Thursday, September 20, 2007

Confronting Brads Baloney Blog

The problem that intellectually honest people have with today's leftist propagandists is that the latter refuse to stand and debate. The habit of such con artists and their ilk has been to shift topics as rapidly as possible by disparaging opponents with both charges of falsehoods and rancorous name-calling. Of course, this is done without citation of the slightest facts.

In every case, they seek to elude factual arguments by calling their opponents liars. How can serious people behave so irresponsibly? Their meek, poorly educated (although most have been highly brainwashed) followers are incapable of critical thinking or even logic. Mostly female, they are steeped in swift emotional response (reactions).

Brad's Blog deserves an award for fooling most of its followers most of the time. Here is an example of Brad (Friedman's) Blog endorsements:

"One of the most informative progressive voices in the alternative media!"- Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (Congressman Conyers is a lawyer, of course, part of 2% of the population that disproportionately and self-servingly infests our Congress).

Friedman's website, covets U.S. voting issues, but spews forth on every subject in the left-wing's playbook. In addition to Rep. John Conyers praise, Air America may sometime have endorsed the Brad Blog. The site is generally critical of Diebold Election Systems, ES&S and electronic voting in general.

Vigilis has taken Brad's frontmen to task for positions that, rather than fostering voters rights, foster voting fraud. Yes, I have been called a liar and worse by their legions of female followers.

And my readers should be aware of the awful, longer term, progressive strategy that the Bradz are attempting to bring into being. Their aim (the DNC's aim) is for anyone who walks into a public library, school or public building to vote online, right there, as often as they like. Just who would these "honest" voters mark on their electronic ballots? Take a guess and mark my words.
So there you have my very critical endorsement of Brads Blog, and remember I am not a registered Republican or a Democrat! Here is my message to the bad braz (Brads Blog) faithful; it is replete with citations:

Try to be intellectually unbiased once in a while, Bradz Babies.



At 22 September, 2007 12:56, Blogger Unknown said...

Oh dear you forgot to link to the nefarious
Bradblog so that your reader can judge the veracity of your claims.
Here is the missing link:

Personally having actually read the Bradblog I think online voting is the last method he would recommend.

At 22 September, 2007 13:25, Blogger Vigilis said...

Stevel, time will confirm this prediction.

At least you agree online voting should be "the last method he would recommend". Your opinion is far too limiting for one of Bradz longtime readers. A lawyer, however, could make your observation today, and recommend the opposite tomorrow, with no compunction or intellectual honesty, whatever.

At 22 September, 2007 18:32, Blogger Unknown said...

You misquote me. I did not say "should" I said "is".
There is no ambiguity.

At 22 September, 2007 20:07, Blogger BradF said...

In case their is any ambiguity left, I'm happy to say it quite directly here: Internet Voting would the most asinine, ridiculous, democracy-undercutting scheme every to be introduced to America. I've been critical of the DNC (to the their faces, at their '06 Chicago summer meeting) about their moves in this direction, as well as privately to their Voting Rights Institute.

Unfortunately, the apparently fact-free (and anonymous) Mr. Vigilis was silly enough to accuse me of both "refusin[ing] to stand and debate" and, more foolishly still, claiming that do my work "without citation of the slightest facts".

Embarrassingly, he did exactly that himself, ginning up some position of mine out of whole clothe, without presenting citation of the slightest facts to back it up.

More on this anonymous (and absurd) blogger and the above article now posted here, in a response which has the courtesy to actually link to this post, so readers can decide for themselves who has journalistic credibility and the courage to "stand and debate".

(And with their real name and reputation behind it, to boot!)

If Vigilis is a real man (or woman), as opposed to a "female...steeped in swift emotional response" as "he" wrongly, and without evidence, accuses my "followers" to be, he will leave the above article as is, and include an APOLOGY and RETRACTION for all to see. Along with a link to my response mentioned above.

Somehow, I doubt that will happen. Stand and prove me wrong, Mr. Vigilis.

At 23 September, 2007 10:58, Blogger Vigilis said...

Sevel, thank you for removing the last vestige of ambiguity in your original comment. As we know, nuanced ambiguity has been the perennial refuge of "Progressive" leaders and the blindspot for Bradz followers. Please, excuse me for treating your comment so typically.

By the way, my forecast of Bradz future position favorable to online voting stands firmly and perennially. I know the wobbly, progressive mindset.

You see, I had merely laid a baited trap for the leader of the Bradz. Surprisingly, he stepped right into it almost immediately.

His denial of adopting the Dem party's ideal of online voting (and ,of course, the attendant, rampant voter fraud) is now bronzed for posterity. Be assured it will be ressurected at the appropriate moment to haunt his fading celebrity, emotional female followers, and the supervisory lawyer-friends from whom he yet accepts key marching orders.

At 23 September, 2007 12:05, Blogger Vigilis said...

BradF, you may certainly not expect a retraction, apology, or deletion by me.

Rather than engage with you in such petty recriminations, I will hand you facts, as stubborn and emotionally unpalatable as they must be for your ilk.

I will present (from your own blog) a key instance of an unsupported (without acompanying authoritative citation) claim and
emotional, female responses from your own Bradz.

Rather than adding detail here, I will dedicate a new posting to support my statements relative to your blog and the evident profusion of female Bradz. (Hint: If I were you, I would quickly counter by stating the high proportion of your Bradz followers who are degreed professionals of some sort).

By the way, I see "Air America Radio" had praised Bradz blog. How is old "Air America" these days?
I see it is also owned by a wealthy lawyer. What a surprise. Hmmm!

At 23 September, 2007 17:59, Blogger BradF said...

"Rather than engage with you in such petty recriminations, I will hand you facts, as stubborn and emotionally unpalatable as they must be for your ilk."

Apparently, that's yet to be offered by you. Have a feeling (actually, more than a feeling, because I know there is no such supporting information for your absurd claim, because I actually *know* what my position is and has been, including publicly, concerning the insane notion of Internet voting) that you will never offer any such "facts", stubborn or otherwise.

But best of luck to you in trying!

Since you seem to lack understanding of how to make an argument, using actual facts and cites, I'll help ya. Cuz I'm generous that way.

Among the very few things I've written publicly about Internet Voting, there is this, from an article I wrote critical of the DNC called "DYSFUNCTION AT THE DNC" (You'll note that text is LINKED so readers can actually see the evidence for themself, something you might try once and while, silly man.)

Far more troubling for the moment, however, was a line included with the above recommendation for "Internet Voting on Inter-Party Elections." Say what?!!!

Yup, that's what they said, I believe. I have no idea if that currently refers to Democratic primaries, party caucus votes, or what. I hope to find out more in the future, but either way, I'd say that item was damned troubling no matter what it referred to. Whether primaries or caucus votes, knowing how easy it is to hack things on the Internet, it would seem that moving towards such voting is exactly the sort of thing these guys ought to be fighting to move away from! Are they out of their minds? Maybe.

That, of course, was written on Aug. 26, 2006, long before your fantasies of conspiracy theory kicked in about "trapping me" into some silly scheme, or however it is you characterized it.

You're welcome.

By all means, don't print that RETRACTION and APOLOGIES, lest your reader discover that you don't actually know what you're writing about before you waste your time and theirs by writing it.

And you're also welcome for the extra readers. Have a great day, Vigi!


Post a Comment

<< Home