In article <HPAhk.18280$Ri.3890@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Marinus van der Lubbe <mvdl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Mike Laight wrote:
>> Do you think this Rezko stuff is news? The case has been over for
>> months and even the Republican federal prosecutor said that NOTHING
>> implicated BO in any wrong doing.
>>
>> How many more times do you plan on pulling out this same non-news?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> "527_blue_collar_worker" <GeraldCNewton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>It's creepy. Am I the only who thinks people like 527 are being paid to
>spread disinformation that somehow has missed people who don't own a TV
>or listen to commercial radio?
Nope! As far as the poster who has variedly assumed the netnames
GeraldCNewton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Clifford,
BlueCollarWorker, BlueCollarElectrician, ...
numbers_guy,
527, ... etc,
who has been posting dozens of attack messages on Obama daily since
April this year is concerned, I have expressed my suspicion.
What he has been doing in this and related newsgroups is abnormal for
an individual poster, whatever his or her viewpoints might be. He has
to have been working for some entity. And from those messages that I
have read, he revealed:
1) He does "4-6 hours of research daily" for his postings.
2) He said (to someone who asked him to tell about something) in a
heated moment: `"I don't work for free kookieboy. You will have to
pay the regular rate: $250/hr." (See (A) below.)
3) He made ``emergency'' broadcast in the newsgroup (4 May 2008)
saying:
"I'm in the process of fle****ng this out, but it's big news that
the MSM isn't understanding fully, and I wanted to put it on
people's radar a.s.a.p. The Clinton camp called a press conference
tonight, which I attended telephonically, to accuse the Obama
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Texas campaign of "statewide systemic" abuses of the caucus
process. They've "lawyered up" -- had a lawyer on the call -- and
are expressly keeping open the possibility of legally contesting
the Texas caucuses long into the future."
(See (B) below.)
And naturally, Obama's ascension is a huge concern to the neocon war
lobby because of Obama's view on the occupation war in Iraq and his
``soft'' view on Iran whereas both McCain and Hillary Clinton have
both been vetted in this regard. And the function for a neocon ****ll
before the end of the Democratic party primary run was to coordinate
his messages with the Clinton campaign messages, now it is more free,
just anything that could topple Obama and allow McCain in is a better
alternative for the neocon war lobby.
And this is how the ``Gerald C. Newton'' guy has fitted into the
neocon scheme.
lo yeeOn
========
(A) My previous post which captures GeraldCNewton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
claiming
"I don't work for free kookieboy. You will have to pay the
regular rate: $250/hr"
Subject: Hillary has faltered because her politics is fundamentally flawed
Re: How Hillary Clinton is getting screwed by the media and the DNC!
Summary:
Expires:
References:
<7693b9c7-3a28-4e87-b049-c5d6d3cd1101@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<3a3dfbad-1115-414f-8c01-8ff717bcf42a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<6e8a7809-5f6b-443c-ad66-02de237b63a0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<85edd47a-aa4d-4437-95ad-6c90256b89dd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Keywords:
Cc:
In article
<85edd47a-aa4d-4437-95ad-6c90256b89dd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
numbers_guy <GeraldCNewton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 27, 2:23 pm, fargo116 <fargo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
.. . .
>> > > S. Olson- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > By the way Fargo, Google does those stats (you know the one's you
like
>> > to post as if you are somehow the assumed kook overlord of these
>> > groups) on this group and they do not match yours at all. All your
>> > tedious work is done for you and you didn't know that. Now be a nice
>> > little boy, and I will tell you how to find the stats
>>
>> Well, tell us Festus. It wouldn't be 'five' would it?
>>
>> S. Olson- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I don't work for free kookieboy. You will have to pay the regular
>rate: $250/hr.
OK! Now you admitted you're doing all these insane postings for
money.
As to who you're working for, we needn't go far to find out. In
another follow-up of yours in the same thread, you said:
>> Hillary Clinton should run as an independent, and she could beat
>> both Obama and McCain.
As I have repeatedly said, despite others who thought you were working
fore the republicans, you are Hillary's paid ****ll. (Initially, you
were trying to pretend, although doing a poor job of it, that you
were not doing it for Hillary when I pointed it out. But now you have
dropped you figleaf even, perhaps because of fatigue just like Hillary
herself, eh?)
You've at least admitted in the past that you were doing ``4-6 hours
of research daily'' to give you the ammunition for dozens and dozens
repetitive propaganda pieces you posted everyday, ever since Hillary
was going downhill. But then you still claimed that you were not a
``Hillary ****ll'', which was of course unbelievable.
(And let's see: $250/hr and 4-6 hours daily make 10 to 15 thousand
dollars a day and thirty thousand dollars a month. Mercenary kind of
work and pay, I see . . ..)
I don't care what you call yourself, but you have been posting for the
very specific purpose of spreading lies and fear for the benefit of
Hillary's faltering campaign.
You have repeatedly bandied about the caucus argument against Obama,
long before the mainstream press mentioned (and therefore confirmed)
it as a Hillary campaign argument to diminish Obama's leading
position.
Of course, you were relentlessly pursuing the by-now famous Hillary
strategy of exploiting the impoverished southern white Americans.
And amidst countless other deceptions and smears, you started talking
about the likelihood that Hillary might make a run as an independent
if she doesn't like what she sees, comes the end of the primary
season.
This talk was offered amidst Hillary's contention that her pestilent
stay in the race would not hurt the party's prospect in Novemeber,
despite all the contrary evidence.
What Hillary means is that
a) hopefully ``I would be the nominee and I would have Obama as my
runningmate'' or if not, then
b) ``Obama would pick me as his runningmate, so either way we'll be a
unified party''.
So, it is clear to me that just as the caucus argument which you've
been bandying around for a while, this argument that Hillary would
bolt and run as an independent is also a strategy decision coming down
from the campaign hierarchy. And the intended audience of all this
talk are at least partly intended for the superdelegates.
Essentially, the Hillary campaign wants to scare the party into
submission.
It hopes that the powers-that-be will force it upon Obama to accept
Hillary as his VP to keep her from bolting. It wants the party to
repeat the JFK/LBJ marriage of convenience, despite the known tragic
result.
I don't know if Obama would be so stupid as not to see the danger to
his life with Hillary always feeling ``ready to succeed him from day
one''. If Hillary was presenting the RFK assassination scenerio as a
rationale for the party to let her stay and be ready to take the helm,
she was clearly also telling her less scrupulous sup****ters among the
neocons to come up with something after the election, if not before,
to make her the chief.
But the Democratic party might be worrying too much. If it keeps its
cool, the Obama ticket will be a winner.
The party actually does not need to fear the Hillary threat because
of Bob Barr's run as a libertarian party nominee.
Hillary will not get her ``working Americans, hard-working Americans,
hard-working white Americans'' voting for her in the general election
when they have McCain and Bob Barr to choose from.
For her beloved constituents from the south, the white woman was just
a stand-in for the next white man to come along.
Hillary isn't gonna have too many women voting for her in the fall as
an independent either, just as she couldn't win the party's nomination
with the women's vote.
She could not because of a few simple reasons. People who can think
just a bit are suspicious of anti-war credential. People are wary of
her tie to cor****ate interests and the neocon lobby. People are weary
of the dire economy facing down on America, a problem which is clearly
caused by our unending foreign occupation-wars and which would only
get worse with time. People are weary of Hillary's indecent disregard
for the truth and truthfulness.
And anyone who can see that occupation of Iraq is not going to get
easier will see that the war will loom large in the fall, just as ABC
News's Sam Donaldson also believes.
And there is no sound argument to a marriage-of-convenience ticket in
the two. Hillary belongs to the past while Obama to the future.
The past and the future are not characterized by whether a woman or a
black man can get hired for America's top job. The past and the
future are separated by what interests the person who will get that
top job finds him- or herself beholden to.
Hillary is beholden to the status quo, the cor****ate interests, and
the war-driven neocons. Obama is propelled by the grassroots, the
anti-war movement, and people's power.
The Democratic party can choose to belong to the past by resorting to
the same old tired politics of forcing its will on its members as well
as its sup****ters at the polls at large. It can do so by cynically
fixing a political marriage of convenience, forcing obama's sup****ters
to buy the damaged good in Hillary Clinton. Or it can let the process
take its natural and therefore democratic course. If they choose
cynicism over democracy, they will at least turn off some people like
myself.
Why I will not vote for an Obama-Hillary ticket? 1) I don't want
Obama to get assassinated. 2) I don't want someone who threatens
other nations with ``total obliteration'' to be near our nuclear
arsenal. And 3) I don't want the dynastic tendency to continue.
In the particular case of the Clintons, they are simply too indecent
to be let back in.
lo yeeOn
========
Courtesy of valinor20@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tue May 27 22:57:05 EDT 2008]
Hillary's Hostage Crisis
By RJ Eskow
Created May 23 2008 - 10:00am
Hillary's rhetoric of the past 24 hours has gone from conciliatory to
cataclysmic, turning on a high-speed dime like some UFO over the Florida
swamps. An awful [1]lot [2]of [3]Democrats [4]are shocked and outraged at
her use of civil rights rhetoric over the primary dispute, especially
after
winning two primaries with the help of some white voters who admitted
their
choice was influenced by race.1
Some are suggesting a personality ****ft explains the change of tone, but
she's cooler and smarter than that. It's more likely that this sudden
transformation is premeditated, brought on by a simpler and more ruthless
motive: She's demonstrating to Obama and the superdelegates what she's
capable of doing if she's crossed.
Think about it: She's showing that she is willing to ignite a firestorm,
amplify the misguided rage of her sup****ters, and split the party in two
if
her demands are not met. She no longer expects to get the nomination. She
has another list of demands, which might include the vice presidency but
definitely involve high-level appointments for herself and/or her
sup****ters. She spent a couple of days showing how good she can be for the
party. Now, the purpose of her recent comments has been to show how much
damage she can do.
And she can do a lot. Many of her sup****ters remain convinced that not
counting the Florida and Michigan votes (that is, honoring the pledge she
and others signed) is some sort of disenfranchisement. She's made it clear
she will push that argument until she has what she wants.
She's also making it clear she can keep the racial issue on the
front-burner. What was most outrageous about her now-infamous WaPo
interview
[5] wasn't her claim of media ***ism, which undoubtedly exists. It wasn't
even her claim that she's losing because of bias -- despite the fact that
she was once the odds-on favorite and was a woman then, too. More
outrageous
was her claim that there has been no racism in this campaign -- this from
a
candidate whose last two victories came from white voters who, by 20% and
25% respectively, acknowledged that race played an im****tant role in their
choice.
What does that kind of talk accomplish? It inflames her sup****ters'
mistaken
belief that she's been unjustly robbed, while at the same time dismissing
the idea that both nominees had hurdles to overcome. The ongoing rage of
Hillary sup****ters is her best bargaining chip. It's the dynamite she can
use to blow up the party.
And speaking of racial: Was it just coincidental that she invoked
Zimbabwe,
of all places, in describing the Florida election? And not just Zimbabwe,
but the President of Zimbabwe: "the president lost, they refused to abide
by
the will of the people." Nice. The President of Zimbabwe is, of course, a
scary and possibly corrupt black man. (No subliminal racial message there,
of course; it's just one of the ongoing series of "accidental" inferences
the Clintons keep innocently making.)
She knows these arguments won't sway the superdelegates to give her the
nomination. What she's doing now is showing the Obama team and the Party's
leaders that she has it in her power to cost them the election in
November.
Her surrogates are busy doing the same thing: "undermining the legitimacy
of
the Democratic nominee," as Scott Lemieux [6] puts it.
It's a hostage crisis. She's showing that she'll destroy the party if
necessary, even if it means destroying her own political future. She
wasn't
having a personality crisis when she switched from nice to mean yesterday:
She was showing everybody the detonator in her hand. It was a Dog Day
Afternoon moment, with Hillary as Al Pacino -- walking back and forth,
smiling and nodding her head and saying "See what I can do? Still want to
write me off?"
She didn't think Florida and Michigan were "rights" issues when she signed
that pledge -- not until it was in her self-interest to do so. But a lot
of
her sup****ters either don't know that or don't care, and she knows it. She
knows that a certain percentage of Democrats will chant along with her
when
she and her sup****ters start saying "Count the votes! Count the votes!"
What a moment that will be. Like "Attica State! Attica State!" but with a
less sympathetic character leading the charge.
___________________
1Don't believe race is a factor in this campaign? Watch this video [7]
about
Kentucky - then ponder why no American news outlet bothered to interview
these voters.
RJ Eskow blogs:
Night Light [8]
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog [9]
============================================================
(B) GeraldCNewton broadcast urgent telephone briefing from the Clinton
campaign
From GeraldCNewton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun May 4 22:16:20 EDT 2008
Article: 807530 of alt.impeach.bush
Path:
reader2.panix.com!panix!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!1g2000prg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: blue_collar_worker <GeraldCNewton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: alt.impeach.bush
Subject: Clinton Claiming Widespread Fraud By Obama, Ramping Up Legal War
To
String Out Primary
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 10:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 35
Message-ID:
<bdd85adc-ebbd-4303-afcc-8b72566daa4d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.67.56.133
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1209920446 13677 127.0.0.1 (4 May 2008
17:00:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun, 4 May 2008 17:00:46 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1g2000prg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.67.56.133;
posting-account=8L-8XwoAAAD9NSLRo4PBUTHfyfAV_tv4
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET
CLR
1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC
4.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: panix alt.impeach.bush:807530
I'm in the process of fle****ng this out, but it's big news that the
MSM isn't understanding fully, and I wanted to put it on people's
radar a.s.a.p. The Clinton camp called a press conference tonight,
which I attended telephonically, to accuse the Obama Texas campaign of
"statewide systemic" abuses of the caucus process. They've "lawyered
up" -- had a lawyer on the call -- and are expressly keeping open the
possibility of legally contesting the Texas caucuses long into the
future.
Among other things, they claim that Obama sup****ters have stolen
caucus materials and chairs needed by Clinton sup****ters, "taking
control" of caucus sites, and locking out "long lines" of Clinton
sup****ters to ensure the caucuses go Obama's way. They also confirmed
that they will press their Convention delegates to insist that the
Florida and Michigan delegations be seated at the DNC convention in
August, WITHOUT the revotes that everyone besides the Clintonites are
urging as a fair way to honor those voters without being unfair to
candidates (Obama's name didn't even appear on the Michigan ballot,
but Clinton wants those pro-Clinton-by-default delegates seated
anyway).
Buzz up!on Yahoo!It was just a few hours ago, but I did predict this
exact scenario unfolding before all these claims of scurrilous
behavior slammed into the media machine like the Galveston Hurricane
of 1900:
The Clinton camp seems intent on building a "record" of supposed
campaign violations in Texas, which is critical to them and which
they're very afraid they'll lose, so that they can file a lawsuit
challenging the results and then use that as an excuse to stay in the
race even though it hurts the party ("we can't drop out now, we don't
even know how the courts will rule in Texas").
from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-bellows/clinton-claiming-widespre_b_89925.html
|
