Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#162
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:04:06 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: "Landshark" wrote in news:y0IEd.10181$5R.3047 : "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message m... On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave Hall) wrote: The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample of any particular transmission could not be made. Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter. No, it doesn't. Dx is simply an enhancement of the atmosphere which allows a signal to propagate farther then normal line of sight. It does not add "splatter" to an otherwise clean signal. Ah, that explains everything. So when a normal channel has maybe 5 to 10 operators, add another 100 because of skip conditions, of course there will be some running clipped & mod radio's, you don't think that enhances the splatter? Sure throwing modded and clipped radios on top of each other sure does add to the splatter. Big Time, but skip has nothing to do with it, he was splattering because his radio puts out a dirty signal. Skip has nothing to do with what comes out the ass end of a radio/amp. Correct! |
#164
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:29:28 GMT, Lancer wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:40:30 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave Hall) On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:37:50 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: N3CVJ said The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the distortion a signal may have. It has everything to with it. For the amount of times you professed to having talked skip on the freeband, followed by recent denials of you talking skip, you should know that on MANY occasion, a signal can be severely wavering from an S1 to an S9 (for but one of many examples),,,when that signal is coming in at an S9, the splatter may be intense if you changed the channel and went one up or down. When that signal is coming in on a wavering S1, you will hear absolutely nothing on your next channel. Once again, the wavering is a direct result of...taa daaa....skip. You may not hear anything on the next channel because the signal may not be strong enough or because of "selective fading" . Splatter is caused by the modulation, it may or may not be intensified by skip. But it is not caused by "skip" If you had a constant carrier(no modulation), skip or not, you wouldn't have splatter. He probably thinks that FM won't skip either...... Dave "Sandbagger" On the contrary Dave, it does too. Landshark -- Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder? Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder. I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.'' This game that we animals play is a winner. |
#165
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) The Fcc requires no jury of peers. re ![]() Tell that to N3CVJ and his buddy N8WWM. Davie lobbies hard telling the world that just because the FCC told the world N8WWM was jamming repeaters, it's not evidence of guilt. It's OK Twist, Geo can't ever seem to keep up with a thread. Here's what Dave typed: "So you are of the Twisted notion that a person is not breaking the law until they are caught? Dave "Sandbagger" " To which I replied correct. Nothing in that statement does it say breaking "FCC Rules". Geo will never admit to being wrong nor will he ever admit to me being right, it would ruin his image of being the #2 troll behind Doug. Start your sexual innuendoes here Geo :::::::::::: |
#166
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Lancer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:48:46 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Lancer" wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message m... On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave Hall) wrote: The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample of any particular transmission could not be made. Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter. The only thing DX has to do with DX splatter is that if "DX" isn't running you wouldn't hear it. Probably, but if you have a 100 radio's and a third of them are running their modulation clipped, then you will hear it even worse, correct? It would only be worse because now you can hear the 100 radios. Splatter or out of bounds emissions are those falling outside the normal bandwidth of a signal and are the result of modulation. Correct DX doesn't cause splatter it allows it to propgate farther. Correct. When you have a lot more radio's trying to talk on one freq, don't you think that it will now increase your adjacent channel splatter? Only because you now can hear more radios. skip doesn't cause splatter. Take the same 100 radios that were causing splatter when the skip was running (all stations running S9). Now move them all so they are local to you (again all stations running S9). From what you have said you believe the splatter is going to decrease ? Well. It has been my experience that when skips running, you will have more incidents of adjacent channel splatter than when it's not. I'm sure "Skip" is not causing it, but it sure does "Heighten" it. Landshark -- Some of them are living an illusion Bounded by the darkness of their minds, In their eyes it's nation against nation, With racial pride, sad hearts they hide, Thinking only of themselves, They shun the light, They think they're right Living in the empty shells. |
#167
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Lancer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:04:06 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: "Landshark" wrote in news:y0IEd.10181$5R.3047 : "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message om... On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave Hall) wrote: The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample of any particular transmission could not be made. Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter. No, it doesn't. Dx is simply an enhancement of the atmosphere which allows a signal to propagate farther then normal line of sight. It does not add "splatter" to an otherwise clean signal. Ah, that explains everything. So when a normal channel has maybe 5 to 10 operators, add another 100 because of skip conditions, of course there will be some running clipped & mod radio's, you don't think that enhances the splatter? Sure throwing modded and clipped radios on top of each other sure does add to the splatter. Big Time, but skip has nothing to do with it, he was splattering because his radio puts out a dirty signal. Skip has nothing to do with what comes out the ass end of a radio/amp. Correct! Sorry, maybe "cause" is the wrong word. Since some people here are so word sensitive (Not you Lancer) the better choice of words would be "Heighten". Landshark -- Hard things are put in our way, not to stop us, but to call out our courage and strength. |
#168
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:58:04 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:14:33 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip You obviously know little about the industry of journalism. It's a known given to all, but the most liberal people, that the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox) leans very much to the left. No, that's not a "given". In fact it's quite the opposite. Not according to some very well written accounts of these operations by people who used to work in them. So some people were slanted one way when they were working and slanted the other way when they quit. How credible is that? As credible as the claim that the mainstream news isn't biased. Check this out: In the past 20 years, millions have died in African wars and the media barely mentioned it. Yet during the same time period the media covered just about every little fistfight in the West Band and Gaza. Which way is -that- slanted, Dave? It is slanted toward the areas of interest to most Americans. It's no big secret to anyone who's been around the block a few times. Since the invention of mass media it has been manipulated by the powers that be, whether that power is the people, a government, the corporation that owns the media, or whatever. And there is a very simple and obvious proof to this: One of the first objectives of an army that invades another country is to shut down or take over the media. I would think that securing command and control centers would come first. Didn't I say, "ONE of the first objectives [plural]....."? There can only be ONE first objective. The rest descend from there. This reminds me of a manager that I once worked for, who assigned job priorities. When he started assigning several jobs to the "#1 priority", I asked him how he wanted us to prioritize the #1 priority. He wasn't amused...... This is because if they don't the media can be used against them by the defenders, AND the invaders can use the media to their advantage by discouraging resistance. Lies work both ways. Now you're catching on. Considering that Saddam Hussein was a regular watcher of CNN, the military used to give out false information so that the media would unknowingly give this false info to Saddam, and he would plan accordingly, and then be surprised when we did something totally different. But this exposes just why close media coverage of a war zone is not really the best course of action. The enemy watches TV too..... The fact is that there has never been a better source of false information than the mass media. The only question is where that false information is coming from. Well, that depends on who controls the media. In the US the people certainly don't control the media -- it's controlled by the huge corporations that own it and the government that regulates it. THAT'S the source of any misinformation you get from the allegedly "left-biased" or "liberal" media. That's a fact! This is a perfect example of the affirmation of the consequent fallacy. You claim that since the media can been used as a source of false information, that it automatically IS. Wrong. The proof is in the pudding. The media has intentionally spread misinformation to the public in the past, and there's no reason to think that they have stopped and won't do it again. I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the claim that they do it all the time. But even so, it only makes second and third sourcing news through many different venues all that more important, if you want accuracy. But you need to be aware of the slant that exists in all sources of "news". There have been several articles and books written on the subject. Dan Rather's latest embarrassing escapades should serve as a beacon of illumination to the subject. And you joined him in the hall of shame when you cited that web page with documents that were also forged. You have solid proof that those documents were forged? Maybe you used empirical observation? Careful here Frank..... I used the same criteria that was used to condemn the CBS documents. You can't invalidate one without invalidating both. You are not skilled in those disciplines enough to make that claim with any credibility. You mean like the story about Kerry not receiving an honorable discharge until 2001? Exactly. It's interesting and telling that you would discard that out of hand, yet embrace other articles, which share your ideology, with no more credibility. Who says I "discarded" it? On the contrary, I proved that your accusation was not just lame, but also quite ignorant. By doing what? Citing claims from Kerry's own website? Surely you can see the slant there. Those were official military records, not "claims". The only slant was in a story intended to misinform people who where either uneducated about military records, too lazy to read the records for themselves, or too willing to accept the story without scrutiny. So which category did you trip into, Dave? I'm of the thought that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. He's holding back records. Why? Perhaps the answers to those questions are contained within them. snip Hmmm.. Who watches the watchers? People who, unlike yourself, have enough ambition to verify the facts for themselves. Most of the time, the only verification you can find are other sources which are just as credible (or not) as the original source. Then what have you proved? The problem is that what you consider as "fact" is often little more than a different, but equally questionable, source. You are still unable to differentiate fact from an opinion...... No, I just have a tighter standard for what I consider as "fact". A 'fact' is undisputed and/or undisputable. For example, the validity of Kerry's military records is undisputed. Did you see the original documents? Did you hold them in your hand? If not, how can you claim they are "indisputable"? But an 'opinion' can, and usually is, disputed. Staying with the same example, it is someone's opinion that Kerry did not receive an honorable discharge until 2001. So the validity of the opinion is measured by weighing it against the facts. The facts are that Kerry's military service was characterized as honorable, and that he did indeed receive an "Honorable Discharge Certificate" upon completion of his military obligation in 1978. So the opinion is in contradiction to the facts and is therefore bogus. Assuming what you saw was not bogus. Now if you are going to dispute the source of the documents then you are either accusing the Pentagon of forgery or accusing the military of inappropriate conduct. Or the Kerry people who displayed them. Regardless, the allegation requires that the documents be both true and false at the same time. For example, if the DD-215 of 2001 was indeed Kerry's final discharge as claimed by your opinion, then the document must be false because it contains no such statement. And if the document is false then the claim that it marks the date of his final discharge is no longer valid. So -that- opinion is bogus. Is the fog beginning to clear yet? Your logic is sound, if each premise is true. THAT truth is what I dispute. snip LOL! Conflict of interest is a simple concept. Are you telling me that you don't understand it? I understand that a public elected official is supposed to be able to remain impartial. To suggest otherwise is an accusation of impropriety, and without evidence to suggest the presence of impropriety, then the elected people should be allowed to do the jobs that we elect them to do. There are many cases where elected officials come across situations where there may be a conflict of interests. Should that official recuse himself every time this happens? That's the generally accepted practice, and it's also the law in most states. It's done all the time in the courts. Judges often recuse themselves from a case because of some personal or business relationship with one of the parties. It's done to -prevent- any allegations of partiality. In Ohio there was a judge who refused to recuse himself from the contest hearings despite the fact that his own election could have been affected by his decision. That's a conflict of interests, and no doubt that decision will affect his career in the future. Also, there -is- evidence of impropriety in the Ohio election, as well as the recount and the contest. Well then have an independent agency audit the results. snip Yet another simple concept that you don't understand. Suspicion naturally falls on the person or persons who benefited from the problems. Kinda like some guy's wife is murdered right after he took out a huge insurance policy and he doesn't have an alibi. This warrants a justifiable suspicion (unless, of course, you are the guy being implicated, then you make up your own justifications). But you are automatically assuming that those "illegal" ballots were done for the benefit of Republicans. That is a poor assumption to make. Not when the vast majority of those illegal ballots DID benefit the Republicans. How do you know that? Have you a factual determination of which ballots were illegal, and of them, which ones were for republicans? snip You assume that any extra votes mean that the were Bush plants. What if they were Kerry plants? What if you are ignoring the fact that there were more votes than voters? I'm not, but you seem to think that any fraud is automatically the fault of, and benefitted republicans. Not automatically. The fact is that the vast majority of the illegal ballots favored the Republicans. According to what data? If you think that Democrats committed voting fraud in order to benefit the Republican candidates then that's your problem. No, they committed fraud to help democratic candidates. Only it wasn't enough and Bush still won. snip Yes, the overall articles are facts, but the underlying reasons and the suspicions generated or implied are the result of bias. Ok, here are the facts: First, it's statistically impossible that all the errors were accidental. It's statistically IMPROBABLE, not impossible. Statistical probability sometimes reaches a point so low that it can safely be assumed to be an impossibility. Such is the case with the Ohio election statistics. Second, the errors that resulted in extra votes were in predominantly Bush areas. But that does not mean that those extra votes were for Bush. It's equally likely that Kerry operatives planted extra votes in those heavy Bush areas to make the vote look more "balanced", and therefore less suspicious. The recount was requested to determine if that was a possibility, but Blackwell didn't allow recount sampling in any suspected areas. Hence the contest. Right! So for the time being you don't KNOW for sure if the illegal ballots benefitted republicans. Any conclusions that you may now hold is based on pure speculation. Third, the errors that resulted in supressed votes were almost always in districts that favored Kerry. And those districts were run by democrats. So what does that say? Wrong. Most of them were run by Republicans. Regardless, the statewide election was run by Blackwell. It was his office that controlled the tabulation and certified the impossible results. "So what does that say?" Not according to my sources. The largest metro areas, where people complained about the lack of machines, were also the places where democrats ran the show. It stands to reason that democrats have their greatest power in metro areas. Those are the facts. You are still wording the facts as to imply a conclusion which is not supported by the known evidence. The facts imply their own conclusion. If your neighbor is killed and they find the murder weapon under the front seat of your locked car, what do those facts imply? Of course if another fact comes to light that the real killer stashed the weapon in your car to frame you, then the picture changes. That's the danger of allowing incomplete data, no matter how factual, to form conclusions, before all valid possibilities are explored. If you think you can word them in a way that is any more objective then go for it. Otherwise, your opinions don't negate the facts. The facts are incomplete. And what fills in the gaps is pure speculation. Now it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to reach the conclusion that there was voting fraud perpetrated by Bush and/or his supporters. Only if you deny that "the other side" is equally capable and has a history of doing it as well. Nobody is denying anything of the sort, and such a denial isn't required to reach the conclusion. But you -could- say that the Republicans were more effective at rigging the Ohio election than the Democrats and I wouldn't have any problem with that. Or that the democrats simply weren't effective enough. And neither do you need to be a genius to figure out who perpetrated this fraud, since many of the decisions that resulted in these errors were made by Blackwell (co-chair of Ohio's Bush/Cheney campaign -- remember "conflict of interest"?). Can you put the puzzle together yet? How much simpler can I make it for you? But it's still speculation. It's another affirmation of the consequent logical fallacy to arrive at a single conclusion without considering other possibilities. First, you need to brush up on your logic. Not at all. Perhaps you would like to look it up. Second, it's a reasonable conclusion based on factual premeses. No matter how "reasonable" it may be (And the term reasonable is relative and open to speculation), as long as there are other possibilities which could make the logical statement true, you cannot responsibly make the claim one way or the other Third, if you reach a conclusion based on improbable scenarios (such as a conspiricy to cover up Kerry's military record) then the conclusion is, likewise, just as improbable. So have you spotted any UFOs lately? Yea, they're hovering over Tampa. Liberalism is destined to fail, as nothing positive has even come from a socialistic paradigm. I just don't want to see this country dragged through the muck to before they realize it. You are confusing liberalism with socialism. They are not the same. Far from it. If you take the line of political idealogy, and start at the middle, as you head further right, you become more conservative. At the extreme end of the "right wing", is fascism. Now take the same journey toward the liberal left, and when you reach the extreme " left wing", you have socialism and finally anarchy. Perhaps you need a refresher course in political ideologies. Here's an interesting link: http://www.oregonvos.net/~jflory/205/ide_over.htm Interesting, yes. It's also interesting how Rokeach's quantification of political ideology (assuming it can be done) differs from your own. Not at all. It's pretty much in line. At this point it's clear that you are quite confused and are seeking simplistic explanations for complex issues. Complex issues can be simplified to a degree with only a small loss of granularity. Not too much different in theory from digital audio compression. There is no "line" or chart you can draw to describe a political ideology. No, but you can compare the relative aspects of the different ideologies and place them on a line (or as the site shows) a two dimensional dual line. Go to the library and check out the vast amount of material on politics. Written, of course, by people who maybe have their own slant. You have to do a lot of reading to be able to form a barometer to judge. The problem is that the definitions of terms like "liberal" have changed over the years. I would be classified as a liberal by the oldest definition of the term. But by today's generally accepted political definitions, it almost the opposite. Then look in the history section and try to count all the different kinds of governments that have existed since the beginning of recorded history. Yet you think you can sum it all up with something as simple as a line? You can if you take the main points and catergorize them. You can complain that this may destroy some of the individual subtleties, but that's how it is done. You need to take this up with the people who do this. I'm only one who reads with interest. The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the liberal wants things to change and the conservative wants things to stay the same. That is overly simplistic and also somewhat obsolete in today's political climate. But the essence is true. The problem is the term change and what those changes involve and the question of whether those changes are good. Change for change sake is not a valid reason to push for change. New is not always better. Old is not always obsolete. I don't know how you came up with your extrapolations to socialism, anarchy and facism, but I can make a guess that it probably -didn't- come from a source of any authority or education. Based on what evidence? You saw the line from the site that I gave. Did it not illustrate the same thing as what I stated? If you want, I can dig up a bunch more. The fact is that the government incorporates many aspects of just about every political ideology. For example, our medical and educational systems are partially socialized; the infrastructure is run under a mostly collectivistic system; the military works best under fascism; etc, etc. You are right about one thing, the medical system IS partially socialized, on the demand side. One of the main reasons why costs are skyrocketing is due to socializing the demand side while allowing the free market to control the supply side. The two don't mix. The failure of public schools can also be somewhat attributed to the socialized structure of the teachers. There is no motivation to "better" oneself, once "tenure" is obtained. The school boards are more concerned with self preservation than they are with education. That's why I support private vouchers. So for you to sit there and slap everyone with your simplistic labels does nothing but demonstrate your ignorance. There is not enough bandwidth and I don't have enough time to get into a deep multi-faceted discussion of the nuances of political ideologies. It's also outside the subject matter of this newsgroup. So simple will have to suffice for now. Which were later verified and the total favored Gregoire, which begs the question: were they were lost accidently or intentionally? If they were lost intentionally I don't think the Democrats were responsible. Why not? You assume that these votes were originally lost and then found. They could have also been planted. I don't think so. Key word: "think" The press contacted some of the people whose ballots were lost, people who voted for both parties, and they were all quite ****ed off. As they should be. And I doubt that you heard enough of the facts surrounding the incident to reach that conclusion. It IS a distinct possibility especially when you consider the past history of these practices. But if you prefer to believe the less likely scenario that the votes were planted then that's your right: Keeping an open mind is less preferable to jumping to conclusions? The rules were followed and Gregoire won. Now the Republicans are whining up a storm and begging for a second election. Also, there have been allegations that King County counted unconfirmed provisional ballots. If that's true then it would be foolish for Rossi -not- to contest the election. So far he hasn't. Usually republicans are not as baby-ish when it comes to conceding a close election. ROTFLMMFAO! That's a good one, Dave! It's clear you didn't see Rossi's press conference where he begged the public to ask for a second election. It was pathetic! Now he's contesting the election -not- because of fraud, but because he says the system didn't work in his favor...... what a weiner! Your's right, I didn't see it. It doesn't sound very typical of republicans. It sounds typical of any Democrat -or- Republican that can't accept defeat. Like Al Gore? They are now all over the TV begging the public to initiate a revote. Check this out: www.revotewa.com The reason for it is bogus: If there election was flawed then the fault was with the system; so until those faults are corrected there can be no valid revote. The petition is nothing more than an request to hold another flawed election in hopes that the result will favor Rossi. I can't argue with that logic. You are correct. But I suspect they will claim to have "fixed" many of the problems. But I do agree with the private contest that the results are invalid because they are within the margin of error. If that holds up in court then the legislature should hold an emergency session to establish some uniform ballot rules and -then- hold a second election. That sounds like the reasonable course of action. But overall, Washington seems to be accomplishing what Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and several other states cannot: conduct an election with a transparent process. The only thing transparent are the operations of those trying to stuff the ballot box with enough extra votes to overturn an election Where did that happen, Dave? In Washington? Cite your source. It's a possibility you refuse to consider. Voter fraud has been here for many decades and has been used by both sides. You didn't answer the question, Dave. Let's try it again: Were ballot boxes stuffed in Washington? There would seem to be some evidence to suggest that, since the vote count was higher than the number of registered voters. And to return from your spin, how about answering the question: Are you suggesting that a 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial opinion"? I'm suggesting that you shouldn't automatically assume that the republicans were the major perpetrators in the fraud. I don't -automatically assume- any such thing. I came to that conclusion because the voting statistics demonstrate a very high probability that the extra votes favor Bush. Because he won? And you -still- didn't answer the question: Do you think 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial opinion"? It's suggestive of fraud. There was two forms of fraud occurring. Fraudulent voting, and fraudulent counting. Agreed. One was trying to cancel the effects of the other. Cite your source. Past experience with political machines. I'm not stating it as a matter of fact, only as a distinct possibility. The only people who -wouldn't- be concerned about voting fraud are facists. Are you a facist, Dave? (And notice that I didn't slap you with the label -- I have enough respect to ask first!) Are you denying that you are a liberal? I'm not a liberal -- I'm an American. Cop out answer. Actually, I expected you to claim to be a "moderate". I'll take that as a affirmation of my original suspicion. What is it with some of you liberals? So many seem to be ashamed to admit what you feel, as if the term liberal is like holy water to a vampire. I'm PROUD to be a conservative. I know some liberals who are also proud of their affiliation. So why are so many other so reluctant to admit it? And no, I'm not a fascist, simply a conservative. Thanks for the clarification. From now on I will use the label you have placed upon yourself. I am not ashamed to be a conservative. snip How does that proverb go..... "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today". They tried to repair the faults of the 2000 election with band-aids and it didn't work; the wound got bigger. If we don't fix it now the same problems will be bigger and more widespread in 2008, or perhaps even sooner. Why didn't they fix it in say, ohhhh, 1944? Try 1876. Whatever works for you. I just picked a date when the big "political machines" were coming of age. Try 1876. Like I said, whatever works for you. But the original question stands. Why wasn't it fixed in 1876? The answer would seem to be that they just weren't interested enough, or plainly didn't want to. You mean the records that say his other records (the records that -were- released) are all phoney? Or maybe you are referring to his medical records? The man was an officer in a war zone, so he must have had a security clearance -- should he release classified documents that are part of his military record? You are making an assumption again. You assume that this missing records have some sort of security issue. And you assume that they have some sort of sinister information that could implicate him as a communist spy or something worse. What's the difference between the two assumptions? One is reasonable, the other is paranoid fantasy. And why would you think that? They are BOTH reasonable. If in fact it was a security issue, as you assume, he would have claimed such. That may not be the case. They may also contain actions which might paint the good senator in a not so favorable light. NASA may be withholding photos that show alien habitation on Mars, the CIA may have flying saucers in Area 51, and George H. W. Bush may be a hermaphrodite. All three allegations have some foundation in fact: NASA withheld some photos from Mars probes, UFOs have been seen at Area 51, and Bush Sr. giggles like a girl. So what foundation do you have for -your- allegation? If you have nothing to hide, then why hide? You're getting silly now. Just what do you think is on those documents? Now before you stick your foot in your mouth and answer that, remember that you don't have those records and therefore have no evidence, empirical or not, as to their nature. Neither do you. But I tend to believe .....uh oh that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Then post your SSN to this newsgroup. There's no need for me to do that. The fact that he refused to release his FULL records, especially after Bush was forced to release his, Cite your source that says; a) Bush released -all- his records, and b) he was -forced- to release all his records. Any news source from the time. suggests a suspicious motive. If there was a security aspect to them, then he could just say that, but he didn't. People lie, right? If there was something sinister in those records he could have simply said that the subject matter was a security risk, or that they were medical records. You still haven't provided any reason to believe that those records were in any way incriminating. A lie by omission. So the only clue you have as to what they are (other than the obvious, as I stated above) is purely conjecture. Ok, feel free to answer the question -- let 'er rip! The fact that they remain sealed says more. The fact that they remain sealed says nothing more than that they remain sealed. You don't know what's in those records any more than I do. Yet you choose to speculate that they contain some damning and incriminating information. On what do you base your speculation, Dave? The why hide them, especially after the public outcry that Bush release his FULL records (After which there was STILL speculation that he was withholding some of them) Your own "belief"? Are you a proponent of "faith-based justice"? So if someone goes to court for a crime, the burden of proof no longer rests with the prosecution? Proof of guilt is decided by a jury based only on the allegation and the silence of the defendant? Guilty until proven innocent? Have you never heard of the 5th Amendment? Or is that another one of those "liberal" concepts that leaves a bad taste in your mouth? You twist the facts almost as well as twisty. I don't need a jury verdict to hold a belief. Neither do you. Should I call you a fascist because you want to believe that republicans committed fraud before all the facts are known? snip Unless you have a time machine and can travel back to correct any occurance where it -did- make a difference, the question is moot: The same thing can be said for this past election. It doesn't matter if it was 2 months ago, or two decades ago. Well, yes it does because the issue is still fresh and the direct results can still be rectified if needed. You could make the same statement after every election. And the beat goes on....... The issue is happening NOW and can be addressed NOW. That's a far different statement than the one where you claimed that fraud is more rampant today than ever before. A statement that you have no factual information to back up. You got me there, Dave. Now, how about providing some facts to back up -your- accusations and speculations? If you can't then I would expect you to do as I did and concede any such issue you can't back up with facts. Can you do that? Sure. But it's fun considering the possibilities. snip But you do live in the U.S. Mayor Daily epitomized the democratic "machine" that exists in many large cities. The fact that most cities vote heavily democratic may have much more than voter "demographics" to attribute to it. Ok, so how does his opinion justify voting fraud in Ohio? There is no "justification", only the notion that fraud has happened before, A fact I never denied. Past performance sets a precedent. and that the old metropolitan democratic political machines pretty much wrote the book on it. So they are hardly above reproach on this issue. Voting fraud has been around a lot longer than the Democratic party, Dave. In fact, it's been around almost as long as elections! I'm sure the Romans had their issues. But then they executed their criminals on the spot. Ohio is under the microscope now, for much the same reason as Florida was 4 years ago. There are 49 other states, which may have had an even greater degree of fraud than what is alleged in Ohio. But what should be plainly obvious is that the whole thrust of this Ohio fraud issue is not to correct the problems in fraud, but to give the liberals another reason to claim that Bush didn't actually WIN the election. What it will do is push for uniform voting standards, laws prohibiting conflict of interests for voting officials, better accountability for tabulation errors, etc, etc. IOW, a more fair and equitable election system that's less suseptible to fraud. Is that such a bad thing? No, it would be a GREAT thing. But you have to acknowledge the likely motivating force, no matter what potential benefit arises from it. There may be (and likely is) cases of fraud in large metro areas in states like New York and Pa., which favored the democrats. If someone were motivated to dig deep enough, it MAY be found that Bush could have won in Pa. (Which would make Ohio a moot point) as well. The only problem with that scenario is that the state's voting records have already been examined and indicate nothing on the scale that's found in Ohio. Because no one has forced a recount. The margin of victory was not small enough to trigger an automatic recount, and no one from the republican side (Why would they, they won the overall election) wanted to force the issue. It's true that many people are trying to make this a Bush/Kerry issue, but I'm not. You can keep claiming I am, but like I said before, claims don't suddenly become true just because you repeat them enough times. Your motivations may be more honorable than the people who are screaming the loudest, but it doesn't deny the underlying reason for all the hoopla. Otherwise why not in Pa.? If identifying and solving voter fraud were the true motivational factor, then ALL states (at least the ones with close percentages) should be subjected to some scrutiny. Who said they -weren't- subjected to scrutiny? They were. You can bet that analysts have crunched the numbers from -all- the states if for no other reason than to work the demographics for the next election. Without a recount, then how valid are those numbers? How would this be any different than what's happening in Ohio? As I said before, the percentage of victory for Kerry in Pa. was less than Bush's victory in Ohio. I stood in line for almost 3 hours to vote and I didn't find on person who was voting for Kerry, out of the people we "informally" polled (You get bored when you stand in line for that long). So you have your own version of an "exit poll". Congratulations. So why should I accept -your- exit poll data as fact and ignore the official exit poll data that CNN refuses to release? Oh, that's right, you have some sort of sixth sense regarding the truth, huh? I personally witnessed my "exit poll", therefore I know it to be fact. At least with regard to my district. The point is that with so many republican suburbanites turning out in record numbers (hence my 3 hour wait), it becomes harder to consider the almost total reversal in the large cities. The breakdown of a county by county vote in Pa., shows that the vast majority of the state was red, with the exception of Philadelphia, which was radically blue (80%), Pittsburgh, and around Erie county. Is it possible that those heavily democratic places might have committed some sort of fraud as well? Indeed there were stories of some Phila machines being "loaded" with votes before the polls even opened. They explained that away as a simple "use" counter, but it was suspicious all the same. Why aren't you calling for an investigation in those places, if you are truly interested in tracking down and correcting voter fraud? http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/969 The reason you hear most about Ohio (but not from the "liberal" media) is because most Bush supporters are content with the results of the election, fraud or not. Does that make sense to you? Very much. Thank you for making my point for me. The democrats are obviously not interested in exposing their own dirty deeds, and the republicans are content with the overall results of the election, so there is no motivation in those other states. The fact that it is happening with such zeal in Ohio is that it is being driven by "sour grapes" politics, under the guise of "concern" for voter fraud. snip I also favor requiring all voters to show an I.D. which includes their voting precinct. I agree 100%. How about simply registering everyone over 18 by their SSN? And making their votes accessible after the election to see for themselves that their vote was counted (instead of lost, changed by a machine, or "enhanced" by an election worker)? I love the idea, and in fact, have suggested the exact same thing in the past. Excellent! We have found some common ground! The problem .....oh no is that many people are real paranoid about using their SSN for things like voting, and start thinking "big brother" thoughts. For whatever reason, people think that a national I.D. is somehow an invasion of privacy. It's the Twisty syndrome of feeling the need to hide behind some form of relative anonymity. I'll buy that. If people want to stand up and be counted they shouldn't be afraid to stand up and be counted. Thank you. We have indeed found some common ground. But those paranoias that I spoke of, are the main reasons why something so painfully simple isn't being implemented. Curiously though, it seems to be the city democrats who howl the loudest about this. They pitched a fit when they heard that some precincts were asking for I.D. and started accusing (or course) repulicans of fostering "disenfranchisement". snip The key phrase is "days past". Those problems have been addressed, have they not? I cannot make that statement. I have read stories of party workers caught with ballots leaving a prison in Pa. I doubt if these issues have been truly "addressed". It may have been covered over a bit more effectively, but I believe that they're still there. Possibly. The question is to what extent. We may never know the answer to that. The only thing we can do is reduce the chance that it can happen in the future. Again, we find common ground. It's not hard. While we may never see politics in the same way, we both want elections to be fair. Otherwise why bother? We have -new- problems that need to be addressed, such as a corporation that wrote the software for the voting machines and whose CEO promised to deliver the state's electoral votes to Bush; Hearsay. There's no proof that any such "promise" ever occured. Once again you didn't bother to verify the facts for yourself before spouting off your big mouth. I did a search on O'Dell's quote and got over 15,000 hits. Here's just one: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm I read it, but that still doesn't prove that O'Dell actually made that statement in the context that he would use his company's voting machines as a vehicle to that goal. It only states that the statement was made in a fund rasing letter. So are you of the opinion that CEO's should not promote any party affiliation? As if he would publically state, "I intend to manipulate the tabulation of votes with software so it favors Bush". Revisit "conflict of interest". The machines and software should be available for inspection, but the judge (the one who refused to recuse himself) would not allow it. The software should be available for audit. That is only fair. Once again, when things are hidden, it implies that there is something (usually not good) to hide. It was those same Democrats that lodged the complaints! They were told a variety of different lies about how the machines were apportioned, which is one of the issues Blackwell was supposed to address in the deposition he evaded. How do you know they were lies? The fact remains that in those heavily democratic voting precincts, the distribution of voting machines was controlled by the democrats, so they have no one but themselves to blame if they short changed their constituents. Wrong: http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/917 That's just one example. There were plenty more. I'd like to see something from something other than an obviously slanted news source. They have their own agenda, and I don't trust what they say to be 100% factually accurate. I've read other sources that claimed that the inner city election boards were run by democrats (I don't pull these things out of my butt) which makes sense knowing the political demographics of the typical cities. Are you ever going to read these articles? Or would you rather make me post them one by one as you continue to make inaccurate statements? I question the bias of your "source", so it's a moot point to continue to cite them. They are related in that liberals are only lighter versions of socialists. At least as defined by today's terms. Read the link I provided, and do some searching for yourself. I read the link and responed appropriately. I invoke that same response here. It's a fact that democrats are more known for increasing taxes and increasing "safety net" social programs. This in nothing more than redistribution of wealth. Many of those "safety net" social programs are not only necessary, but designed to prevent more costly problems in the future. That is a matter of much debate. This country got by without most of them for a the first 150+ years, there's no reason to think we need them now. Such as AIDS, Keep it in your pants. No problem. smoking, Don't smoke. Plain and simple. and other health information campaigns designed to take the burden away from Social Security and other medical programs that end up flipping the bill. If we change it so that these programs no longer pay the bill then the problem is solved. And you seem somewhat biased in your accusations: After all, it was Clinton who instituted some overdue welfare changes such as work initiative programs. Only after it became clear that with a republican majority in congress, which BTW, had been championing welfare reform for years, that Clinton had better go with the flow. Clinton is a man with a large ego, and he was much more concerned with his legacy, and he learned to "play ball". If you look at his terms, he became much more moderate after the republicans took over congress. OTOH, Bush is responsible for that drug discount card fiasco which is basically just government subsidation of drug companies at the expense of the elderly, while at the same time he has cut vet benefits to the point where they are almost nonexistent. Being both a fiscal and social conservative, I found that Bush's example of kow-towing to liberal democratic issues (For obvious political reasons) to be irresponsible and deplorable. We will never lower medical costs as long as someone continues to subsidize the demand side without controlling the supply side costs. So if there's any redistribution of wealth being done it's done by both sides. Which side you favor depends on who gets the wealth -- you, or someone who needs it. I want to keep what I earn. Plain and simple. snip Ok, I see how this works..... the past is relevent only when it favors your argument, such as previous accounts of voting fraud. Right? No, it's only relevant when it's relevant , such as past record of voting fraud suggests that it was a problem for far longer than some of you realize. I have never read anything on this group of you defending Bush. Twisty has. If you didn't then you weren't paying attention. Then prove me wrong and provide the thread. Here's one. There are plenty mo http://tinyurl.com/4c37f Uh, Frank, Unless I'm blind, there is no spot in that thread where you defended Bush other than listing other administrations which were "guilty" of similar "atrocities" that simple minded people like Twisty think just started up with GWB. I guess you could claim that by doing that, you somehow "validate" Bush's actions. But it's a weak endorsement. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2?dmode=source As I suspected, that post was not made here, so how could you expect me to ever have seen it? You said, "Don't even try to tell me that you favored Bush, because that would be a lie". You jumped to a faulty conclusion based on your other faulty conclusion that I'm a liberal. Are you denying that you are a liberal? Bad spin, Dave. You will begin to heal only after you learn to admit your mistakes. I haven't made one. You have yet to deny that you are a liberal. And don't squirm out of it by saying I didn't voice my support in -this- newsgroup because I did, as Twisty can attest. Since when is Twisty your new advocate? The same nitwit that you, I and others have spent the last several years alternately slamming into the logic wall, and ridiculing for the fun of it, his outrageous stances? Now he's your bastion of credibility? I would have thought better of you Frank. Common cause. I still don't agree with his position regarding illegal radio, but we have agreed to suspend those disagreements pending a resolution to a much more immediate and important issue: Bush and the Vulcans. You should pick better allies. He couldn't find a clue if it was stapled to his forehead. snip If you make a post in another of several thousand other newsgroups, how can you in all fairness expect the people HERE to know about it? Very good point. And with that truth in mind, how can you "in all fairness" say that I lied when I claimed to have supported Bush in the past? Because, I would have thought you understood that we are talking within THIS venue. No one should be expected to know what goes on outside of this group. But I -did- voice my support of Bush in this venue, as I cited in the link above. That was hardly a glowing endorsement. You were more concerned with slamming twisty's paranoia (A fun game BTW), than in giving Bush the thumbs up with his politics. Are you now going to try and escape your error by saying the post wasn't directed at you, or that you were on vacation, or some other lame excuse? You didn't check your facts before you ran your mouth. That's -your- fault, Dave. Not mine. You need to post something a little more substantive. I didn't see a defense of Bush as much as I saw a counter of twisty's allegations. But interestingly enough, you have turned a 180 and are now condemning the same guy you claimed to have "defended", and are now aligning with the same idiot who you "defended" Bush to. Talk about duplicity...... Ok, then I'll modify my original statement to limit it to this newsgroup only. You screwed up, you can't admit it, and you can't vindicate yourself by pulling an ex-post-facto excuse. I didn't screw up. I still have yet to see you post a true defense of Bush's policies in this newsgroup. And the facts were available on google if you had the inclination to verify the facts before you framed your indictment. But that's just not your style, Dave -- after all, you already know the truth -despite- the facts, right? You made the point, you provide the evidence. I don't have the time to sift through every post you made looking for references to GWB. Yeah, it's just too much effort to find the facts. Your "belief" system is so much easier, isn't it, Dave? When you are keyed in to the main players, it's not as much a game of facts but of behaviors and patterns. But first things first. Honorable discharge in 1978: yes or no? No. And BTW, if you don't know who the Vulcan's are then you are -WAY- out of touch with current political issues. Really? Then would you be so kind as to provide something that tells me who there mysterious "Vulcans" are? http://tinyurl.com/6mf8m A term coined by yet another washington insider "tell all" rag. Like I said, the paper never refuses ink. Since you like this sort of stuff, you should love this : http://www.newamericancentury.org/ By undermining our efforts to wage war on the very people who threaten those concepts? Saddam didn't pose any real threat to our country or democratic process -- both would have survived despite any efforts by him. That's a myopic viewpoint based on insufficient evidence. OTOH, Bush & Co. are a very -real- threat to the democratic process for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the level and scope of voting fraud that has been uncovered in this past election. A poor link. You make the erroneous assumption that voting fraud (Which you acknowledged earlier has been around for as long as elections) is now somehow the brainchild of Bush and Cheney who must have some secret aspirations of ruling the world. I also suspect that you are probably a lot more open to certain communist ideals. Most liberals are. Again with the labels..... And you haven't yet denied them. But I have. You weren't listening. You were too busy tending to your "beliefs". You never denied that you were a liberal. You gave a lame non-answer. I'm an American too. That's a fact of birth. But I'm also a conservative. as I tried to explain to you a while back, the Republican ideal is not such a great concept in it's pure form -- it's a totalitarian-style government where manipulation is the rule and freedom is an illusion. By what piece of glowing wisdom did you glean that glaringly ill-informed opinion? You snipped the source from your reply. Then you should remove it, since it's wrong. Are you so idealistic that you can't understand what drives political agendas? If there is not something to be gained strategically, then it doesn't happen. If it was indeed a few "independents" who initiated this action, I would bet a year's salary that they were "funded" through the back door by the DNC or one of their "loose associates" Like the term "follow the money", look to see who stands to benefit the most, and that's where you will find the real source of this latest voter fraud cry. Are you so pessimistic that you see the political process as nothing but a disingenuous quest for power? That pretty much describes the political machines of today. When a political party is willing to stand by and do nothing to help the economy, and also wish for continued recession as a means to gain political clout, it shows where their priorities are. That can be said for both parties, and in that respect I agree with it completely. But I wouldn't apply it to everyone in the political arena, nor would I apply it to all Republicans or all Democrats. People are people. Some are good, some are bad. Just because a person may be a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, that doesn't automatically render judgement on that person. No, but then again, I'm not talking about individual politicians, I'm referring to parties in general. As I'm sure you're aware, one contrary statistic does not invalidate the rule. That every act is motivated by a self-serving political agenda? If so then you don't know people half as well as you think you do. Cynicism is alive and well in politics. That's a fact Cynicism most definitely has -you- by the balls. It comes with playing the game for too long. You get to see the ugly side of humanity. Then you realize that it shows itself way too easily in some circles. FYI, there are quite a few people in the political arena that actually serve the interests of the public and not their wallets. Name them. And I'm not talking about small town supervisors or someone of a school board. I'm talking about the big time. Off the top of my head? Colin Powell. Bill Frist. Bob Dole. John McCain. Need more names? And you know for sure that none of these individuals have someone's hands in their pockets? Sure there are politicians who have done some really good things for their constituents. But there's a difference in motivation between true altruism, and doing it for the political points that it would bring, or the money that it might bring to the party. In almost every case, when a government representative does something seemingly altruistic, there is an underlying political motivation for it. Finding it, is the key to understanding what greases the machine. There is some truth in that statement, but it's certainly not a rule of thumb. It's more true that you are either aware of, or are unwilling to admit. Your implication is that politicians cannot have honorable intentions. But many do. Yes, some do, especially when they're juniors, before the temptation of corruption sets in. Some of them lose those intentions after getting caught in the quagmire, but some don't. Some appear to have alternative intentions but are forced to "deal with the devil" on occasion (which I think may be the rule in politics regardless of intent). But they are still people and there are many good people in this world. Maybe you have lost sight of that. I tend to believe that absent laws and punishments to deter, that most people will do whatever they feel they need to do to accomplish their goals. Maybe -you- need to be a little more idealistic. What, and blind myself to reality? Contrary to the opinion of some, you -can- have ideals and be realistic at the same time. You just have to keep yourself balanced. It's a tough thing, when reality stomps on idealism with increasing regularity. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#169
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:55:38 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:16:34 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:27:09 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: And until Dave can provide an example where one of the allegedly illegal operators he allegedly heard was found guilty, got an NAL, or even admitted his guilt publically, then his allegations are nothing more than his opinions, not facts. So you are of the Twisted notion that a person is not breaking the law until they are caught? Hardly. What I am saying is that conviction requires proof, not opinion. Who's "convicting"? I made an observation, based on trained skills. It's enough to tell me the truth. For me to press charges would require a higher level of proof. I am not trying to go that route. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#170
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:48:47 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:27:09 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: And until Dave can provide an example where one of the allegedly illegal operators he allegedly heard was found guilty, got an NAL, or even admitted his guilt publically, then his allegations are nothing more than his opinions, not facts. So you are of the Twisted notion that a person is not breaking the law until they are caught? Dave "Sandbagger" Nope. They are not guilty of breaking any law until a jury of their peers find them guilty with the evidence given them through the judicial process. That's complete B.S.! You are guilty of a crime the minute you commit it. The fact that in order for you to be incarcerated or otherwise punished for that crime requires a guilty verdict, does not negate your original infraction. This is an excuse often given by people who try to justify their selective disregard of certain laws they don't like. Not because someone says "because they are on that channel, they must be breaking the law". No, not because they are on the channel, but because they are on the channel and displaying certain verifiable traits which indicate the illegality of their transmissions. Dave "Sandbagger" |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
How to improve reception | Equipment |