3-of-3 Tell Lee Byberg that the endorsement has not occured yet!

[Enklechewer]

Hey, tool. I commented on your profile. You are a joke, you don't have any proof of anything. Why don't you give us something real instead of pathetic allegations.

Have YOU contacted the Byberg campaign? You keep asking others if they did, but I bet you didn't...because you're an idiot.

[jzmn01]

@scottmantoother Scott did you bother to ask Lee directly if the ad was paid for?

Did he look you in the eye and say that it wasn't paid for.

Every person has to respect the law, not just some of us.

[Enklechewer]

@jzmn01 The real question is: Did YOU bother to ask Lee directly if the ad was paid for?

I bet you didn't, because you are a tool. Go back to your democrat buddies.

[jzmn01]

@Enklechewer Yes, to answer your question, I did ask him directly and he said no.

Leadership, always seeks the opportunity to develop the same in others.

Once cornered, without a way out, then it's no longer fessing up, it's just being caught. The window of opportunity is closing.

Oh and btw, I'm not a Democrat.

[Enklechewer]

@jzmn01 The real question is: Did YOU bother to ask Lee directly if the ad was paid for?

I bet you didn't, because you are a tool. Go back to your democrat buddies.

[jzmn01]

@scottmantoother

A few question Scott, do you have similarly emotional disgust about how Mr. Byberg presented himself as "The" candiate from CD-7 against Colin Peterson?

Or that a paid advertisement was presented in a manner to look like a talk-show or public access interview? Or that fact that the ads were taken down by his campaign? Or that Mr. Byberg has not made a clarifying statement of ANY kind?

[lauratunes12]

Seriously, Jzmn01, you have a rich imagination and way too much time on your hands. I see NO evidence whatsoever that this is a paid ad! If what you say is true about them making this video private, then YOU have violated YouTube's copyright policy. If you disagree with Lee's views expressed here, then have at it. Stop trying to stir up trouble where there is none.You may want to use some of that spare time to consult a dictionary on spelling and grammar usage instead.

[jzmn01]

@lauratunes12 Dear Laura, the ad was paid for. I have this directly from Sue Jeffers (I know Sue), in the form of an email message. She wouldn't have done this video if she thought that it would have been posted before endorsement that's another problem with it. Now if you don't have a problem watching your candidate lie say that he is running on against Colin Peterson on YouTube a 2 weeks before the endorsing convention then I don't know what to say.

[lauratunes12]

Seriously, Jzmn01, you must have a rich imagination and way too much time on your hands. There is NO indication whatsoever that this is a paid ad! If what you say is true about them making this video private, then how did you make it public, huh? It looks like YOU are violating policy here, not Lee Byberg. If you disagree with any of Lee's views, then have at it. You should stop trying to create trouble where there is none and perhaps consult a dictionary on spelling and grammar usage instead.

[jzmn01]

@lauratunes12 Hi again Laura,

tell you what, you know Sue Jeffers right! I'm sure you do.

Send her an email and ask her if this was paid for then post here what her response was. That should clarify the matter completely!

[scottmantoother]

If you claim that Byberg doesn't have the right to post this, then I'm pretty sure you have no right whatsoever to put this video up. The last thing we need is more negativity in politics. You're the one being manipulative.

[jzmn01]

@scottmantoother Good question! Mr. Bygerg can post ads, not false ads. This breaks the law. Anyone ready for Congress would know this!

Once his ad is posted, It is in public domain and anyone can use it legally.

Now how about morally? Well, is the person who creates deceptive ad more in the right than the person who says. Please stop breaking our federal campaign rules! I trust you to answer that question.

[scottmantoother]

@jzmn01 If you were really nothing more than a "concerned citizen" as you claim and simply wanted to ensure that the law was being followed, then you would remove this video and let the FEC take care of its own business. But you're openly trying to make Byberg look bad. I'm disgusted with you and your campaign. You're lying about your motivation for posting this video and that shows that YOU have no integrity. I suggest you do something about that before you continue to attack Byberg.

[moralmajority2010]

I don't see anything wrong with this video. Jzmn01, whoever you are, maybe you should spend more time focusing on the issues and less time trying to dig up dirt on a candidate. It looks to me like all Byberg was trying to do was find a way to reach a wider audience with his stances. Just let it go, man.

[jzmn01]

@moralmajority2010 Of course he was trying to reach out to Libertarians and moderates. But he also created a false impression that the endorsment was a foregone conclusion. And he did so by using a paid infomercial which was not marked as a paid ad. again (and violating FEC rules).

[bybergforcongress]

This information is misleading. Anyone wanting the correct facts can and should contact Byberg for Congress.

[jzmn01]

@bybergforcongress

I find this as distasteful as anyone, My candidate Dr. Nelson, has served with eight years in public office without blemish. Mr. Byberg is breaking FEC rules before he is even endorsed and now tries to cover it up!

[DanAtMnMajority]

What exactly is wrong with this video? Looks like a public access interview.

[jzmn01]

@DanAtMnMajority

You are absolutely correct. FEC rules attempt to protect the public from deception and other candidates from being undermined by deceptive advertising this ad presents itself as a legitimate interview and fails to "Disclose" that it is a paid ad. It also misrepresents Mr. Byberg as a candidate in relation to the endorsement process. Maybe he "deemed" himself the winner.