The Internets Vets For Truth

October 28, 2004 11:13 PM

The Rumors On the Internets Are True! "Our goal is to present you with these clips to help you make an informed choice next Tuesday." Your one-stop-shop for documentary clips related to Kerry and Bush, presented by the Internets Vets for Truth.
posted by mathowie (13 comments total)

I'd love to see how much bandwidth they go through in the next few days.
posted by waxpancake at 11:33 PM on October 28, 2004

Very nice site. Thanks!

More vids here.
posted by dobbs at 11:41 PM on October 28, 2004

Hindsight will show how much this (and all the other American campaign related program activities on the internets) have made an impact on the vote for World Leader #1 this year, but I have no doubt that whatever happens next week (and probably in the weeks following, if it's anything like 2000), that if the elections aren't cancelled in 2008, the power of freed-up culture, rumours on the internets, the resurgence of an engaged wired citizenry and the decline of old media and yes, even the self-obsessed wankery of the blogotroposphere are going to kick some political ass.

Gives me hope.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:42 AM on October 29, 2004

damn, that site is purty.
posted by sklero at 12:52 AM on October 29, 2004

One more for the pile...
posted by limitedpie at 1:04 AM on October 29, 2004

On a related topic:

NASA photo analyst: Bush wore a device during debate

For the past week, while at home, using his own computers, and off the clock at Caltech and NASA, Nelson has been analyzing images of the president's back during the debates. A professional physicist and photo analyst for more than 30 years, he speaks earnestly and thoughtfully about his subject. "I am willing to stake my scientific reputation to the statement that Bush was wearing something under his jacket during the debate," he says. "This is not about a bad suit. And there's no way the bulge can be described as a wrinkled shirt."

Nelson and a scientific colleague produced the photos from a videotape, recorded by the colleague, who has chosen to remain anonymous, of the first debate. The images provide the most vivid details yet of the bulge beneath the president's suit. Amateurs have certainly had their turn at examining the bulge, but no professional with a résumé as impressive as Nelson's has ventured into public with an informed opinion. In fact, no one to date has enhanced photos of Bush's jacket to this degree of precision, and revealed what appears to be some kind of mechanical device with a wire snaking up the president's shoulder toward his neck and down his back to his waist.

Nelson stresses that he's not certain what lies beneath the president's jacket. He offers, though, "that it could be some type of electronic device -- it's consistent with the appearance of an electronic device worn in that manner." The image of lines coursing up and down the president's back, Nelson adds, is "consistent with a wire or a tube."...

Bruce Hapke, professor emeritus of planetary science in the department of geology and planetary science at the University of Pittsburgh, reviewed the Bush images employed by Nelson, whom he calls "a very highly respected scientist in his field." Hapke says Nelson's process of analyzing the images are the "exact same methods we use to analyze images taken by spacecraft of planetary surfaces. It does not introduce any artifacts into the picture in any way."
posted by y2karl at 1:57 AM on October 29, 2004

I have finally discovered (after spending several hours in a pub drinking heavily with friends) what the mystery electronic device is!!

It's an earpiece unit wired to a digital receiver, this in turn connected to a radio transmitter in a black van parked nearby. Inside the black van with blacked out windows Karl Rove sits under a dark blanket whispering "breathe in, breathe out" into Bush's mashed cerebellum.

Problem solved! Now - does anyone remember what frequency the White House uses?
posted by longbaugh at 3:17 AM on October 29, 2004

911
posted by matteo at 4:41 AM on October 29, 2004

Nice, there's some great videos on here.
posted by angry modem at 6:38 AM on October 29, 2004

".......are going to kick some political ass."

I wish I thought that was true. What these things highlight for me is the strong desire a large percentage of Americans have for avoiding the truth, regardless of what facts are in evidence.

Americans make up their minds, and then cherry pick sources to defend that mindset. The "power of freed-up culture, rumours on the internets, the resurgence of an engaged wired citizenry and the decline of old media, and self-obsessed wankery of the blogotroposphere" make this even easier.

I wish it wasn't true. But I fear it is. Our new Intranets and renewed skepticism over big media have made it easier for us to find proof of our delusions.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:24 AM on October 29, 2004

Look what I found on the internets! Its another group that supports Bush:

Libyan Terrorist Dictators For Bush!
A brief excerpt:

“It’s so blatantly obvious that there is coordination between the Bush campaign, the Kaddafi regime and the oil companies,” said Dan Cohen, whose daughter was killed in the Lockerbie bombing. “If it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.”

So, let's name the groups Bush has supporting him:

Ex Communist KGB Leaders For Bush (Putin)
Axis of Evil Ayotollahs For Bush (Iran)
Divine Emperors of the World For Bush (Moon)
Terrorist Dictators For Bush (Libya)
Racists For Bush (Southern Strategy)
Crazy Fundamentalists For Bush (SBA)
Billionaires For Bush (Scaife, Coors, Bradley, Olin, Koch, Hunt, etc)
Large Corporations For Bush (Corporate States of America)
Fascists For Bush (refer to recent MeFi thread)

Getting quite a following isn't he? I'm sure I missed some. This can only be good for America! (cough) Hail To The Thief! Who can argue with such ardent support?
posted by nofundy at 7:56 AM on October 29, 2004

Bush Seeks Limit to Suits Over Voting Rights

Bush administration lawyers argued in three closely contested states last week that only the Justice Department, and not voters themselves, may sue to enforce the voting rights set out in the Help America Vote Act, which was passed in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 election...

Since the civil rights era of the 1960s, individuals have gone to federal court to enforce their right to vote, often with the support of groups such as the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the League of Women Voters or the state parties. And until now, the Justice Department and the Supreme Court had taken the view that individual voters could sue to enforce federal election law.

But in legal briefs filed in connection with cases in Ohio, Michigan and Florida, the administration's lawyers argue that the new law gives Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft the exclusive power to bring lawsuits to enforce its provisions. These include a requirement that states provide "uniform and nondiscriminatory" voting systems, and give provisional ballots to those who say they have registered but whose names do not appear on the rolls.

"Congress clearly did not intend to create a right enforceable" in court by individual voters, the Justice Department briefs said...

Still, the issue may resurface and prove significant next week if disputes arise over voter qualifications. Some election-law experts believe the administration has set the stage for arguing that the federal courts may not second-guess decisions of state election officials in Ohio, Florida or elsewhere.

J. Gerald Hebert, a former chief of the department's voting-rights section, said he was dismayed that the government was seeking to weaken a measure designed to protect voters.

"This is the first time in history the Justice Department has gone to court to side against voters who are trying to enforce their right to vote. I think this law will mean very little if the rights of American voters have to depend on this Justice Department," said Hebert, who worked in the voting-rights section from 1973 to 1994...

"Before this administration, I would say that almost uniformly, the Department of Justice would argue in favor of private rights of action … to enforce statutes that regulate state and local government," said Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford University's Law School.

She said the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not originally include a private right to sue state officials who discriminated against aspiring black voters. The Justice Department backed the idea of private suits, nonetheless, in a test case that ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969.

In their ruling, the justices said "the achievement of the act's laudable goal would be severely hampered … if each citizen were required to depend solely on litigation instituted at the discretion of the attorney general."
posted by y2karl at 8:02 AM on October 29, 2004

"Our goal is to present you with these clips to help you make an informed choice next Tuesday."

So, in order to help people make an 'informed choice' they are providing links to a propaganda movie?

Yeah, okay...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:16 PM on October 29, 2004