Please let me know what you think of Mark Crispin Miller?

[seemslikeadream]

[livvy]

1. Seems like a kind of odd question.

Why do you ask? I'm not challenging you. I'm just curious.

To answer your question, I am appreciative of his bringing the question of election integrity out. He and Palast and so many others, including some of our very own DUers have been important in regards to the election reform.

[seemslikeadream]

2. I'm sorry for not stating a reason

He's been called a nutjob and I read an inference that he was just an opportunist.

I LOVE him BTW

The same thing happened to Greg Palast here awhile back

[PunkinPi]

5. Why would you say,

"He's been called a nutjob and I read an inference that he was just an opportunist.", if you say, "I LOVE him BTW"? Consider the source and if it is a bad source, don't give it a second thought. IMHO. :)

[Peace Patriot]

6. When anyone is called a "nutjob" (or its variants, like "tinfoil hat"), I always take

a second look (or a first one), and, more often than not, find something interesting, sensible, worth reading or viewing, informative and useful. Uncountable geniuses and "Paul Reveres" (people who raise the alarm) have been called "nutjobs" throughout human history--in art, science, politics, and other endeavors--making the word "nutjob" (and equivalents--"crazy," "lunatic," etc.) almost synonymous with "ahead of his time" (or her time).

Mark Crispin Miller was one of the early "Paul Reveres" on election fraud. His work is fact-based and brilliant, not to mention courageous. If you want to know what's really going down in this country, read Mark Crispin Miller. Anyone who would call this incredibly good investigator and writer a "nutjob" has an agenda--possibly related to some reason they may have for denying the facts of election fraud. Paid agent of the corporate voting machine corporations? Invested in the McAuliffe era of Democratic Party politics? A Bushite out to cover up the fraud? Or perhaps just poorly informed, stupid, or generally pro-corporate and pro-war (wants to believe the majority of Americans voted for war)? It's a very stupid criticism, in any case. Name-calling. It usually means that the critic knows little, and can't argue with the facts, so they use a smear word.

[livvy]

8. Gotcha...and I know what you are referring to.

I've read some of those posts. I kinda' wondered what they were thinking about. There are opportunists, and then there are those that benefit from the opportunity to tell the truth.

[lordsummerisle]

3. I read Fooled Again and though it was excellent n/t

[seemslikeadream]

4. Thanks lordsummerisle

:hi:

[EFerrari]

7. I took some friends to listen to Mark here when he was on his book tour.

He led about the best political discussion I've ever attended. Not grandstanding but facilitating a remarkable conversation. I'd go on teevee for him and I hate teevee. :)

[nashville_brook]

9. he seems like every poly sci/phil prof i ever had. serious, passionate and appropraitely concerned.

i'm sure there's lots of people for whom "appropriately concerned" seems uncomfortable. that's normal.