godfather Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Pro Gay Candidate Sam Brooks Accepts $$$ From Anti Gay PAC Former U.S. Representative Jack Quinn (Bush Republican) of New York and now President of Cassidy & Associates in DC has three “political action committees”: 1. Friends of Jack Quinn; Quinn PAC; and Jack PAC but none of them are registered in DC with the DC Office of Campaign Finance. Yet, Jack Quinn has been throwing money around to local political candidates but specifically to Sam Brooks via his Jack PAC as well as having several of his employees make contributions. Sam Brooks claims to be a liberal Democrat in support of GAY RIGHTS but he has accepted money from staunch Republicans and a Republican PAC that OPPOSE GAY RIGHTS and supports President Bush’s objective to pass a GAY MARRIAGE BAN on the federal level. Many want to know is this an illegal political contribution and why is Sam Brooks accepting contributions from anti-gay hard core Republicans if he is a pro-gay liberal Democrat. JUST SAY NOT TO SAM BROOKS................! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthseeker Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 (edited) As usual, either post a link or screenshot that proves that his contributors support DOMA, or clam up. See, THIS is why the clean campaign pledge is necessary. Because one of the candidate's in the ward 3 race continues to use a cloak of what he still believes to be anonymity to post crap like this on an unmoderated board (the only one that will still allow him.) Go away Rees. Pro Gay Candidate Sam Brooks Accepts $$$ From Anti Gay PAC Former U.S. Representative Jack Quinn (Bush Republican) of New York and now President of Cassidy & Associates in DC has three “political action committees”: 1. Friends of Jack Quinn; Quinn PAC; and Jack PAC but none of them are registered in DC with the DC Office of Campaign Finance. Yet, Jack Quinn has been throwing money around to local political candidates but specifically to Sam Brooks via his Jack PAC as well as having several of his employees make contributions. Sam Brooks claims to be a liberal Democrat in support of GAY RIGHTS but he has accepted money from staunch Republicans and a Republican PAC that OPPOSE GAY RIGHTS and supports President Bush’s objective to pass a GAY MARRIAGE BAN on the federal level. Many want to know is this an illegal political contribution and why is Sam Brooks accepting contributions from anti-gay hard core Republicans if he is a pro-gay liberal Democrat. JUST SAY NOT TO SAM BROOKS................! Edited February 13, 2006 by truthseeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfather Posted February 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 If you study the record of Rep. Jack Quinn then you will learn that he is opposed to gay rights and while in Congress supported President Bush on passing legislation to prevent gay marriage nation-wide. Do your own research Truthseeker. People wjo know Jack Quinn know where he stands on this issue. The Jack Pac owned by Jack Quinn is not registered with the DC OCF but again Truthseeker do your own research. I am sure this week Jack Quinn will be questioned about this possible illegal contribution. Last but not least Truthseeker, as long as all of you so foolishly believe that I am Rees then that will blind all of you to who is Brooks true enemy. As usual, either post a link or screenshot that proves that his contributors support DOMA, or clam up. See, THIS is why the clean campaign pledge is necessary. Because one of the candidate's in the ward 3 race continues to use a cloak of what he still believes to be anonymity to post crap like this on an unmoderated board (the only one that will still allow him.) Go away Rees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthseeker Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 (edited) If you study the record of Rep. Jack Quinn then you will learn that he is opposed to gay rights and while in Congress supported President Bush on passing legislation to prevent gay marriage nation-wide. Do your own research Truthseeker. People wjo know Jack Quinn know where he stands on this issue. The Jack Pac owned by Jack Quinn is not registered with the DC OCF but again Truthseeker do your own research. I am sure this week Jack Quinn will be questioned about this possible illegal contribution. Last but not least Truthseeker, as long as all of you so foolishly believe that I am Rees then that will blind all of you to who is Brooks true enemy. No, I will not "do my own research". YOU'RE the person who made the allegation. YOU'RE the candidate. YOU post something substantive. It's NOT the job of the voting public to repudiate, it's your job to substantiate. When you're not too busy posting spam on Craigslist, of course. Speaking of which, do the people at WCDA-AM Christian Radio know that you're using their website to post campaign materials? Don't bother removing the page...I already have a screenshot. And it clearly says that Jonathan R. Rees authored the page. For someone who claims on his resume to posess advanced computer skills, I'm a bit surprised at your unfamiliarity with the most basic computer concepts. And, speaking of which, the IP address concordance definitely proved that you are Rees. You can deny it forever, but that doesn't change it. Prattle on, Alias Man. Edited February 13, 2006 by truthseeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfather Posted February 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Right, Truthseeker, Rees did not author that page but we created that bogus website to once again mislead you and let you blame Rees. That is not a real radio station if you check the public record but something we created to throw you off. Do I frustrate you? I know Rees must be laughing at your fools as he is fully aware of what we are doing but he has such a good sense of humor that he does not care as it is not him. Furthermore, I am not coming across over any IP address that you have seen before because I am in Philadelphia. Grow up Truthseeker as you and all your so called buddies are no match for us. No, I will not "do my own research". YOU'RE the person who made the allegation. YOU'RE the candidate. YOU post something substantive. It's NOT the job of the voting public to repudiate, it's your job to substantiate. When you're not too busy posting spam on Craigslist, of course. Speaking of which, do the people at WCDA-AM Christian Radio know that you're using their website to post campaign materials? Don't bother removing the page...I already have a screenshot. And it clearly says that Jonathan R. Rees authored the page. For someone who claims on his resume to posess advanced computer skills, I'm a bit surprised at your unfamiliarity with the most basic computer concepts. And, speaking of which, the IP address concordance definitely proved that you are Rees. You can deny it forever, but that doesn't change it. Prattle on, Alias Man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfrankdc Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 So even if you are not Rees (which I highly doubt), you are admitting that you are violating DCBoEE and National/International laws on Election laws with electronic media? Smart. Real Smart. B. Frank Right, Truthseeker, Rees did not author that page but we created that bogus website to once again mislead you and let you blame Rees. That is not a real radio station if you check the public record but something we created to throw you off. Do I frustrate you? I know Rees must be laughing at your fools as he is fully aware of what we are doing but he has such a good sense of humor that he does not care as it is not him. Furthermore, I am not coming across over any IP address that you have seen before because I am in Philadelphia. Grow up Truthseeker as you and all your so called buddies are no match for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfather Posted February 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 And if so, you are doing the same by what you have posted. So even if you are not Rees (which I highly doubt), you are admitting that you are violating DCBoEE and National/International laws on Election laws with electronic media? Smart. Real Smart. B. Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfrankdc Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 What have I posted that is factually incorrect, or in error. What have I posted that is a fabrication in an attempt to influence and election? Big differene. B. Frank And if so, you are doing the same by what you have posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfather Posted February 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Anything you write against a candidate is an act to attempt to influence an election. What have I posted that is factually incorrect, or in error. What have I posted that is a fabrication in an attempt to influence and election? Big differene. B. Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfrankdc Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 So you are admitting the fradualent interference with elections? Most of my posts are in reponse to what the Candidate or his aliases (as proven by IP addresses both at DC pages, Yahoo and other websites) have stated. I have provided links to back up my claims. I have not relied on "I heard it from..." or "I read somewhere" suppositions. Thus, I am not an instigator or misinformation, but rather am buttressing the misinformation instigated ny and attributable to the Candidate. You will notice that Rees and his aliases did not post on this message board for 36 hours or so. There were no posts here at all in that time. As soon as you, "Vincent" appeared with your venom and vile, this message board has been quite active. Do you suppose that if you provided actual information that was backed up with proof, and not bogus (as you put it) verification, perhaps there would be logical discourse? Gee, I wonder why the Candidate and "his supporters" don't entertain discussion on any of the Yahoo Groups rooted in the neighborhoods of the Ward where the candidate can reach his constiutents directly? With well over 5000 constituents reachable via the Neighborhood Listserves, I would think that is a much better venue to engage discussions. B. Frank Anything you write against a candidate is an act to attempt to influence an election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfather Posted February 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Again you have proven nothing as you have never shown that these IP addresses in fact belong to the person you have accused nor have you proven in the alternative that they belong to anyone else. After the fact, anybody can doctor records. You do it, I can do it and so can the next guy. Sorry Charlie but when it is too easy to doctor things, nothing should be believed here on the net. So you are admitting the fradualent interference with elections? Most of my posts are in reponse to what the Candidate or his aliases (as proven by IP addresses both at DC pages, Yahoo and other websites) have stated. I have provided links to back up my claims. I have not relied on \"I heard it from...\" or \"I read somewhere\" suppositions. Thus, I am not an instigator or misinformation, but rather am buttressing the misinformation instigated ny and attributable to the Candidate. You will notice that Rees and his aliases did not post on this message board for 36 hours or so. There were no posts here at all in that time. As soon as you, \"Vincent\" appeared with your venom and vile, this message board has been quite active. Do you suppose that if you provided actual information that was backed up with proof, and not bogus (as you put it) verification, perhaps there would be logical discourse? Gee, I wonder why the Candidate and \"his supporters\" don\'t entertain discussion on any of the Yahoo Groups rooted in the neighborhoods of the Ward where the candidate can reach his constiutents directly? With well over 5000 constituents reachable via the Neighborhood Listserves, I would think that is a much better venue to engage discussions. B. Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfrankdc Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Once again, you are besmriching my name. Please provide a link, or proof to one piece of documentation which I have "doctored". It doesn't exist and has never happened. I am, however glad that you admit to doing this. B. Frank Again you have proven nothing as you have never shown that these IP addresses in fact belong to the person you have accused nor have you proven in the alternative that they belong to anyone else. After the fact, anybody can doctor records. You do it, I can do it and so can the next guy. Sorry Charlie but when it is too easy to doctor things, nothing should be believed here on the net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sleazy Sam Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 It is a proven fact that SAM BROOKS has finally admitted despite all the claims here on DC Pages and elsewhere that he was not involved in any smear campaign that he was! Brooks admitted it to a writer with the Washington Post which makes all claims by him, Bfrank, Truthseeker, Golden Girl a big lie but then again, these phony names belongs to Sam Brooks, Tamela Gordon, John Capozzi and others all who are supporters of Sam Brooks and gave money to his campaign if you look at the official records down at the DC Office of Campaign Finance. These fags fooled all of you but hopefully you will finally see the truth. Look at what Sam Brooks said to the post and you judge, did he or did he not admit to being involved in a smear campaign (pie throwing)! I REST MY CASE...BROOKS IS GUILTY OF AN INTERNET SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST REES AND OTHER CANDIDATES! Let me quote Sam Brooks per the Post article: Sam says he will put down his lemon and vanilla pies if Rees and the others put down theirs. HOW MUCH MORE OF AN ADMISSION TO MUDSLINGING BY BROOKS CAN YOU GET? READ THIS AGAIN AND SEE THE PROOF THAT SAM BROOKS ADMITS HE WAS THE ORIGINAL MUDSLINGER! http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dcwire/2006...ment_typ_1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts