How Many Homes Does John Kerry Own?

[Michael Tee]

<<She went to jail for contempt. You noticed Novak didn't go to jail.>>

What the hell do you think it means when a journalist goes to jail for contempt?  You think she mooned the judge in open court?  The contempt was the refusal to comply with a judge's order, probably to name a source or produce information that would cause a source to be revealed.  My understanding is that Novak didn't go to jail because he named his source - - I think the source ultimately consented to being named.

<<If someone saw Obama and this guy chatting at the bar what followed has added possibility.>>

"Added posibility" isn't what wins lawsuits.  Proof on a balance of probabilities wins lawsuits.  And seeing two guys chatting at a bar does NOT prove on a balance of probabilities that they wound up sucking each other off in a limo.  Far, far from it.  Schecter has two guys who say they heard the c-word and all the rest of it.

<<BTW at about the same time there was supposedly a tape of Michelle on an anti-white rant. All this at te time the wheels were falling off Hillary's wagon.>>

Since every contest starts with many contestants and finishes with one sole survivor, I think we can take it that a lot of wheels fell off a lot of wagons.  If wheels falling off wagons is a sure-fire indicator of scurrilous attack video production, your country would by now be so awash in them that they'd be showing up between the Saturday morning cartoons.  Getting a little desperate, are we?

<<Bloggers have been recognized by the courts as having journalistic privileges. Remember the Apple case? Apple sued because a blogger leaked info about an upcoming IPod release. Apple was plumbing what they thought was an internal leak. The judge sided with the blogger. I would think that protection would apply to guest bloggers. It didn't involve national security and neither did the McCain slur.>>

Of course the report of McCain's atrocious verbal abuse of his wife involved national security - - by McCain's own admission, he's the only candidate who's qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.  If negative campaigning based on lies costs him the election, then America is deprived of its only qualified C-in-C, all due to Schecter's baseless lies.  The whole country could be devastated as a result, as it would have been if "President" Bush had not attacked Iraq in the nick of time.

[BT]

Schecter has two guys who say they heard the c-word and all the rest of it.

Yeah the ones who insisted on remaining anomynous.

How convenient. And the ones he did name at the meeting did not corroborate it.

"Added posibility" isn't what wins lawsuits.  Proof on a balance of probabilities wins lawsuits.

Are we now advocating that Obama file suit. Obama has admitted to using coke. Why is it unbelievable that he relapses occasionally.

I don't see why you insists that it could only be the GOP behind this, the guy could be nuts or some other politician with something to gain could be behind it.

Was the GOP behind the whole Wright smear? Was the GOP also behind the Edwards affair. Does the GOP have long tentacles into the Enquirer? If memory serves the publisher is a friend of Bill's. So why would this video be beyond their capabilities?

[Michael Tee]

<<And the ones he [Schecter] did name at the meeting did not corroborate it.>>

You're just trying to muddy the waters.  He did not name the two who obviously heard the remark and told him about it.  Being at a meeting does NOT equate to hearing McCain's every insult uttered there.

<<Are we now advocating that Obama file suit. Obama has admitted to using coke. Why is it unbelievable that he relapses occasionally.>>

It's not unbelievable, the point is that the accuser has no resources and there are no witnesses for either side to confirm or deny either the use of coke or the BJ.

<<I don't see why you insists that it could only be the GOP behind this, the guy could be nuts or some other politician with something to gain could be behind it.>>

I never insisted it could only be the GOP, I said it has "GOP" written all over it.  As far as I can recall, nobody has ever attacked the courage of a decorated war veteran before in American politics.  Guys who served, who put their lives on the line, are regarded (at least by those who support the cause they bled for) as sacrosanct.  The Swift Boat attacks, IMHO, set a new low in American poltiical life.  Basically what they proved was that the GOP would stoop to anything in order to win an "election."   To add insult to injury, a courageous soldier was being smeared on behalf of a bunch of draft-dodging, combat-avoiding crooks.   

Here you have another example of the same thing - - no average person would ever think of smearing a decent, respectable, married father of small children, of getting sucked off in a limo by some low-life, and especially not on behalf of some lying, philandering, cheating, adulterous weasel like John Insane.

Here's the essence of the GOP techique:  you have an opponent whose virtues are exactly those that appeal most to your own base: martial valor in Kerry's case, solid family and marriage in Obama's.  Youi have a leader who embodies the exact opposite of those very virtues.  How do you nullify this advantage?  The traditional ways are to play down the importance of the virtues, or to make excuses for your man's lack thereof.  HOWEVER - - and I think you have to admire the GOP for the sheer audacity of the tactic - - there is another way:  simply DENY that your opponent ever possessed those virtues in the first place.  If the Truth stands in your way, no problem:  Deny it.  Mr. Martial Valor is a wimp; Mr. Solid Family Man does coke and gets sucked off by guys in limos. 

It's that unmistakeable combination of audacity and total moral bankruptcy that allows, in fact even mandates, the GOP to pull this kinda shit.  AFter all, how else can a party that represents only the interests of the very wealthiest people in the country, ever hope to come even close to 50% of the votes in any American "election?"

So while you are correct in that it is also possible that the video could have come from "independent" wackos, the fact remains that it's a trademark GOP operation, it was posted here in this group by a McCain supporter, and all signs point to a "dirty tricks" GOP origin.

[Amianthus]

So while you are correct in that it is also possible that the video could have come from "independent" wackos, the fact remains that it's a trademark GOP operation, it was posted here in this group by a McCain supporter, and all signs point to a "dirty tricks" GOP origin.

* Amianthus suggests Mikey look up "false flag".

[Michael Tee]

Thanks, Ami, I'll add "false flag" to my list of "other" possibilities.  And still say that this one is a trademark GOP operation.  Particularly as the Democrats  haven't  run any "false flag" videos to my knowledge any time in this campaign or the two before it.

[Amianthus]

Thanks, Ami, I'll add "false flag" to my list of "other" possibilities.  And still say that this one is a trademark GOP operation.  Particularly as the Democrats  haven't  run any "false flag" videos to my knowledge any time in this campaign or the two before it.

How would you know?

[Michael Tee]

Never been caught, anyway.

False flags are an old Republican trick, BTW.  Nixon used them extensively in his campaign against Helen Gahagan Douglas in California, getting a bunch of ragged-looking, bearded, scruffy and foreign-accented people to announce their "support" for Douglas in conjunction with his above-ground campaign that she was a communist plant.

If anyone is false-flagging it'll be the Republicans.  They pioneered the whole thing.

[Amianthus]

If anyone is false-flagging it'll be the Republicans.  They pioneered the whole thing.

Sun Tzu was a Republican? Cool.

Every military thinker and spy master in the world was a Republican? Even cooler.

False flag operations go way back. Even Sun Tzu didn't "invent" them, he documented a useful strategy.

I'm pretty sure the "whisper campaign" about McCain's adopted daughter, the whole Ruby Ridge fiasco, and the current "Obama sniper" stuff are all Democratic false flag operations.

[Michael Tee]

<<Sun Tzu was a Republican? Cool.

<<Every military thinker and spy master in the world was a Republican? Even cooler.

<<False flag operations go way back. Even Sun Tzu didn't "invent" them, he documented a useful strategy.>>

No shit, Sherlock.  It was the Republicans who pioneered this thing in post-war U.S. politics.  Nixon showed the way.

<<I'm pretty sure the "whisper campaign" about McCain's adopted daughter. . .  are all Democratic false flag operations.>>

Of course not, they're probably Bush's and Rove's.

I don't usually associate the Ruby Ridge incident as a false flag operation and the guys who want to shoot Obama were Nazis and/or white supremacists last I heard.  Nobody accused them of being Republicans so far, although of course you never know.  They sure as hell didn't look like Hillary supporters.

[Amianthus]

the guys who want to shoot Obama were Nazis and/or white supremacists last I heard.  Nobody accused them of being Republicans so far, although of course you never know.  They sure as hell didn't look like Hillary supporters.

Well, duh. If they were gay Democrats from San Francisco, it wouldn't be much of a "false flag" operation, would it?

The whole point would be to convince people that nobody would think were working for the Democrats to do it. Hell, even the people involved wouldn't necessarily know that they were doing the bidding of the Democrats.

[Michael Tee]

Meantime you don't have a shred of evidence that this is a false flag operation.  But let the wild speculation continue.  I think I see where it's leading.  Every Republican fuck-up that COULD be a false-flag operation IS a false flag operation.  No obviously Democratic fuck-up could EVER be a Republican false-flag operation.  Brilliant.

[Amianthus]

Meantime you don't have a shred of evidence that this is a false flag operation.

Well, if it's a well-run false flag operation, there would BE no evidence.

[Amianthus]

Well, if it's a well-run false flag operation, there would BE no evidence.

Let me clarify a bit; perhaps you don't understand what a "false flag operation" is.

The whole point of a false flag operation is to inflict damage of some sort on an opponent, and have all the evidence point to someone else - preferably another opponent, but an innocent bystander will work as well. So, if Hillary (or some other high ranking Democrat) wanted to take out Obama (I mean politically, not necessarily literally) the best way is to use a false flag op and have all the evidence point to the Republicans.

The closest to "evidence" in this case is the fact that the video was made in April - this was about the time that Hillary was suffereing in the polls. However, at that time, the GOP was still targeting BOTH candidates.

[Plane]

<<I doubt a reporter would be required to reveal his sources in a civil case. !st amendment. McCain is a public figure. He's fair game.>>

Geeze, now Schecter's a journalist again.  You change colours faster than a chameleon.  When I talked about Schecter putting his journalistic reputation at risk, your response was that he wasn't a journalist, but a political operative.  Now he's a journalist again.  Better make up your mind once and for all, my head is spinning trying to keep up with your flip-flops.

As I understand privilege and confidentialty, in Canada at least, they are confined to the recognized and traditional roles of solicitor-client and doctor-patient.  Maybe (I'm not sure about this) when a guy makes a confession to a priest, but I don't believe this is recognized in English or Canadian law.  Journalists definitely have no privilege.  They must reveal sources.  I'd bet it's the same in the U.S.  Judith Miller went to jail didn't she?

<<Perhaps you should watch the video again. the guy said he met Obama at a fancy bar. All he has to do is have a witness put Obama and this guy in the same place at the same time.>>

Ludicrous - - lotsa people meet in fancy bars.  They don't all wind up blowing each other in limos.  Simple fact is, Obama's accuser has no witnesses, Schecter has two.

<< BTW the video was added to You tube  March 04, 2008. Easily could have been a Hillary supporter.>>

Nah.  Not Hillary's style.  Not her supporters' style either.  This one has GOP written all over it.

Check the details of "travelgate" ,nasty is Hillarys style in spades.

[Michael Tee]

<<Check the details of "travelgate" ,nasty is Hillarys style in spades.>>

"Nasty" isn't the point, audacity is.  Before Swift-Boating, nobody in either party would have dared to attack the military record of a decorated combat veteran and claim his medals were undeserved.  That had never happened before.  It was doubly audacious, since the attacks were committed on behalf of yellow-bellies who never had the guts to serve and pulled off every subterfuge in the book to avoid service.  They went for the jugular, got him where he lived.

Same thing with this Obama BJ and coke video.  Obama's clearly a family guy, which is one of his major advantages against McCain, who desperately needs the religious right, but happens to be a  lying, philandering, double-crossing weasel of the first order.  Betrayed wife and marriage vows.  How to get around THAT?  Head-on attack on the very virtue that is Obama's strong point, that Michelle showcased at the convention, knowing it was their strongest suit.  That audacity (not the "nastiness") is the Republican trademark.