<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Leader Pelosi</title>
	<link>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/28/leader-pelosi/</link>
	<description>Kickin' ass on the lyin' side:  A never-ending battle against stupid, ugly, deceitful and corrupt right-wing water carriers...</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Yakki</title>
		<link>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/28/leader-pelosi/#comment-8754</link>
		<author>Yakki</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:23:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/28/leader-pelosi/#comment-8754</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;And incidentally, CNN and every other “news” organization is owned by a handful of huge multinational corporations, all of which are giving it to each other in their corporate butts.

The republicans know that if they can control the media, they can cheat. This is why all republicans recently defeated the “net neutrality” bill, defeated in the House and, last week, the Sentate. Republicans HATE the free flow of information, and the web, as we know it, will soon be turned over to the likes of AT&#38;T, Comcast, and Verizon, all republican-loving Telcos. They figured out that needed to either control the web, or die.

You will soon see the internet (in America) go down the toilet, because the big corporate sites will pay a large fee to make their sites as fast as they are today. Sites like this one, CallingAllWingnuts, won’t pay these tolls, and MAY end up dying, because they will load so slowly, people won’t want to visit them anymore. It’s coming.

I’ll bet few of you know about this. It’s another dirty little secret that the corporate media in this country won’t cover too much. And republicans were paid off by the Telcos to vote to defeat net neutrality.

I’ve done my homework on what republicans are doing to kill the middle and lower classes in this country, and no amount of republican bullshit is going to change the reality of where America is heading.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

BANG!

And the saddest thing to me is,the very folks out here carrying water for these scumbags will be right there alongside the rest of us in the "have not" category. But because of their blind trust in words uttered by wolves in sheep's clothing,they'll support this mess.

But you know.... the Pubbies are the party of "values" lol. Too bad the only thing they value(in the party head itself) is a dollar bill. I guess when they talk about God,that's where they're praying at.

Wheee!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>And incidentally, CNN and every other “news” organization is owned by a handful of huge multinational corporations, all of which are giving it to each other in their corporate butts.</p>
<p>The republicans know that if they can control the media, they can cheat. This is why all republicans recently defeated the “net neutrality” bill, defeated in the House and, last week, the Sentate. Republicans HATE the free flow of information, and the web, as we know it, will soon be turned over to the likes of AT&amp;T, Comcast, and Verizon, all republican-loving Telcos. They figured out that needed to either control the web, or die.</p>
<p>You will soon see the internet (in America) go down the toilet, because the big corporate sites will pay a large fee to make their sites as fast as they are today. Sites like this one, CallingAllWingnuts, won’t pay these tolls, and MAY end up dying, because they will load so slowly, people won’t want to visit them anymore. It’s coming.</p>
<p>I’ll bet few of you know about this. It’s another dirty little secret that the corporate media in this country won’t cover too much. And republicans were paid off by the Telcos to vote to defeat net neutrality.</p>
<p>I’ve done my homework on what republicans are doing to kill the middle and lower classes in this country, and no amount of republican bullshit is going to change the reality of where America is heading.</p></blockquote>
<p>BANG!</p>
<p>And the saddest thing to me is,the very folks out here carrying water for these scumbags will be right there alongside the rest of us in the &#8220;have not&#8221; category. But because of their blind trust in words uttered by wolves in sheep&#8217;s clothing,they&#8217;ll support this mess.</p>
<p>But you know&#8230;. the Pubbies are the party of &#8220;values&#8221; lol. Too bad the only thing they value(in the party head itself) is a dollar bill. I guess when they talk about God,that&#8217;s where they&#8217;re praying at.</p>
<p>Wheee!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spocko</title>
		<link>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/28/leader-pelosi/#comment-8751</link>
		<author>spocko</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:13:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/28/leader-pelosi/#comment-8751</guid>
		<description>Hey Focks Security:

Those were two excellent follow up replies up at the top were great. Thank you for staying on top of this issue and educating people. It is important.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Focks Security:</p>
<p>Those were two excellent follow up replies up at the top were great. Thank you for staying on top of this issue and educating people. It is important.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: douggie g.</title>
		<link>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/28/leader-pelosi/#comment-8748</link>
		<author>douggie g.</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:42:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/28/leader-pelosi/#comment-8748</guid>
		<description>Brooklyn,

What you say about the recounts all going to Bush is not accurate. From a recent Media Matters for America article (which includes links to info)...

Sammon's assertion of a Bush victory in a model recount conducted by mainstream media outlets was similarly misleading. Apparently referring to a study conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC) -- organized by a consortium that included The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, the Associated Press, the Tribune Co. (publisher of the Chicago Tribune and the Orlando Sentinel), and The Wall Street Journal -- Sammon misrepresented the results. The NORC researchers "examined all ballots that were initially rejected by voting machines" and then applied "different standards for determining voter intent and tallied results based on several scenarios that sought to approximate conditions on the ground in Florida."

Contrary to Sammon's claim that the media recounts "all concluded" that Bush would have emerged victorious, different recount scenarios yielded different winners, as Media Matters for America has previously documented. According to the Post, when the recount tallied ballots in which "at least one corner of a chad was detached from punch-card ballots," Gore won Florida by 60 votes. "[U]nder the least-restrictive standard for interpreting voter intent, which counted all dimpled chads and any discernible optical mark (which in the case of optical ballots Florida's new election law now requires to be counted as votes)," the Post reported, "Gore had 107 more votes." One recount with a "more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a valid mark on optical scan ballots" -- and in which chads had to be "fully punched" -- saw Gore win by 115 votes. And a recount that replicated "the standards established by each of the counties in their recounts" gave Gore 171 more votes than Bush.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603160002

And in light of all the controversy surrounding Diebold (Calif., Tallahassee, FL, Virginia, Ohio), and the ties the Diebold CEO has to the Bush administration, I don't think it's that far-flung to say where there's smoke, there's fire. I would love for Congress to investigate Diebold, but that won't happen with the current crop in Congress. Let's put it this way...switch the party title from "Republican ties to Diebold" to "Democrat ties to Diebold" and the Right-wing noise machine would be in full throttle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brooklyn,</p>
<p>What you say about the recounts all going to Bush is not accurate. From a recent Media Matters for America article (which includes links to info)&#8230;</p>
<p>Sammon&#8217;s assertion of a Bush victory in a model recount conducted by mainstream media outlets was similarly misleading. Apparently referring to a study conducted by the University of Chicago&#8217;s National Opinion Research Center (NORC) &#8212; organized by a consortium that included The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, the Associated Press, the Tribune Co. (publisher of the Chicago Tribune and the Orlando Sentinel), and The Wall Street Journal &#8212; Sammon misrepresented the results. The NORC researchers &#8220;examined all ballots that were initially rejected by voting machines&#8221; and then applied &#8220;different standards for determining voter intent and tallied results based on several scenarios that sought to approximate conditions on the ground in Florida.&#8221;</p>
<p>Contrary to Sammon&#8217;s claim that the media recounts &#8220;all concluded&#8221; that Bush would have emerged victorious, different recount scenarios yielded different winners, as Media Matters for America has previously documented. According to the Post, when the recount tallied ballots in which &#8220;at least one corner of a chad was detached from punch-card ballots,&#8221; Gore won Florida by 60 votes. &#8220;[U]nder the least-restrictive standard for interpreting voter intent, which counted all dimpled chads and any discernible optical mark (which in the case of optical ballots Florida&#8217;s new election law now requires to be counted as votes),&#8221; the Post reported, &#8220;Gore had 107 more votes.&#8221; One recount with a &#8220;more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a valid mark on optical scan ballots&#8221; &#8212; and in which chads had to be &#8220;fully punched&#8221; &#8212; saw Gore win by 115 votes. And a recount that replicated &#8220;the standards established by each of the counties in their recounts&#8221; gave Gore 171 more votes than Bush.</p>
<p><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200603160002" rel="nofollow">http://mediamatters.org/items/200603160002</a></p>
<p>And in light of all the controversy surrounding Diebold (Calif., Tallahassee, FL, Virginia, Ohio), and the ties the Diebold CEO has to the Bush administration, I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s that far-flung to say where there&#8217;s smoke, there&#8217;s fire. I would love for Congress to investigate Diebold, but that won&#8217;t happen with the current crop in Congress. Let&#8217;s put it this way&#8230;switch the party title from &#8220;Republican ties to Diebold&#8221; to &#8220;Democrat ties to Diebold&#8221; and the Right-wing noise machine would be in full throttle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Focks Security</title>
		<link>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/28/leader-pelosi/#comment-8737</link>
		<author>Focks Security</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:29:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/28/leader-pelosi/#comment-8737</guid>
		<description>I'll not engage in a discussion with anybody who resorts to the moldy cottage-industry "arguments" of "Gore", "Clinton", "Swift boat" and all the other authoritarian cliches.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll not engage in a discussion with anybody who resorts to the moldy cottage-industry &#8220;arguments&#8221; of &#8220;Gore&#8221;, &#8220;Clinton&#8221;, &#8220;Swift boat&#8221; and all the other authoritarian cliches.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ezsuds81</title>
		<link>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/28/leader-pelosi/#comment-8646</link>
		<author>Ezsuds81</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:18:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/28/leader-pelosi/#comment-8646</guid>
		<description>Brooklyn,
 maybe it escaped your knowledge, but if absentee ballots are only counted after the election date in event of a close race, atleast there will be something there to count. If it's not close, it wouldn't matter anyway. If it is close, I want my vote to count. It's kind of hard to manipulate electronic data, when you are voting on paper. Until there are paper backups (receipts) for electronic voting, I'll vote absentee.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brooklyn,<br />
 maybe it escaped your knowledge, but if absentee ballots are only counted after the election date in event of a close race, atleast there will be something there to count. If it&#8217;s not close, it wouldn&#8217;t matter anyway. If it is close, I want my vote to count. It&#8217;s kind of hard to manipulate electronic data, when you are voting on paper. Until there are paper backups (receipts) for electronic voting, I&#8217;ll vote absentee.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
