Has anyone noticed that we aren't allowed to disagree with Madsen's

[saracat]

theories or we will be called freepers? I believe the 2004 election was stolen. I am not impressed by Madsen. Why do I have too agree? I support Arnebeck and have been working with reporters to get the truth out. Why do I have to buy into Madsen, or be discredited? Can't we disagree on this board anymore? This is becoming as bad as the people who were so nasty if others didn't agree with Bev Harris. I don't like being told to drink the kool aid. I will form my own opinion.

[Moderator]

1. The moderators have been instructed to get tough on these offenders

If you see someone calling or insinuating someone else is a freeper, please hit Alert.

See this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x123856

[intelle]

16. Saracat..I am in your corner

It HAS been pretty rough around here the last few days. Like you, I am skeptical of the Madsen material. I would really love to have it be true, but I have my doubts and they won't be laid to rest until something more (like evidence) surfaces.

Skepticism is healthy, and I have found that when I ignore my 'gut', I get into trouble.



:hi:

[regularjoe]

37. Thank You Moderators!

:yourock:


Too much unreasoned fighting and accusation of late. Too much violent emotion. And far too much post count analysis. I think it drives away people that don't want to fight but could make great contributions.

Intelligent discussion, here we come. :bounce:

[jamboi]

2. Flame bait! n/t

[Razorback_Democrat]

3. Is it possible to disagree without creating the appearance of

trying to "debunk"?

I think it is.

I'd like to see how it all goes in the Conyers hearings with Smith's affidavit.

I also think there is a lot of info we (or me anyhow) doesn't have regarding this Smith thing.

I think Madsen sounds a little loopy, but didn't Woodward and Bernstein sound loopy too?

Thanks

[Kellis]

13. excellent reply.

I agree with you.

I ignored Bev Harris posts b/c I found I could use my time more effectively than trying to understand what was going on with BBV.

If you don't agree with Madsen fine.But a lot of people do.Why constantly go at the supporters?Just let it go and find another way to support the Party and the Fraud Story.
If Madsen's story turns out to be illegit Im sure it will be proven one way or another-in the meantime we have better things to do than argue with his supporters.

[saracat]

21. I don't "constantly go to his supporters. "

The issue has been debated and if you disagree , you have been jumped. I don't think any poster should be treated this way for maintaining a different interpretation of the facts . Both points of view may have value.

[Kellis]

28. saracat I didn't mean to imply

that you were constantly going at them.Im just saying-if you are making a thread about getting nailed for disagreeing with Madsen then obviously you are spending a lot of time on the Madsen story(of which you disagree/discredit)so why not spend your time more effectively and let the Madsen supporters go at it?

[saracat]

32. I am not so much concerned with Madsen as how his

supporters have been responding to those who disagree. I spend very little time on Masden, but I do spend some time on DU and have been really concerned about the current tone . It has become rude and nasty. There isn't a good reason for that. And I haven't been "nailed " . I have just had rude resposes. But the nastiness is filtered all over the board in this topic.

[suziedemocrat]

67. Actually I appreciate people questioning Madsen.

Because - IF what he is saying is true and can be proven - It's all over for Bush. Madsen's story is incredible. Doesn't mean it is not true - just a little hard to believe at points. The more we are SURE it IS true - the more we can talk openly about voter fraud with confidence with people at work, etc. The more we can DEMAND the press take us seriously. The less we feel scared we will be called tin-foil-hat-nut-cases. This board is invaluable at giving us the strength to go beyond this board. I think we need to really TEST Madsen - because what he is saying is so important! Then - if it passes our rigorous testing - we'll know we have a solid case!

BTW - some of us have just a few posts because we lurk but don't always have much to add.

[ibegurpard]

64. But you don't HAVE facts

unless you're involved in an investigation or something you're not telling us. I don't have facts either. Some of this smells fishy to me but I have no way of knowing whether it's true and I've seen the way that the right-wing works to discredit people.
The problem we seem to be facing is that even the FACTS can be discredited because they have such a effective organization. So, while I share the skepticism with many, I just don't think very many of us are in a position to be able to KNOW what the truth is.

[saracat]

65. I have the right to express the feeling that it "smells fishy".

and I have the right to think , as you do, that there aren't any "facts" yet. I don't have facts, nor do I claim to, but I do feel some, like Arnebeck are doing a better job of building a case with "facts" or at least attempting to verify!

[mostly_lurking]

22. Who is "Smith"? n/t

[ibegurpard]

63. Absolutely

And so many people come charging arrogantly into these discussions with "proof" to debunk things when people have no way of knowing many specifics about either side of the story.
Remaining skeptical is fine. I'm skeptical of ALL of this because too many things have not panned out in the past. However, I've SEEN the number that the radical right-wing has done on whistle-blowers in the past so I also know that jumping on the "it's all conspiracy theory" bandwagon is not the way to go, either.

[MarkusQ]

4. Keep your eye on the ball

They withheld machines (and thus suppressed votes) in predominantly Democratic precincts throughout Ohio. This caused Bush to win, and Kerry to lose. And that's why it's so important that we all focus on Madsen's elusive web of implications. Because if we didn't, we might see that the actual mechanism for rigging the election is hidden in plain sight.

--MarkusQ

[Helga Scow Stern]

18. That's so right, and now the head Civil Rights Commissioner is being

shooed out of office immediately, not even being allowed to wait until the end of her appointment on 1/21/05. I just wrote to all the international monitors about that. That is important and right in front of us. This other stuff may be important too, but we need to pay attention to what IS right in front of us.

The international monitors said in their preliminary report that they had no proof of civil rights violations. Here are things that are easily verified.

[Wordie]

19. Here'a a Free Press article with other details about the lack of machines

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/995

I believe that one of the OH lawsuits also deals with this issue.

[Cronus Protagonist]

71. That prerry much sums up my POV as well

Gotta stay focussed like a laser on the things that will produce RESULTS - I just don't have time to spare to spend on looking at the periphery.




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[Karmadillo]

5. Good point, saracat. One can believe

there might well indeed be evidence supporting claims the election was stolen, but one can at the very same time believe Madsen's claims are not remotely believable (the check that was real that was fake but was still really good evidence because something or other). Because the corporate media will be more than happy to have us fall on our faces regarding this matter and use every false claim to discredit those that are true, it is extremely helpful for people like yourself to subject every story to genuine scrutiny. We're not a Republican hive and last I checked, independent thought is still allowed.

[saracat]

6. Thank you. I am glad that someone is open to scrutiny.

I just cannot believe the attacks that people, including myself ,have been subjected too for questioning. And the emails which have been sent to Olberman as the result of his daring to question. Between Bev and this stuff, I would be afraid he will drop the issue.

[papau]

10. I agree - Olberman is a good guy saying truth - Madsen has yet to

earn our trust.

But I want to believe him :-)

Rove is very good, isn't he.

Truth about AWOL lost in discussion of typeface.

Damn....

:-(

[anamandujano]

30. The whore press runs with everything Rove gives them.

"Rove is very good, isn't he.

Truth about AWOL lost in discussion of typeface."


Wouldn't a self respecting press have thought out the details and presented the salient aspects of the story perhaps even putting some effort into tracing the setup back to the source?

[Woo]

7. Nothing wrong with that...

I have no issues with people who disagree -- I wouldn't even mind if republicans were allowed to clearly and openly voice a strong *respectful* opinion --

What I don't like is when someone offers up their profession(such as computer programming) as a reason they're an expert on an overly parsed statement that has been made in an article... then parades itheir opinion around as fact. It's been happening a lot around here -- it bothers me -- I've only said something once -- I'll just shut my mouth now... but I don't like it and would like to see those true liberals who are programmers reserve opinion until they have a full picture -- it would be helpful, especially to those inclined to go whichever the wind blows.

[Broken Acorn]

8. You have supporters saracat

I have been personally attacked the past few days for speaking the truth. If people wan't to disagree fine, but they are acting like children when they result to name calling and immature responses.

[Sideways]

54. Maybe Your "Truth" Isn't Another's Truth

Pretty arrogant to think that only you have the truth. You might get more respect if you say "I have been personally attacked for stating MY opinion."

I don't think the issue is post count or disagreement I think people are being capped on by the old timers because hubris is pretty unattractive. Just food for thought.

[hippiechick]

60. That street does go both ways, by the way ... n/t

:hippie:

[Sideways]

62. I Never Said It Didn't Did I? Please Don't Try To Frame My Post

EOM

[ClintCooper2003]

9. I agree. I think at least the vast majority of us can concur that...

Arnebeck seems very much like a straight shooter.

[jamboi]

11. Yes, I agree and I think we should feed him the most valuable info we find

re: Ohio. [email protected]

[intelle]

17. Absolutely! Arnebeck is on the ball! n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

12. Keith Olbermann and Bev Harris disagree with M too

Keith Olbermann laid out his reasons for being wary of Madsen's story in his Dec 6 blog entry:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240

And Bev Harris also lists reasons she is skeptical of Madsen in her Dec 7 entry (scroll WAY down to find it):
http://blackboxvoting.org

And of course, these two DU icons have had their fiery clashes with each other as well. Lots of disagreement all around.

We need to keep our skepticism and our calm. Given what we're up against, accusing one another of daring to disagree is sort of...Republican, eh? And suspending our critical faculties in order to hold on to a good-sounding story would be disastrous. Just ask Dan Rather.

Getting upset and flinging accusations at each other doesn't help. It's our sense of community that will keep us going despite all the frustration.

And I think that Clifford Arnebeck, not Wayne Madsen, is the one to watch.

[Razorback_Democrat]

15. We need to watch all fronts

and not expect anyone to overturn the election

that just isn't likely to happen

but we can wish and hope it will

and at the very least we can have reform so this never happens again

[Nothing Without Hope]

20. Yes to all you say, Razorback

Whether or not the election can be overturned remains to be seen. But we can't pin ALL our hopes on that alone. The exposure and reform are essential no matter what, and so is the strength of continued community of effort.

[mostly_lurking]

14. I have very vocally disagreed with Madsen (and Curtis)

The moderators have very swiftly deleted posts from others yelling "troll" or "freeper."

I am glad that there are some decidedly cool heads in this forum --

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. Yes, I valued your posts in the Madsen thread yesterday

...and I'm glad the atmosphere was calmed by the moderators. You were one of the few who knew enough about the computer h/w and s/w to make statements about the likelihood of some of the things that were being claimed in the Madsen stories. I hope you continue to post freely wherever your expertise can clarify the discussion. It's one of the major benefits of a community effort: experts can come forward as needed. (If the political discussions ever turn to biochemistry and cell biology, it'll be my turn!)

[jamboi]

29. I thought you had some valuable things to say. n/t

[NVMojo]

23. I like Madsen, and I will form my own opinion, too.

[Razorback_Democrat]

25. Thanks!

I feel big brothered here today.

We should let Madsen's and Curtis's stories play out

if they aren't real, then they aren't real.

But they might be and if they are...... well Watergate looks like a Cub Scout meeting!

[SeattleRob]

24. Black is White - White is Black

I think that we should all be cautious about who we agree with or disagree with. Before you embrace someone or trash someone, verify information. If the information is not fully developed - wait until it
develops before you reach conclusions. There are a lot of people out there that would love to lead us in the wrong direction - away from the truth.

I believe that there was fraud perpetrated on the American People in the last Election. Thankfully, there are good people, true patriots, who are trying to get to the bottom of what happened. I also believe that because of the situation and because of our emotions, we are eager to embrace those we agree with or trash those we disagree with.

I also think our emotions and desires leave us vulnerable to disinformation and trickery. No matter what theories you beleive, I urge caution and patience. Verify. Verify. Verify.

United we stand - Divided we fall!

:toast:

[Wordie]

31. Excellent observations. I think part of the problem comes in when you

realize that there are a lot of people reading here at DU now. And sometimes I personally become worried when I see something that seems SO speculative, but is being presented as "truth" because I think that may be one thing that has made it hard to *get* the crucial msm coverage is the tendency to fail to distinguish between speculation and facts.

In the very beginning of all of this, the msm was calling ALL questions about the election results into question, all of it was "conspiracy theory" or "tin foil hat" stuff. They are beginning to come around now, so when I again see something that is highly speculative, my response is to cringe, and to hope that nobody on our side in the media, or in a public position, picks it up before it can be thrououghly vetted. Because if some media person WERE to pick it up, and then it was proven false, that would put us back where we started again, entirely discredited in the eyes of the media and the country at large.

[saracat]

33. Very well put Wordie!

[Wordie]

38. I am thinking that it is important to remember that we all, ultimately,

want the same thing, we just have different ideas on how best to achieve it. Sometimes it doesn't seem that way, perhaps, but I think its true for the most part.

[Zan_of_Texas]

41. SeattleRob -- yes.

We should remember too, that the people we pay -- police, FBI, SEC, etc., are SUPPOSED to be the ones who dig up crime -- get the evidence, etc. The cops on the beat are looking at their feet!

Because we are living in an Alice in Wonderland environment where the criminals may also be part of the infrastructure of the "crime-stoppers," it is left to us to try to fight election crime and fraud.

We do not have the same tools of subpoena, impounding evidence, grabbing computers, etc., so our results aren't as fast, and may not be right all the time. We don't get to put witnesses in a room and keep them there until they talk, either, or promise them light sentences.

So, bear those things in mind as those who are investigating attempt to do a good job, and please help them with good information if you have any.

And, if you think they are loony, go do something constructive.

[SeattleRob]

61. Very true, Zan...

And don't forget - it's not only the folks we pay who aren't doing their jobs. Members of the Media and journalists for the most part have failed us miserably. Gone are the days of the crusading investigative reporters, who were funded and backed by their news organizations. Now we have mannequins who read teleprompters and stenographers who are afraid to rock the boat.

It is up to the us regular folks - and those reporters who are considered "fringe" and "out of the mainstream" to do the leg work. I am convinced that the truth will eventually make it out. There are too many of us - and too many dedicated good people who are out there working hard for the truth.

:kick:

[AnIndependentTexan]

27. My pledge to be open-minded

This is what I decided when I woke up. I don't know enough about Madsen. I also believe in giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Right now we have so much information coming at us that it is natural to be skeptical.

I also want to help in election fraud, but again I claim I'm no expert. Madsen may have a point and instead of discrediting him I'll give him a chance and have a open mind. The way I feel though is Democratic Underground did do some type of question and answer with one of Madsen's articles and he listened. I still don't know how that started, but maybe a question and answer is needed for the new article.

It doesn't hurt to be skeptical, but it also doesn't hurt to be open-minded. Instead of shooting the messenger I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt. That goes the same for debunking or trying to see what is real or isn't. With the media not covering this properly it has left us all at a need to find out the truth for ourselves.

[regularjoe]

34. Right On!

:yourock:

[BR_Parkway]

35. I've been quietly sceptical waiting to see more proof or for someone

to tear it apart (especially if Karl Rove planted it to discredit the whole Election Fraud issue). Strangest thing to me so far in all of this is Nothing being said by Feeney? If it was all BS, I can't imagine that someone in his position wouldn't quickly and categorically deny it. Feeling a little like Alice...

[suziedemocrat]

68. That IS odd -

Could mean it's true - or somewhat true - or a set-up. :shrug:

[goldengreek]

36. Counterarguments are SO critical!!

We must be respectful of honest opinion, even if it were to come from an admitted right-winger personally. There's a world of difference between that and trolling.

I cannot convey enough how easy it is to fall into the trap of groupthink.

[regularjoe]

39. Amen! n/t

[Shalom]

40. HAS ANYONE NOTICED YOU'VE BEEN FREE TO OPEN THIS THREAD ?

And yak, yak, yak....?

[Razorback_Democrat]

42. Good point! n/t

[saracat]

43. And everyone has been mostly civil now that

the nastiness has been pointed out? We really all are on the same side, no matter what route we take to get there!

[Razorback_Democrat]

45. Not to mention that posts would be deleted, etc.

there's something to be said for enforced cooperation i guess?

[Shalom]

46. You're Not Allowed to Disagree With Those Who Disagree....

or your posts will be scrubbed.

[Razorback_Democrat]

48. Or disagree with those who agree either!

please don't scrub this post

[Shalom]

50. Sorry, Razorback_Democrat: I Just Hit the Alert Button

I disagree with your sense of humour.... ;-)

[Shalom]

51. I AGREE ! n/t

[Shalom]

52. MAKE THAT DISAGREE!! n/t

[Razorback_Democrat]

69. Alert back at ya!

:P

[ibegurpard]

44. There's a difference between skepticism and disagreement

I don't think many of us are qualified enough to be disagreeing with anything on this issue. Remaining unconvinced and refusing to be swept along with the tide of excitement is quite another thing however.

[saracat]

47. I believe that we have the right to disagree whether anyone thinks we are

"qualified"or not . Who would make that call? I "disagree "with you on that statement. LOL! Maybe I am not "qualified? I do agree that there is a difference between skepticism and disagreement. I think both have their place.

[Shalom]

49. Is Interminable Dialog About Disagreement Disagreeable ?

What's the point of this thread ?

It's been proven (with strong support from admins) that the Democratic Underground is indeed Democratic.

If we are all trying to correct a stolen election, why are we wasting energy disagreeing about agreeing about being able to agree, or disagree, or agree about disagreeing, or disagree about agreeing, and so on, and so on, and so on....

Aren't we started to bore ourselves already ???

[saracat]

53. It is a way to express a wish that people "play nice"..

Some people don't understand that. ( Not too nice though ! That would be boring!)

[Shalom]

55. OK, So Let's All AGREE TO BE NICE, and Spend Our Energy...

...getting something REAL done !

You know something, whether you agree with Madsen and/or Curtis, they have been active doing things they believe in.

If all the rest of us are motivated as much, we will win.

[saracat]

57. I AM very active. Please don't make assumptions.

I am a PC, District Chair State Committee Person and co founder of a PAC. I also host a Democratic political television talk show locally. I participate in several national and local activist groups. I am getting something "real" done, or at least I am trying.

[Shalom]

58. Being Nice, I Retract the Cheap Shot ;-)

[saracat]

59. Thank you. That was nice of you.

[Catherine Vincent]

56. Great idea, Saracat.

A thread for those that disagree with Madsen. Let's hope they continue to post here instead of finding all of the Madsen/Clinton threads.

[smartvoter]

66. I think they're cleaning up this name-calling mess.

I have trouble with the Madsen story as well -- migrating "proof" is the reason I would cite if cornered, but in general think it is fishy.

[Cronus Protagonist]

70. I certainly don't agree with Madsen's theories

Quite frankly, what little I have read makes him sound like a total crank and I'm not holding my breath for anything good to come from him.

However, I admit that I have not been following his stuff closely and I'm waiting for others to bring up something convincing either way. So far, nothing convincing has been brought up, so I see his story as something that's just simmering away under the surface that will eventually be brought to light. I can wait.




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!