Forum list. Calendar Articles, reviews and editorials. Pictures Listen to music and watch videos. See a listing of our DJ's / Producers.
Join our community and access additional features.Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences.View a list of our members.Answers to some frequently asked questions about using the message board.SearchFind all of the latest posts since your latest visit.Private messagingLog out of the message board Make the board look like a Word document Switch to layout optimized for mobile phones
Username: Password: 

Pages (4):   « 1 2 3 4   Last Thread   Next Thread

Groovanauts.com > Everything Else > Politics / Economics > Hillary
Author
 
Twitter Facebook MySpace Digg
Post New Thread   
translucent
Webmaster
Lord of Laziness

Registered: May 2001
Location: Over there
Posts: 36632

Find other members from United States   This member is single. To change your relationship status, click on the Prefs button at the top of the page and edit your preferences. This member is a m. To change your gender indicator, click on the Prefs button at the top of the page and edit your preferences.
Top 10 List: < click >

Here's an interesting read about the press' handling of Hillary:


Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary

Updated by Jonathan Allen on July 6, 2015, 11:15 a.m. ET jon@vox.com

The reporter's job is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" — a credo that, humorously, was originally written as a smear of the self-righteous nature of journalists. And so the justification for going after a public figure increases in proportion to his or her stature. The bigger the figure, the looser the restraints.

After a quarter of a century on the national stage, there's no more comfortable political figure to afflict than Hillary Clinton. And she's in for a lot of affliction over the next year and half.

That's generally a good way for reporters to go about their business. After all, the more power a person wants in our republic, the more voters should know about her or him. But it's also an essential frame for thinking about the long-toxic relationship between the Clintons and the media, why the coverage of Hillary Clinton differs from coverage of other candidates for the presidency, and whether that difference encourages distortions that will ultimately affect the presidential race.

The Clinton rules are driven by reporters' and editors' desire to score the ultimate prize in contemporary journalism: the scoop that brings down Hillary Clinton and her family's political empire. At least in that way, Republicans and the media have a common interest.
Related Why reporters won't find anything damning in Hillary Clinton's emails

I understand these dynamics well, having co-written a book that demonstrated how Bill and Hillary Clinton used Hillary's time at State to build the family political operation and set up for their fourth presidential campaign. That is to say, I've done a lot of research about the Clintons' relationship with the media, and experienced it firsthand. As an author, I felt that I owed it to myself and the reader to report, investigate, and write with the same mix of curiosity, skepticism, rigor, and compassion that I would use with any other subject. I wanted to sell books, of course. But the easier way to do that — proven over time — is to write as though the Clintons are the purest form of evil. The same holds for daily reporting. Want to drive traffic to a website? Write something nasty about a Clinton, particularly Hillary.

As a reporter, I get sucked into playing by the Clinton rules. This is what I've seen in my colleagues, and in myself.

1) Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets

One of my former colleagues, a hard-nosed reporter who has put countless political pelts on his wall, once told me that everyone in public life has something to hide. Who goes down in the flames of scandal? The politicians we decide to go after.

That may not be 100 percent true, but it's true enough. The act of choosing, time and again, to go after the same person has the effect of tainting that person, even when an investigation or reporting turns up nothing nefarious — and it's time not spent digging into his or her adversaries. The original source of alleged malfeasance could come from the other party, within a politician's party, or from the reporter's own observations and industrious digging. But two things are crystal clear: If there's no investigation, there's no scandal. And if there's no scandal, there's no scalp.

The Clintons have been under investigation for about 25 years now. There's little doubt they've produced more information for investigators, lawyers, and journalists about their finances, their business and philanthropic dealings, and their decision-making processes in government than any officials in American history. They've watched countless friends frog-marched into congressional hearings and, in some cases, to jail. They know there's a good chance that any expressed thought will become part of the public record and twisted for political gain.

The most absurd allegations against Hillary Clinton have been bookends on her public career so far: that she had something to do with the suicide of Clinton White House aide Vince Foster, and that she bears responsibility for the terrorist attack that killed US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

But in between, there was Travelgate, Filegate, and Whitewater. Some were less legitimate than others. When Clinton surprisingly claimed that she and her husband were "dead broke" when they left the White House, it was because they had spent all of their money to defend themselves against an eight-year barrage of investigations.

It's understandable, then, why the Clintons have a bunker mentality when it comes to transparency. But their paranoia leads them to be secretive, and their secrecy leads Republicans and the press to suspect wrongdoing. That spurs further investigation, which only makes the Clintons more secretive. The paranoia and persistent investigation feed each other in an endless cycle of probe and parry. Along the way, the political class and the public are forced to choose imperfect sides: the power couple that always seems to be hiding something, or a Washington investigation complex that is overly partisan and underwhelming in its ability to prove gross misconduct.

This is, for Republicans, a reasonable strategy. They know that if they keep investigating her, it will do two things: keep the media writing about scandals that might knock her out, and turn off voters who don't want a return to the bloodsport politics of the 1990s. They leak partial stories to reporters hungry for that one great scoop that will give them the biggest political scalp of them all. But they also err in jumping the gun in accusing her of wrongdoing, which allows Clinton to defend herself by pointing at the folly of her adversaries.

2) Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.

In touring the country to promote our book in 2014, my co-author and I were repeatedly lobbied to assert that Clinton is a lesbian. One gentleman pushed the issue during a Q&A at a Barnes and Noble on the Upper West Side of Manhattan — one of the few places you might expect that kind of thing to get a rest.

The National Enquirer published a story in April alleging that Clinton wiped her personal email server clean because it contained references to her lesbian lovers.

Meanwhile, the conservative media are also convinced Clinton is preparing to wage a war on Christianity if she wins the presidency. But one thing revealed in her State Department emails is that Clinton shared daily religious reflections with her friends.

It's not just the out-of-the-box allegations that keep the media machine spun up. A year before Chelsea Clinton got married, Clinton staffers were kept busy by mainstream journalists who were absolutely sure she had already gone through with secret nuptials.

And, on a more serious note, remember Benghazi flu? Many political opponents and members of the media were unable to accept the idea that Clinton was forced to cancel planned Senate testimony on Benghazi because she'd suffered a concussion. Now, three years later, it seems ridiculous to think that Clinton was making an excuse — she's since testified on both sides of the Hill — or that she suffered, as Karl Rove suggested, brain damage. And if she was making up the concussion to avoid testifying, how did she suffer brain damage from a fake fall?

The conservative media echo chamber, which bounces innuendo from Rush Limbaugh to Fox News and back again, ensures that the most damning story lines — true or not — stay alive. The Benghazi attacks are a perfect example. Terrorists killed four Americans. The conservative echo chamber seems convinced Hillary Clinton is at fault. The reasonable argument to make is that we shouldn't have been in Libya in the first place and the murders were a down-the-chain result of bad policy. But the right wing wants to prove that they happened because of Clinton's actions — or inaction — on security matters.

They've talked about security requests denied for Libya (never mind that the stronger contingent would have been in Tripoli, not Benghazi, and that there's no evidence Clinton herself was aware of the requests), a stand-down order that prevented reinforcements from arriving in Benghazi (never mind that they wouldn't have gotten there until after the fighting was done, and that even a House Republican committee found that there was no such order) and, most of absurd of all, that Clinton knew the attack was coming. This is how Limbaugh put it in May.

The fact is they knew about the Benghazi attack 10 days before it was to happen. They knew who did it.

The freedom of the conservative media to make wild allegations often acts as a bulldozer forcing reporters to check into the charges and, in doing so, repeat them. By the time they've been debunked, they're part of the American public's collective consciousness. Or, as it's been said, a lie gets around the world before the truth gets out of bed.

3) The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise.

One outgrowth of Clinton's terrible relationship with reporters is that journalists often assume she is acting in bad faith. There's good reason for that. Though she's added some new pros to her press staff for this campaign, her operation's stance toward the media was always a reflection of the way Bill Clinton's White House handled journalists.

Back in the mid-1990s, Bill Clinton relied on a series of Machiavellian spin doctors to keep the press at bay. With the Clinton White House, the modus operandi was to stonewall as long as possible, lie if necessary — or just out of habit — and turn questions around on the questioners. After all, Bill Clinton once wagged his finger at a press conference and told reporters, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman ... Ms. Lewinsky." He'd lied in a deposition, too.

So the press has plenty of precedent for believing that when the Clintons aren't forthcoming — and sometimes, even when they are — they're covering something up. And the Clintons, given the history of some-smoke-no-fire investigations launched against them, have plenty of precedent for being mistrustful of the press. The result is a brutally dysfunctional relationship on both sides. The Clintons believe the press acts in bad faith, and the press believes the Clintons' attitudes toward the press are evidence that the Clintons are hiding something.

That attitude carried over to Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, and to some degree her tenure as Secretary of State. The standard response to a reporter's question is not an answer. It is to ignore the question or to engage in a Socratic debate by asking a question in return. It's clear Clinton doesn't like the media one bit, as Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman reported last year.

When asked why Clinton hasn’t done more to reach out to reporters over the years, one Clinton campaign veteran began to spin several theories. She was too busy, she was too prone to speaking her mind and the like—then abruptly cut to the chase:

"Look, she hates you. Period. That’s never going to change."

At a July Fourth parade this past weekend, Clinton aides used rope to create an impromptu moving barrier for reporters, keeping them away from the candidate and voters. She treated them like cattle, and they responded by putting the video on television for the last three days.

The mistrust among journalists is a problem for Clinton. And as the media is an amplifier for the public, it's also little wonder that so many voters are inclined to believe she's often acting in bad faith. Most Americans say she's not honest and trustworthy.

This view, shared by many reporters and most of the public, makes it much easier to treat Clinton's actions as though they are uniquely sinister. Case in point: She made a ton of money giving paid speeches to people with business before the government. So did Jeb Bush, of course. But until Bush recently released an accounting of some of those speeches, the media had little interest in his dealings. Kudos to Ken Vogel of Politico, who did some digging on that for a story published Thursday.

The imbalance in assumptions about Clinton's motivations is another way in which the Clinton code has a distorting effect on the public perception of her. And it, too, is self-perpetuating: It leads Clinton to assume the press is biased against her, which leads her to treat the press poorly, which leads more reporters to assume she's trying to hide something from them.

4) Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America's royal family

When Clinton keynoted an annual fundraiser for David Axelrod's epilepsy charity in June 2013, several major news outlets sent reporters to cover the speech. That was more than three years before the 2016 election. Every word, every gesture, every facial expression is scrutinized.

Video of Clinton ordering a burrito bowl at a Chipotle became the first viral image of her campaign. Reporters gave fodder to late-night comedians earlier this year when they made a mad dash to catch up as her campaign van rolled by.

This coverage of every last detail, of course, isn't a one-way street. It wasn't until a reporter was tipped off to the Chipotle visit that anyone knew about it. She craves the attention even more than she detests it.

But that, too, has a distorting effect. As with the royal family in London, normally private moments become part of a public narrative: her husband's affair, her daughter's wedding, the birth of her granddaughter.

All the attention has the effect of making Clinton seem, to the casual observer, hungrier for press than even the average politician. And there's no doubt that part of the love/hate relationship is an intense desire to attract and manipulate coverage. But Clinton understands that sometimes it's better not to be in the spotlight.

The best example of that was when she declined requests to appear on Sunday political talk shows right after the Benghazi attacks. Susan Rice, then the ambassador to the UN and now Obama's national security adviser, leaped at the chance to stand in for Clinton. Those appearances ended up costing Rice the nomination to succeed Clinton as secretary of state when many senators concluded she had lied about the origin and nature of the attacks.

The press has such fascination with the Clintons that the coverage would be there whether Hillary Clinton wanted it or not.

5) Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit

For someone who lost a big lead in the 2008 presidential primary and is ceding ground to Bernie Sanders right now, Clinton is given a lot of credit for her political acumen. Her detractors see in every move, including the birth of her granddaughter, a grandly conceived and executed political calculation.

Clinton’s flaunting of her grandchild is one of the most transparently cynical and sentimental acts of a major American politician that I can recall. We have had presidents who have been parents, and we have had presidents who have been grandparents. But a campaign based on grandparental solidarity? A novelty.

And Clinton plays into that by using the positives in her life for political gain.

That doesn't make her different from other candidates for the presidency — it makes her just like them. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie talked about his grandmothers, his mom, his wife, and his kids when he launched his bid for the presidency last week. Was that calculated to send messages about Christie to the public? Of course!

The best example, though, was the tear — the one that rolled down Clinton's cheek as she campaigned in New Hampshire after having come in third in the Iowa caucuses in 2008.

The New York Times's Maureen Dowd pilloried her for what Dowd saw as a window into the dark part of Clinton's soul.

There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.

As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in "Adam’s Rib," "Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid."

How far political journalism has come from castigating Ed Muskie for crying to accusing Clinton of calculating that tears would help her win. She's not that good at politics.
What the Clinton rules mean for the election

I take a dim view of the idea that journalists successfully anoint political winners. The media might have been in the bag for Barack Obama, but he didn't win because he got positive coverage. He won because he had better strategy, a better message, and better skills at delivering that message — in the 2008 primary and in the two general elections he won.

That said, the media can definitely weigh down — and even destroy — a candidate. The emphasis on a candidate's flaws — real or perceived — comes at the cost of the candidate's ability to focus his or her message and at the cost of negative attention to the other candidates. This is a problem for Clinton, and it seems unlikely to go away.

Hillary Clinton is comfortable enough to be a target for a lot of journalistic affliction and powerful enough that no one needs to comfort her from that affliction. But these double standards are an important factor to keep in mind when judging her against her rivals for the presidency. Whether they're fair or not, the Clinton rules distort the public's perception of Hillary Clinton.

Correction: This story has been corrected to remove an erroneous reference to the source of the original report on the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The Drudge Report first broke news that Newsweek had decided to hold a story about the affair.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules



"Tresor never sleeps"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-09-2015 10:11 AMtranslucent is offline
Click Here to See the Profile for translucent Click here to Send translucent a Private Message Visit translucent's homepage! Find more posts by translucent Add translucent to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message add to multiple quote reply: Reply w/Quote
bxbomb
VIC....WHERES THE LINK ?!?!?

Registered: Aug 2006
Location: 631
Posts: 4741

Find other members from United States  
Top 10 List: < click >

Ultralib Vox article attempting to circle the wagons

She is a walking untrustworthy scandal ridden career politician with no significant achievements in her role as secy of state

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-11-2015 11:04 AMbxbomb is offline
Click Here to See the Profile for bxbomb Click here to Send bxbomb a Private Message Find more posts by bxbomb Add bxbomb to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message add to multiple quote reply: Reply w/Quote
translucent
Webmaster
Lord of Laziness

Registered: May 2001
Location: Over there
Posts: 36632

Find other members from United States   This member is single. To change your relationship status, click on the Prefs button at the top of the page and edit your preferences. This member is a m. To change your gender indicator, click on the Prefs button at the top of the page and edit your preferences.
Top 10 List: < click >

Originally posted by bxbomb
Ultralib Vox article attempting to circle the wagons

She is a walking untrustworthy scandal ridden career politician with no significant achievements in her role as secy of state


Every word of that is true. However, that doesn't negate the point of the article that the press is out for blood with her and that the email "scandal" is another attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-11-2015 11:35 AMtranslucent is offline
Click Here to See the Profile for translucent Click here to Send translucent a Private Message Visit translucent's homepage! Find more posts by translucent Add translucent to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message add to multiple quote reply: Reply w/Quote
bxbomb
VIC....WHERES THE LINK ?!?!?

Registered: Aug 2006
Location: 631
Posts: 4741

Find other members from United States  
Top 10 List: < click >

Do you ever post anything not from far left lib hack sites?

Still find it absolutely mind boggling you think a molehill is the secy of state conducting EVERY single item of us government business on a home server then lying about it then destroying the server when she is suppose to preserve it

There is simply nothing left to discuss about it

Last edited by bxbomb on 07-13-2015 at 10:15 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-13-2015 10:13 AMbxbomb is offline
Click Here to See the Profile for bxbomb Click here to Send bxbomb a Private Message Find more posts by bxbomb Add bxbomb to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message add to multiple quote reply: Reply w/Quote
translucent
Webmaster
Lord of Laziness

Registered: May 2001
Location: Over there
Posts: 36632

Find other members from United States   This member is single. To change your relationship status, click on the Prefs button at the top of the page and edit your preferences. This member is a m. To change your gender indicator, click on the Prefs button at the top of the page and edit your preferences.
Top 10 List: < click >

Originally posted by bxbomb
Do you ever post anything not from far left lib hack sites?

Still find it absolutely mind boggling you think a molehill is the secy of state conducting EVERY single item of us government business on a home server then lying about it then destroying the server when she is suppose to preserve it

There is simply nothing left to discuss about it


I can turn that exact statement around on you, considering the news sources you post. You sure didn't think that Rove, Powell and the rest of the GOP using their own server was a big deal. Hillary lost a relatively few emails that she didn't turn in. Rove "lost" 22 million. Where's your outrage at the GOP?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-13-2015 02:29 PMtranslucent is offline
Click Here to See the Profile for translucent Click here to Send translucent a Private Message Visit translucent's homepage! Find more posts by translucent Add translucent to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message add to multiple quote reply: Reply w/Quote
bxbomb
VIC....WHERES THE LINK ?!?!?

Registered: Aug 2006
Location: 631
Posts: 4741

Find other members from United States  
Top 10 List: < click >

Please tell me you know what the secy of state does?

Then tell me Colin Powell remotely did what Hilary has done

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-14-2015 09:46 AMbxbomb is offline
Click Here to See the Profile for bxbomb Click here to Send bxbomb a Private Message Find more posts by bxbomb Add bxbomb to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message add to multiple quote reply: Reply w/Quote
translucent
Webmaster
Lord of Laziness

Registered: May 2001
Location: Over there
Posts: 36632

Find other members from United States   This member is single. To change your relationship status, click on the Prefs button at the top of the page and edit your preferences. This member is a m. To change your gender indicator, click on the Prefs button at the top of the page and edit your preferences.
Top 10 List: < click >

Powell deserves a bit of slack because the whole "email" thing was kinda new back then. However, read a transcript of his interview with ABC:

Transcript via ABC’s This Week:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But I do want to ask you one final question on this Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy. Which, of course, put you back in the news a bit this week, as well.

You were secretary of State during the early days of e-mails. You were one of the first secretaries, I believe, to set up a personal e-mail account. And you pushed to modernize the State Department’s system.

Based on your experience, what do you make of these revelations this week and what would you recommend that she do now?

POWELL: I — I can’t speak to a — Mrs. Clinton and what she should do now. That would be inappropriate.

What I did when I entered the State Department, I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly.

So we put in place new systems, bought 44,000 computers and put a new Internet capable computer on every single desk in every embassy, every office in the State Department. And then I connected it with software.

But in order to change the culture, to change the brainware, as I call it, I started using it in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st century institution and not a 19th century.

But I retained none of those e-mails and we are working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they want to discuss with me about those e-mails.



STEPHANOPOULOS: So they want…

POWELL: (INAUDIBLE) have a stack of them.

STEPHANOPOULOS: — they’ve asked you to turn them over, but you don’t have them, is that it?

POWELL: I don’t have any — I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files.

And, in fact, a lot of the e-mails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and the State.gov domain. But I don’t know if the servers the State Department captured those or not.

And most — they were all unclassified and most of them, I think, are pretty benign, so I’m not terribly concerned even if they were able to recover them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-secretary-state-colin-powell/story?id=29463658&page=2

Powell’s description of his own emails as pretty benign matches up with Rep. Adam Schiff’s description of the Hillary Clinton emails that the Benghazi committee has read. According to Sen. Chuck Schumer, Clinton’s private email system was based on the system that Powell used.

The technology available in most federal agencies is woefully outdated. It isn’t surprising that appointees would use technology that is available in the private sector because it is better. Powell’s emails from his personal account went into the State Department system because they were addressed to employees in State. The same is the case with the Clinton emails. Powell’s discussion of his own experience with his personal email account adds credibility to the claim that there is nothing to see here.

If Hillary Clinton broke the law, as some Republicans are claiming, then Colin Powell also broke the law.

The more that is revealed about the use of private email, the more it looks like Republicans are trying to make something out of nothing. It has been a bad day for the Republican Clinton email scandal, and it is only going to get worse for the Republican Party as they continue to go down what looks like a dead end.



"Tresor never sleeps"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-14-2015 11:03 AMtranslucent is offline
Click Here to See the Profile for translucent Click here to Send translucent a Private Message Visit translucent's homepage! Find more posts by translucent Add translucent to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message add to multiple quote reply: Reply w/Quote
bxbomb
VIC....WHERES THE LINK ?!?!?

Registered: Aug 2006
Location: 631
Posts: 4741

Find other members from United States  
Top 10 List: < click >

But mommy billy did it too
Your blame game is off the charts

If Powells emails had been needed as hillarys are now I might care
Powell sent them to the state dept server
Did Hillary?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-15-2015 09:50 AMbxbomb is offline
Click Here to See the Profile for bxbomb Click here to Send bxbomb a Private Message Find more posts by bxbomb Add bxbomb to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message add to multiple quote reply: Reply w/Quote
translucent
Webmaster
Lord of Laziness

Registered: May 2001
Location: Over there
Posts: 36632

Find other members from United States   This member is single. To change your relationship status, click on the Prefs button at the top of the page and edit your preferences. This member is a m. To change your gender indicator, click on the Prefs button at the top of the page and edit your preferences.
Top 10 List: < click >

Originally posted by bxbomb
But mommy billy did it too
Your blame game is off the charts

If Powells emails had been needed as hillarys are now I might care
Powell sent them to the state dept server
Did Hillary?


Why are Hillary's emails more important than Powell's?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 07-15-2015 10:44 AMtranslucent is offline
Click Here to See the Profile for translucent Click here to Send translucent a Private Message Visit translucent's homepage! Find more posts by translucent Add translucent to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message add to multiple quote reply: Reply w/Quote
All times are GMT -5 hours. The time now is 08:45 AM. Post New Thread   
Groovanauts.com > Everything Else > Politics / Economics > Hillary

Pages (4):   « 1 2 3 4   Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread


Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
 

[new topics]

< Contact Us - Groovanauts - Refer Friends >

Groovanauts.com is an online community of electronic music enthusiasts, DJ's, producers, promoters, club owners and party animals. If you find yourself addicted to this website, step away from your keyboard, walk out the door and go dance somewhere. We had nothing to do with your internet addiction and you are the only one liable for your own lack of a social life. Our public message board and content is protected by the First Amendment of the United States of America. People can say whatever they want without getting censored. Groovanauts.com's owners and its operators take absolutely no responsibility for the actions, claims or statements made by any of our members. Our members and moderators are neither employees of Groovanauts.com nor its legal representatives.