What in Chirst's name is that friggin icon that you use? It looks like an X-mas tree with an mp3 player… Your oh so right, Jesus wept! So would you if you were on the receiving end of some to the things Coakley did to people that may well have been innocent. Thanks to her they ended up in jail due to some really despicable malicious prosecution/abuse of process actions!

I've done it because the same person, under different names, keeps attempting to leave the same comment, over and over. Spam will always be deleted here.

The election was obviously about health insurance. This was the big issue for Brown and Coakley. The attacks on each others' records went both ways and negated each other out. Your argument about Wikipedia is bizarre. If a source is incorrect, its weaknesses need to be exposed.

What is sad is that some people are unable and unwilling to look at both sides of the issue. The interview copy of Underwager is valid and has never been questioned. Calling it a crank site without information on it is simply a cheap shot.

Unless the blog you're talking about is run by Congress, I don't really know what you mean by this. I can tell you to shut up in my house whenever I want to. And if you write stuff I don't like on its walls, I can erase it.

"If anyone looks at the cities won and lost, Coakley won all of the major cities and progress areas,"

Its not about who won what areas.. that's almost always a foregone conclusion. They key is the margin of victory and the degree of turnout. Coakley didn't win her areas by enough… maybe because many liberals don't like the idea of voting for an overzealous prosecutor.

"Wikipedia is in essence defended there as a valid source of information."

Better read that again. Laughing at someone for trying to argue against wikipedia isn't happening because wikipedia is "a valid source of information", but rather because it's like going to to the elementary school to beat up kids and take their money. It just makes you seem sad.

Finally.. somecranksite.com/ACLU/nudist hall of shame/. LOL.

The moderator of the other website did not allow for the debate to continue however, only allowing for additional comments from those that believe Amirault was innocent. So much for freedom of speech.

Coakley's actions in any legal case had little if any to do with the results of the election. If anyone looks at the cities won and lost, Coakley won all of the major cities and progress areas, while Brown won rural and smaller conservative areas. The people that voted for Brown did not want to pay for health care for poor people nationally, like they are already paying for them in Massachusetts.

Two points in regard to the rebuttals at the other page. Wikipedia is in essence defended there as a valid source of information. Yet Wikipedia has no guarantee of fact checking and is edited by anonymous editors with unknown motives. Wikipedia's general disclaimer states "Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information." "Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever."

The other page discusses IPT as a "sane" source of information on child abuse cases. Yet, IPT-forensics was founded by Ralph Underwager.

Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. . . . Paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will. –Dr. Ralph Underwager in this interview with Paidika, a European pro-pedophile publication.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html

Another website with evidence of Amirault's guilt is criticized because of a typo.

We can be given the freedom to debate both sides of the issue fairly. Or, we can censor those that do not agree with us and continue the one sided hysteria around this case.

I've noticed that your comment is a cut-and-paste of what you said at Overlawyered. For rebuttals to your spam, I'd ask our readers to click the link above, for Overlawyered, and read comments.

Letters to the Editor: The Real Darkness Is Child Abuse WALL STREET JOURNAL 02/24/95 Hardoon
The three Amiraults — Gerald, Violet and Cheryl – were convicted after two trials before different judges and juries almost one year apart. They were represented by able and well-known defense counsel. The convictions were upheld after review by state and federal appellate courts….in Amirault, the majority of the female children who testified had some relevant physical findings, as did several female children involved in the investigation who did not participate in the trial. The findings included labial adhesions and hymenal scarring…The victims and their families in these cases have been irrevocably harmed by what was done to them by the Amiraults…..The juries, by their verdicts, rejected these arguments. Justice was done.

But if they do back off, we could end up with gay rights up the ass. Then, it will be too late.