just said that "reasonable people believe 9/11 was an inside job".
That, Art, is not called 'putting words in your mouth'. It's Logic 101. So please retract it.
Yes, I agree with OV Dad. Please retract/restate.
I'll restate my total position.
Regardless of what others may think as it concerns any other event or issue, is not the crux of our postings.
The issue at hand is simple enough:
Were there any irregularities in the Pima County 2006 RTA election and, similarly, in the 2010 Oro Valley mayoral election?
What one may think about another's political beliefs is NOT pertinent to this discussion.
Art, I disagree. Some wing nut who thinks 9/11 was an inside job has NO RIGHT to an opinion on ANYTHING.
Such like should be under medical care.
That is just the way it is. If you are nut, then you can not make comments about other subjects without besmirching the point you are attempting to make -BECAUSE everyone knows you are a nut.
If the president of Iran said the OV election was rigged would you believe him?
Nombe---Perhaps you missed the earlier comment by BradF where he wrote: "For the record, the post that Artmath links to is David Griscom's reposting of my original article (originally published here).
So, if you wish to attack the messenger, that would be me, not David nor Artmath."
So, now, if one wishes to find fault with Brad Friedman and his research into election irregularities, go ahead.
If it will please those that still desire "to muddy the water" with superfluous points, will you be satisfied if I completely divorce myself from anything reported by the renown physicist Dr. Griscom?
So be it.
OVDad said:
"Irregularities in a 2006 election tell us ABSOLUTELY nothing about this election."
Right. No more than evidence of a previous murder should be used while prosecuting another murder by the same suspect.
"Brad, VC, Art: It is on you to PROVE that this election was not correct and not on us to show that it was."
The point is that if you can't PROVE that an election was either won or lost, you're using an insane system. That you're unable to prove that anybody won or lost should be troubling to you. The fact that it sounds like your candidate must have won may explain that. When you're candidate loses next time, don't come running to me for help (just kidding, I'll be more than happy to help you, since democracy seems to mean much more to me than it does to you for some reason).
"Here's a little analogy for you: Yesterday, I ran to California, swam to Hawaii and back. Fact. Disprove it."
You're *really* comparing that to your supposedly-democratic (small "d") elections? Really? I guess you must really really like and trust in Big Government, rather than self-governance. I'd not have guessed that about you!
"BALLOTS WERE COUNTED CORRECTLY AND THAT WAS THE RESULT! You have to prove the above statement is incorrect. And if you could, you'd be up in arms and taking this to the courts. "
Actually, that's not the legal standard at all. Not even close. That said, this article was original about the RTA 2006 election, which *has* been in court for some four years. Don't be surprised if the mayoral election you're talking about ends up in the same place.
"But you can't! That's why you use this blog to create this alternate reality for yourselves."
What "alternate reality"? Evidence has been put forward that there are reasons to be concerned about whether they election results were accurate (both the 2006 RTA election and the recent OV election). It's been said that the mark of successful election is when the loser and his/her supporters go away satisfied. That's also what democracy needs to be healthy. Surely you understand that. And if the election system being used assures that citizens can't know if their election was counted accurately, I'd think you'd have a concern about that. Obviously, I'd be wrong in that thinking, if you actually mean the nonsense you've asserted in your comments here.
"That's what's colloquially called 'a sore loser'."
For the record, I know absolutely nothing about either of the candidates in the Mayoral race and have no opinion whatsoever on the RTA election. In fact, the folks who are challenging it -- the Pima County Democratic Party -- actually endorsed the RTA measure. So not sure how you can call them "sore losers". Sounds to me like you're a sore winner!
Nombe said:
"Some wing nut who thinks 9/11 was an inside job has NO RIGHT to an opinion on ANYTHING. ... That is just the way it is. If you are nut, then you can not make comments about other subjects without besmirching the point you are attempting to make -BECAUSE everyone knows you are a nut."
Well thanks for that! I guess we now get to ignore EVERYTHING you say, because only a nut would believe that someone, no matter how they feel about 9/11, has "NO RIGHT to an opinion on ANYTHING".
You have well besmirched your own point, Nombe! Smartly done. Upside: now we get to ignore you completely!
And if the election system being used assures that citizens can't know if their election was counted accurately
How do you suppose they would know that? Manual recounts by any citizen that demands it? That might work for small elections, but certainly not for larger ones'. Also, the expense going into such a process to ensure there is no chance to tamper with the results sure outweighs the benefit of removing doubt from some conspiracy theorists.
Furthermore, please spare me your pathos. From back in my old college days, I remember enough about democracy and its various forms to see through your TV news talking points.
The fact that you try to refute Nombe shows you have no integrity. If this person with a Ph. D. (IN PHYSICS!) defended my point, I would still not take him serious. There are some political beliefs you cannot recover from: Once a nut, always a nut.
For the sake of argument, can we forget anything that was reported here (by me) in reference to David Griscom?
The fact is, Dr. Griscom, as I noted was NOT the source of the information, so, in retrospect, it may have been better had I not brought him into the discussion.
The real question still remains:
Were there any irregularities in the RTA election and, perhaps our recent mayoral election?
For those that find fault with the question, I'm sorry.
For all others, hopefully the question will be answered. It is that hope that gives us the desire to pursue the issue.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Brad F.
You write well and, for the most part, I agree with your thoughts regarding elections. As a newcomer to this blog you have no reason to know that I am more interested in inflammatory off topics ong lyrics than anything else. I agree that my comments pertaining to wing nuts having no right to any opinion on anything was, ipso facto, placing me in the exact group I was attacking, but that is my nature.
So if Hitler likes sponge cake, I will still partake.
So, let me get this right.
Some guys appear on our blog talking about the "stolen" RTA election and Art infers from this that our May election could have been stolen.
VC summarizes a bunch of "facts" about the Oro Valley election. These facts are merely a rehashing of how the voting turned out.
Sorry, friends, but I won't buy itl
There are absolutely no facts that support a finding that the Oro Valley election was rigged.
No facts whatsoever have surfaced. No witnesses. No identified collusion. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
In fact, I'm a bit embarrassed that our blog is even involved in insinuations about the election. It is nothing more than rumor mongering. And it is wrong.
I've told Art this. I am now telling you all this.
Satish Hiremath, our Mayor, won the election because he benefited from an unusually high turnout of in person voters. These people voted to support the increased sales tax for the schools. Most had no idea for whom to vote for Mayor. Some wisely did not vote. Others voted for the name they knew. Hiremath had so badly outspent Mike Zinkin that Hiremath had much higher name recognition. Add to this the Fireman Jackboots who went door to door on behalf of Hiremath. Add to this the negative impact of Latas' resignation. Game over.
Mike Zinkin has put this behind him. We all need to put this to bed.
My vision is that our blog be a vehicle for making Oro Valley great, not a vehicle for inuendo, conspiracy theories, and personal insults.
..........
"All dogs are animals"
"All men are animals"
Therefor:
"All men are dogs"
This was one of the first examples of faulty 'logic' that I was presented with when I took my first course on the subject in college way back when (54 years ago).
Regrettably this type of sequence appears to have been one of the 'logistics' types that penetrated this stream allowing for it to have gotten out of hand to the extent that it did.
Zee Man, your last post was very succinct with superb insight; it IS time to move forward with an emphasis on fact or opinion based on reason.
ZEE man is right. Let us leave the wing nuts at the state senate where they belong.
I appreciate Zee Man's approach to the rigged election issue. Facts do not support that the election outcome was fudged. While some may be upset that their candidate did not win, I believe that is in the best interest for all in the town to look forward to problems that we face rather than looking back and wondering about what might have been.
Thank you, Zee Man. Finally a voice of reason on this thread. Honestly, this blog (and in particular, this thread) has spun out of control.
Sadly, this blog is an example of life...The complainers are the most vocal. I'm thrilled that Zee Man has stood up and said, "There are absolutely no facts that support a finding that the Oro Valley election was rigged."
No need to respond to anything else about this...
OVDad asked:
"How do you suppose they would know that? Manual recounts by any citizen that demands it?"
Sounds good to me! That said, if they had human beings count the ballots publicly, in front of the citizenry (and video cameras, etc.) in the first place, on election night, at the precincts, before the ballots moved anywhere, they likely wouldn't have to do that, would they? And they likely wouldn't be facing all of these questions from folks who have no way of knowing whether the election was tallied accurately or not.
"That might work for small elections, but certainly not for larger ones'."
And that assessment is based on what?? NH, for example, counts by hand, at the precinct, in some 40% of their jurisdictions, for all elections, including Presidential general elections.
Are you suggesting there are just too many people in Oro Valley to be able to do that? If so, what are you basing that assessment on?
"Also, the expense going into such a process to ensure there is no chance to tamper with the results sure outweighs the benefit of removing doubt from some conspiracy theorists."
Huh? The *expense* here (far more than hand-counting at the precincts) spent on these machines which conceal tabulation, is what have brought these questions in the first place.
Apparently you didn't read my original article as linked from Art's original post above. AG Goddard has called the system used in Pima "very, very bad", has had to run a 4 year criminal investigation into the RTA race, based on the sworn affidavit of a county whistleblower who says he was told by the main Elections Division programmer that the election was "fixed".
No "conspiracy" is needed when a single individual can flip the results of any election to anything they want, and guys like you are willing to go to bat to support them without a shred of evidence to back up the assertions that you are supporting.
"Furthermore, please spare me your pathos. From back in my old college days, I remember enough about democracy and its various forms to see through your TV news talking points."
No clue what you're talking about, sir. Sorry about that.
"The fact that you try to refute Nombe shows you have no integrity."
Actually, as I read it, Nombe has agreed with my refutation. (Or, "refudiation" as Sarah Palin would say.)
"There are some political beliefs you cannot recover from: Once a nut, always a nut."
Don't be so hard on yourself. Just because you buy into the unproven conspiracy theory that the RTA election passed successfully, doesn't mean you're a nut. You're just uninformed. I'm sure you're a very nice fellow.
The Zee Man said:
"Satish Hiremath, our Mayor, won the election because he benefited from an unusually high turnout of in person voters. These people voted to support the increased sales tax for the schools. Most had no idea for whom to vote for Mayor. Some wisely did not vote. Others voted for the name they knew. Hiremath had so badly outspent Mike Zinkin that Hiremath had much higher name recognition. Add to this the Fireman Jackboots who went door to door on behalf of Hiremath. Add to this the negative impact of Latas' resignation. Game over."
You're speculation -- perhaps we should call them "rumor mongering", "inuendo" and "conspiracy theories" -- are all well and good. But I'm surprised you don't require anything more than that when giving away the keys to your city. Ya know, stuff like actual evidence and stuff.
But apparently you're happy with one government official telling you that someone "won" and election, and need no more evidence than that, even when that government official has been accused of having "fixed" elections in the passed, by a colleague in a sworn affidavit.
"My vision is that our blog be a vehicle for making Oro Valley great, not a vehicle for inuendo, conspiracy theories, and personal insults."
The graf above, offering speculative reasons for why you think someone won (or lost) an election is *your* inuendo, not mine.
Best,
Brad
James said:
"I believe that is in the best interest for all in the town to look forward to problems that we face rather than looking back and wondering about what might have been."
Me too. That's why clearly Pima County needs a new system for tabulating elections, one that doesn't rely on concealed vote counting, and allowing one single insider to flip an election without detection.
Get yourselves a transparent, overseeable election system and you won't have these problems, constantly "looking back and wondering about what might have been".
Best,
Brad
BradF: That you refer to our firemen as "jackboots" in itself destroys any credibility you might have had whatsoever and puts YOU in the camp of the 'simply hateful' extremists; not a really respected place to be!
Zev--- Once again you speak---or in this case, write without full comprehension.
Brad did not use the term "Jackboots."
You probably were in too big a rush to chastise Brad that you failed to note Brad quoted your friend the Zee Man.
It is the Zee Man you just berated, not Brad.
Nice going!
Sorry Brad, sorry Art, and, Zee Man, utilizing the term 'jackboots' is a term usually reserved for use by the anti-government establishment; I'm surprised you used it.
Now, Art, while you HAD validity in pointing out my misfire, you, once again couldn't help yourself in your accusation that [my comprehension is faulty]; and, ONCE AGAIN this is a case of 'the pot calling the kettle, black'.
Zev,
When you thought that Brad F was the one who used the term "jackboots" you called him a "simply hateful extremist."
When you learned that you were mistaken and it was actually ZeeMan who used the term, you softened your response quite a bit and said, "I'm surprised you used it."
I bring this up because I had been planning to vote for you before you dropped out of the council race because I'd seen many of your posts here and thought you were very knowledgeable, but after seeing this post, I suspect that your votes would have been biased depending on how much you like or dislike someone.
I've read all of the posts on this thread and have to say that Brad F's arguments are by far the strongest.
And I had to laugh at Jay's comment-- "This "reasonable" person can not be impressed by the credentials of at least two of the people Art seems to be enamored with." (David Griscom and John Brakey) but Jay has no trouble "reasoning" that Brad Nelson is a stellar individual whom he can completely trust despite Nelson's reputation for dishonesty and fixing elections.
Sigh...
P.S. Palomino, you noticed that too, eh? :-)
Palomino and Brad,
At the time that Art 'advised' me of my mistake, It saddened me that I had attributed the statement to the wrong person; I apologized. So, should I have turned around, reiterated to Zee Man that I include him in the camp of 'hateful extremists'? I had already addressed how I felt about such terminology therefor I felt no need to rehash it.I do not know Brad but I do know Zee Man and having had many exchanges with him I was, in fact, very surprised that he utilized the term as I have perceived him to be more 'collected' in the past.
Let's face it, this stream was a mess - a plethora of one person quoting another, discrediting
whomever, justification for conspiracy theories, etc. - a mish-mash of confusion at best (my opinion). At the end of the stream, I misread BradF's post, and though I was corrected in a manner that was somewhat flip, I did attempt an apology to ALL concerned.
Again, I regret that I miss-read the post and will state that my indignity at the use of the term 'jackboot' as an adjective for those who serve the security interests of our people, our Community, our Country, goes out to anyone, no matter whom, who might use this terminology - including Zee-Man.
Anyone been to a good restaurant lately?
Post a Comment