| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#31
January 5th 05, 11:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:02:28 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Since when would facts make any difference to your version of the "truth"? Well, maybe there's hope for you yet, so here's the best place to start: http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1057 http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1064 Freepress.org is a leftist propaganda organization, Enough with the labels. You have also labeled the mainstream media as being heavily biased to the left, yet it is the mainstream media that refuses to cover the Ohio recount or release the raw exit poll data. Your labels don't reconcile with the facts. As for freepress.org, I suggest you read their "About" page which describes the organization and chronicles it's history. I doubt you will read it because people like you are too afraid to face facts that might conflict with your biased opinions. You would rather slap labels on others instead of admitting that there is a possibility you are wrong. But you really -should- read it because people with open minds don't share your fear, and they are the people you will be arguing with until you wake up and smell the sheep-dung. so it does not surprise me that they hype the negative issues to make it seem worse than it is. But you seem to have a problem differentiating between real hard irrefutable FACTS with biased editorial opinion. Are you suggesting that a 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial opinion"? snip Pay attention, Dave: It doesn't matter who won or lost the election. Sure it does. Would all these P.E.S.T. victims be screaming for a recount in Ohio if Kerry had won? That was my whole point. There were all sorts of allegations of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, particularly in heavily democratic strongholds like Philadelphia. But nobody cares because Kerry won the state, even if by less of a margin than Bush won Ohio. Read the transcript I cited. These are the same organizations that cried foul when Gore tried to manipulate the recounts in Florida, criticized the Clinton victories, and have members that are official election observers for this and other countries. Yet you try and paint them as hired guns for the Democrats. As you have demonstrated many times before, your perspective is so slanted you are falling over. Kerry conceeded -- end of story. No, it's not. There are all sorts of sore loser groups trying everything from trying to throw out the electoral vote, to impeaching Bush. They just can't deal with the fact that THEY LOST. Crying voter fraud is just another attempt to deny the fact that THEY LOST. Denial is the first step. I wasn't happy when Clinton won, but I didn't accuse every state where he won of fraud (Even though, in all likelihood, there was probably some). "They" is not "me". Whether the current president makes you whine or dine, voting fraud is the issue. The "Kerry-lost-get-over-it" routine is getting old and you are sounding like a broken record. The most important issue right now is voting fraud. Address the issue at hand. Some day later we can address how your wool got sheared by Bush's propoganda machine. So quit invoking his name to distract from the -REAL- issue which is the huge scale of the voting fraud that happened during the election. Tell me Frank, do you believe that there has always been voter fraud, or do you think that this is suddenly something new? Voting fraud has been around ever since voting was invented. But there has never been fraud on a scale like what was seen Nov. 2. Nor to the extent that, if left unchecked, could directly affect the government of the most powerful country in the world. You aren't suggesting that voting fraud should be ignored because it's going to occur no matter what, are you? Because that's the same kind of excuse illegal CBers use to justify their operation..... This problem threatens the very core of this democracy, and if presidential elections can be rigged then we might as well throw in the towel. Future elections will be meaningless and open to any power-monger with enough money to buy the election, Like George Soros? maybe even someone as diabolical as Hitler or Stalin. Or Ted Kennedy? Gee, I don't know..... did Ted Kennedy kill millions of people? Is that the secret ambition which convinced him to enter the political arena? I'm asking because the facts don't indicate anything of the sort, but -you- know the -real- truth, don't you Dave? So polish your lamp, gaze into your crystal ball, call the psychic friends network, or do whatever it is you do to gain such pervasive insight into the truth..... and tell me, what -are- Ted's secret ambitions? But I suppose you wouldn't mind such a 'leader' or how he comes to power just as long as you agree with his publically stated moral principles and objectives..... but wasn't it you that said, "politically motivated people have incentive to lie"? Yes No kidding. , but you seem to think the whole issue of fraud is one sided. You scream with righteous indignation because your guy lost, not because you have a genuine concern over the voting process. Id be willing to bet that had Kerry won, you wouldn't care if allegations of voter fraud surfaced. You'd be saying to me, the same thing I'm saying to you. Did you come to those conclusions after reading tea leaves or throwing bones? Maybe you should read some of my previous posts regarding Bush, how I defended him in the past. Maybe you missed my criticizms of Gore for trying to manufacture votes by selective recounts. Maybe you missed my many posts where I clearly stated that I only vote for independents and/or third party candidates, and voted for Nader in this election. Or maybe you just aren't paying attention to the facts. It's so much easier for you to comprehend if you tell yourself that I voted for Kerry and that I'm a sore loser, isn't it? Well, as usual, you're wrong. I voted for Nader. And even though he lost the election, I didn't have any expectations that he would win. But he and other third party candidates -did- make a strong showing, which was my intent with my vote, and for that reason I am -very- happy with the outcome of the election. Except for the fraud. I also find it curious that those who seem the most opposed to putting policies in place to lessen the chance of fraud are mostly democrats. Mandatory voter ID, and a more secure voting environment have all been shouted down by democrats. They used the lame "disenfranchised" and "racism" arguments to hide their real worry that a truly fair election would hurt them. No more buying votes with cartons of cigarettes, or bottles of ripple. Both Republicans and Democrats oppose those issues equally. And it wasn't the Democrats who initiated the recount in Ohio; it was the Greens and the Libertarians with cooperation from voting rights organizations. Once again you have showed how skewed your perspective is towards the Republicans. Get a clue, Dave. I would think that you need one as well. What you think about me carries no weight since you have yet to demonstrate that you are capable of thought that is independent and rational; i.e, above the level of domesticated livestock. |
|
#32
January 6th 05, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:24:15 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:02:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Since when would facts make any difference to your version of the "truth"? Well, maybe there's hope for you yet, so here's the best place to start: http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1057 http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1064 Freepress.org is a leftist propaganda organization, Enough with the labels. If the shoe fits...... You have also labeled the mainstream media as being heavily biased to the left, yet it is the mainstream media that refuses to cover the Ohio recount or release the raw exit poll data. Because even the mainstream media realizes that this story is more fluff than substance, despite their left leaning slant. Unlike unaccountable rags like "freepress.org" the mainstream media has accountability to the masses. Especially after "Rathergate" they are especially leary of stories which cannot be verified with some degree of accuracy. It would seem that your "standards" for what passes as "truth" is much less. Your labels don't reconcile with the facts. What you perceive as "fact" is the at the core of the issue. Unless you personally had a hand in the investigation, you are getting your information from a 2nd, 3rd or 4th party. Any one of which can "modify" the facts by adding a degree of bias to the point that the message has skewed. But, for some reason, you can't seem to see that. As for freepress.org, I suggest you read their "About" page which describes the organization and chronicles it's history. I'm sure Adolf Hitler wrote a glowing review about himself as well. What "freepress.org" says about itself is meaningless. What other groups, who track the political agendas of these rogue "news" services, says is what tells the real story. I doubt you will read it because people like you are too afraid to face facts that might conflict with your biased opinions. Frank, when are you going to realize that you "facts" are nothing more than YOUR biased opinions. Telling me that my bias is wrong based on your bias is laughable. You would rather slap labels on others instead of admitting that there is a possibility you are wrong. There is always a possibility that I am wrong. But not this time. I've been around the block to know how this all works. Republicans are not angels by any stretch of the imagination. But just like you telling me I'm wrong based on your own bias, democrats screaming "foul" at an election that they lost, and pointing at republicans for cheating, while they cross their fingers behind their backs is equally ridiculous. They BOTH cheat. They always have. But I am incensed that democrats have the balls to be so blatantly hypocritical. But you really -should- read it because people with open minds don't share your fear, My FEAR? What "fear" is that? and they are the people you will be arguing with until you wake up and smell the sheep-dung. Until *I* wake up? You'd better pinch yourself man, because it is not I who is sleeping..... so it does not surprise me that they hype the negative issues to make it seem worse than it is. But you seem to have a problem differentiating between real hard irrefutable FACTS with biased editorial opinion. Are you suggesting that a 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial opinion"? Are you equally concerned that the overturning of a clear republican victory in Washington State after not just one, but a few recounts, and by a similar "bloat" in voter turnout? Pay attention, Dave: It doesn't matter who won or lost the election. Sure it does. Would all these P.E.S.T. victims be screaming for a recount in Ohio if Kerry had won? That was my whole point. There were all sorts of allegations of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, particularly in heavily democratic strongholds like Philadelphia. But nobody cares because Kerry won the state, even if by less of a margin than Bush won Ohio. Read the transcript I cited. These are the same organizations that cried foul when Gore tried to manipulate the recounts in Florida, criticized the Clinton victories, and have members that are official election observers for this and other countries. Yet you try and paint them as hired guns for the Democrats. Like I said, if the shoe fits. The sheer intensity of the protests and the unwillingness for so many people to accept the outcome of the election is more telling as to the driving force behind this brouhaha. As you have demonstrated many times before, your perspective is so slanted you are falling over. I don't have to worry about falling over, as your equally slanted perspective in the other direction will balance me out. Kerry conceeded -- end of story. No, it's not. There are all sorts of sore loser groups trying everything from trying to throw out the electoral vote, to impeaching Bush. They just can't deal with the fact that THEY LOST. Crying voter fraud is just another attempt to deny the fact that THEY LOST. Denial is the first step. I wasn't happy when Clinton won, but I didn't accuse every state where he won of fraud (Even though, in all likelihood, there was probably some). "They" is not "me". Whether the current president makes you whine or dine, voting fraud is the issue. The "Kerry-lost-get-over-it" routine is getting old and you are sounding like a broken record. But that is the basic point. Hell, these people now protesting Bush's second victory are the very same people who were claiming for the last 4 years that Gore REALLY won and that Bush was "selected, not elected". They haven't gotten over 2000, they just changed the loser's name. The most important issue right now is voting fraud. Why now? Address the issue at hand. Some day later we can address how your wool got sheared by Bush's propoganda machine. By providing me more leftist propaganda that you believe as fact? No thanks Frank. I can spot snake oil at quite a distance. Tell me Frank, do you believe that there has always been voter fraud, or do you think that this is suddenly something new? Voting fraud has been around ever since voting was invented. So why is it such an issue for you now? Where were you in '92? But there has never been fraud on a scale like what was seen Nov. 2. By what factual (not op-ed opinion) information do you base this claim? How do you determine total voter fraud? Nor to the extent that, if left unchecked, could directly affect the government of the most powerful country in the world. Mayor Daily of Chicago certainly knew that....... You aren't suggesting that voting fraud should be ignored because it's going to occur no matter what, are you? Certainly not. I am for tightening the rules that regulate voting, including several measure which make many democrats very "uneasy". But I don't think that voter fraud is any worse now than it had been in the past. Surely you haven't forgotten about the bus loads of illegal immigrants, the jailed felons, and the buying of votes with cartons of cigarettes in days past? This problem threatens the very core of this democracy, and if presidential elections can be rigged then we might as well throw in the towel. Future elections will be meaningless and open to any power-monger with enough money to buy the election, Like George Soros? maybe even someone as diabolical as Hitler or Stalin. Or Ted Kennedy? Gee, I don't know..... did Ted Kennedy kill millions of people? No, only one. But killing people is not the only form of "diabolical". Is that the secret ambition which convinced him to enter the political arena? I'm asking because the facts don't indicate anything of the sort, but -you- know the -real- truth, don't you Dave? So polish your lamp, gaze into your crystal ball, call the psychic friends network, or do whatever it is you do to gain such pervasive insight into the truth..... and tell me, what -are- Ted's secret ambitions? I really don't know, but his interests in the direction of this country are diametrically opposed to what a free capitalist society would want. But I suppose you wouldn't mind such a 'leader' or how he comes to power just as long as you agree with his publically stated moral principles and objectives..... but wasn't it you that said, "politically motivated people have incentive to lie"? Yes No kidding. , but you seem to think the whole issue of fraud is one sided. You scream with righteous indignation because your guy lost, not because you have a genuine concern over the voting process. Id be willing to bet that had Kerry won, you wouldn't care if allegations of voter fraud surfaced. You'd be saying to me, the same thing I'm saying to you. Did you come to those conclusions after reading tea leaves or throwing bones? The same way that I know how people think. The same way that I diagnosed Twisty's sociopathic tendencies. Maybe you should read some of my previous posts regarding Bush, how I defended him in the past. The past is just that. Don't even try to tell me that you favored Bush, because that would be a lie. Maybe you missed my criticizms of Gore for trying to manufacture votes by selective recounts. Maybe you missed my many posts where I clearly stated that I only vote for independents and/or third party candidates, and voted for Nader in this election. Or maybe you just aren't paying attention to the facts. When have you ever spoken about politics on this newsgroup before Frank? Until this past election, this newsgroup pretty much stayed the course on radio related issues. I do recall you saying that you voted for Nader, even though you were at the same time, defending Kerry and his policies with more vigor than one of his lackey political pundits. I find it hard to believe that someone could be behind one candidate yet espouse the "good" points of his opponent. It's duplicitous. It's so much easier for you to comprehend if you tell yourself that I voted for Kerry and that I'm a sore loser, isn't it? Well, as usual, you're wrong. I voted for Nader. But you defended Kerry as if you were married to him. And even though he lost the election, I didn't have any expectations that he would win. But he and other third party candidates -did- make a strong showing, which was my intent with my vote, and for that reason I am -very- happy with the outcome of the election. Strong showing? Nader got what 2% of the vote? You call that "strong"? Ross Perot made a better showing. But I am glad for Nader. He at least syphoned the most idealistic utopian liberal voters away from Kerry, which may have allowed Bush to win again. For that I thank him. Except for the fraud. I also find it curious that those who seem the most opposed to putting policies in place to lessen the chance of fraud are mostly democrats. Mandatory voter ID, and a more secure voting environment have all been shouted down by democrats. They used the lame "disenfranchised" and "racism" arguments to hide their real worry that a truly fair election would hurt them. No more buying votes with cartons of cigarettes, or bottles of ripple. Both Republicans and Democrats oppose those issues equally. And it wasn't the Democrats who initiated the recount in Ohio; Who was it then who filed suit in Ohio because there were claims of insufficient voting machines in heavily democratic voting places? it was the Greens and the Libertarians with cooperation from voting rights organizations. Bull**** Frank, plain and simple. If you can't see through that, you are more blind than I thought. What incentive would there be, and what gain would be had for those odd-ball independents to bring about this action? It doesn't pass the smell test Frank. Once again you have showed how skewed your perspective is towards the Republicans. I am a conservative, and I lean toward republicans because they best represent my interests. That's no great secret. But you have yet to admit your political slant, and the accompanied bias. You're in denial Frank. Get a clue, Dave. I would think that you need one as well. What you think about me carries no weight since you have yet to demonstrate that you are capable of thought that is independent and rational; i.e, above the level of domesticated livestock. If you truly believed that you would not waste your time trying to "show" me how "wrong" I am. The fact that you are unable to back up anything you stand for with anything other than your own form of propaganda, and have failed ant every attempt to discredit my position is what keeps you coming back for more. In a way, you're acting just like Twisty, when he can't "prove" the lies he spews about other people. This country was built by people who held strong traditions and believed in putting in a full day's work, for a full day's pay, wanted the government to protect our interests abroad, but wanted them out of our personal lives. They also did not need or want a social "safety net" to help the slackers of society avoid the consequences of natural selection, and paid for by the sweat of the productive people. No matter how idealistic and utopian left thinking liberals might believe, there will never be a natural "classless society", because all people are different in how they prioritize their lives and how they achieve (or not). It's not the government's place to "provide" for people, or to "equalize" the country's wealth. To the victor, go the spoils. Try to be a victor Frank...... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#33
January 6th 05, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
For crying out loud, Dave, you scream about "facts" when another tries
to educate you, but when it comes to you, you employ those second set of rules and double-standards which you have for yourself. Your fact-finding goes right out the window with all logic and you hypocritically set forth bull**** like: "channel 6, which is notorious for harboring the dregs of society, who regularly run high power, is all the "evidence" I need, to determine that the station in question is in fact, llegal, See Dave, your personal feelings are not "facts" nor "evidence", but of interest, is the fact you consider them such. |
|
#34
January 6th 05, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#37
January 6th 05, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My "point" was illustrated yesterday when you said this:
_ N3CVJ wrote: I do not shoot skip. I don't LIKE skip. When I used to use an amplifier, it was to GET OVER or chase it off the channel But this next post was made when you were using that amplifier... After talking skip internationally on the freeband channels, on SSB, I gradually lose interest in skip You and Jerry are both on a roll. |
|
#38
January 6th 05, 05:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:06:14 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: For crying out loud, Dave, you scream about "facts" when another tries to educate you, but when it comes to you, you employ those second set of rules and double-standards which you have for yourself. Your fact-finding goes right out the window with all logic and you hypocritically set forth bull**** like: "channel 6, which is notorious for harboring the dregs of society, who regularly run high power, is all the "evidence" I need, to determine that the station in question is in fact, llegal, See Dave, your personal feelings are not "facts" nor "evidence", but of interest, is the fact you consider them such. So you are denying that the majority of the "big radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of high power? Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself. Your personal feelings are not "facts". Making a personal opinion that "channel 6 harbors the dregs of society" and claiming it is nothing short of empiracle evidence that illegalities occur is jovial. Referring to your statement as "fact" that illegalities are occurring, is about as far from common sense and factuality that one can achieve. |
|
#39
January 6th 05, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N3CVJ wrote:
I no longer partake in those activities. I grew up Twist, plain and simple. Now, when will you? That's a good thing you don't partake in those activities anymore, Dave...as I NEVER took part in those activities cited by you,,bragging about your radio that caused severe bleed,,,laughing about the intentional intereference the bleed caused,,telling people to buy a bandaid when you were bleeding,,,..I guess some of us (me) were light years ahead of others (you) in radio mannerisms and operating procedure. I never splattered, never ran huge power, never was a jerk on the air, even as a child, I not only knew better, I was taught better. Glad you "grew up" and joined those of us who have been waiting for idiots like you to stop being part of the problem. Although, just for the record, you have claimed you haven't operated illegally since the seventies or eighties, but that little gem you cited about running the AB amp in your vehicle was made in '98, not that long ago, and was referring to your cb use. But if you grew up since then, I'm happy to say, I was indeed a part of it, since that is when we first exchanged pleasantries and you began crying about technical legalities, Keep it rolling,,,, |
|
#40
January 6th 05, 06:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
| Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
| Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
| Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
| How to improve reception | Equipment | |||
Linear Mode
