|
The only thing you have in your favor is that
the FCC is not motivated enough to do much about it. You have nothing in your favor. It's all blatant hypocrisy. What have I said, that could be considered hypocritical? "When one breaks the law, the hows and whys don't matter. Ignorance is no excuse.'" So watching you attempt to devise a "why" to justify your law breaking, is pretty funny. _ Also, too many things to list, but many regs have illustrated it for you,,,it;s not their fault you can;t comprehend it. Yet you cannot list them. Eye for an eye. Tech school? Cop's names? Departements? Another excuse. Then stop with them already. You and Frank are both full of lame excuses these days. And anyone else who disagrees with you... You like to recklessly throw around the word "hypocritical", yet I am seriously beginning to believe that you have no idea what it truly means. I wouldn't doubt it, as you have been thoroughly schooled on many terms that leave the masses howling when you misapply them.."quantify" was great!!! =A0=A0Is operation on the freeband not illegal? Should the law not be respected? How many more excuses are you going to invent to hide, obfuscate, justify, or otherwise downplay the fact that you willingly ignore a federal law? It really galls you that you were never given any reasons, let alone conjured excuses of which only you hallucinate. I'll take that as another excuse, You have no choice but to take it the only way it is presented to you. Perfectly gift wrapped with a great big razzzzzzzzberry. and a concession that you cannot counter the points that I presented. =A0 By all means,,,again, the manner in which you take things has been shown to be so off that its a wonder anyone is left to correct you. It's not that it's any less illegal, it's only that they don't care enough. Because it is rightly a non-issue to the majority, =A0=A0Of which you have absolutely no idea who they are, or how they feel. Make up your mind. Does the squeaky wheel get the grease or not? Oh,,I see,,only when it serves a failed point of which you are trying to lobby. Yes, the fact that the FCC does not deem such as important as yourself, most certainly reaffirms my position and my "idea". Sorry your ego is so damaged. _ you are a minority wishing to dictate your beliefs to the masses. Doesn't work that way. Sort of like the democratic party trying to subvert the constitution by an abusive application of a filibuster to block judicial nominees...... You said you were behind all legal activities. You're a hypocrite. Fillibusters are legal. Not in the manner in which they've been used as of late. Again, you show your lack of knowledge concerning the government of the US. In what specifically crafted law does the present use of the fillbuster to which you refer, indicate illegality? Note another quick, reckless, and incorrect application of the word "hypocrite" The shoe fits. David Hall Jr. "Sandbagger" N3CVJ |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:51:40 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: You said one will not likely catch AIDS if one practices monogamy. This would only hold true if both were virgins when getting married..,not practical when applied to present reality, as the vast majority have a sexual past history. And the less promiscuous that past is, the less likely that one will catch AIDS. No one ever said differently. That statement still does nothing to support or validate your erred comment that now practicing monogamy will likely prevent one from catching AIDS, as it discounts your past. You are unable to distinguish between the differences. So, you are of the theory that if you have a "sexual past" that it's not worth being more careful now? You reach your own incorrect conclusions concerning the majority of people of who you have disagreed. This is part of your flawed logic and communication deficit. I won't go in to detail (unless asked) as it has been shown throughout your posting history that you have one bitch of a time comprehending other's communications, indicating a severe deficit in one of your nodes. Your postings are littered with "So did you mean..."..."so what you really are saying...".."Just what did you mean?".... Sort of like the defeatist analogy, Exactly. You proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are your own worst enemy. "Hell, I smoked for the last 10 years, so what's the point of stopping now?" Ask Kimberly. You fail to consider statistical probability. No,I counted it,,but you immediately discount it when applied to your self and posts. I said that the malicous sock puppets and your posts are the majority to accuse cbers of anarchy and use the term frequently. You asked "what of it"? I invoked your oft cried "statistical probability"...yet it ceased the postings. You also said there is no "george"..I invoked that leaves only you, as ONLY you and he have EVER posted about Amish country when I mentioned I visited there...statistical probability. It can not be selettively applied in corelation with your beliefs, David, as the word "statistical" connotates the opposite anddoes not take into account belief. The more partners you have, the more likely you will find one who has AIDS. Or green eyes. If you practice monogamy, There you go again,,invoking something that is not a reality. The fact is the majority of people have NOT practiced monogamy. even now, will greatly lower your overall chances of catching the disease. Besides, you imply that it's next to impossible or, at the very least, unrealistic for someone to wait until marriage to engage in sexual relations. Yes, it is extremely unrealistic to expect the majority will suddenly adhere to abstinence. Why? Sheeehs! Is the human race not capable of mastering its little urges? Apparently not, Dave, since you hold yourself above the rest. Let's put it another way, Abstinence is a great incentive to those who want to live, rather than risk contracting a deadly disease. Call it a matter of priority. No. Call it education. Education, as I have been telling you since your breakdown's appearance in this group, is the key to everything that plagues you. _ =A0There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for years and years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS. Which means nothing if you've never been exposed to it. Please try and remain at least semi-relative to your comments. I'm sorry your comprehensive skills are so poor. And that is getting funnier and funnier with each mistaken word you misuse in your posts. Sex is a part of an act of love, to be shared with someone who you have a much deeper emotional bond with. Not something for two people, who are barely friends, who are simply looking to kill a few hours. Man,,you have been losing more ground each day with your posts, Dave. How? I'm sorry if your morally bankrupt viewpoint clashes with my solid moral foundation. What's the matter, Dave? Things going on outside the group we should know about g? . But there's always hope for you. It's not too late to change. =A0Your claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. But that's exactly what it is. Stay celibate, or screw at your own risk. _ You're losing yourself again. No, I'm evidently losing you, as you once again failed to comprehend my point. Only because your sentence structure and points are valid only to yourself, illustrated in part, by your never-comprehending anyone who tries teaching you those things you don't already know. For some unknown reason, you become defensive when instructed or informed of a subject of whcih you are not familiar. Your feelings and ego become so hurt, you defensively defend the reasons -why- you present an incorrect position...(roger beeps) and incorrectly fool (into a false soothing state) your narcisstic self with statements that those who instructed you, were making lucky guesses. You're a mess, David, and on a downward spiral. I never saw one who actually suffers pain when they are wrong, until I came across yourself. I'll explain it again at a level you should be able to understand. Are you going to "quantify" it, for another's benefit, also, Dave? Monogamy may not 100% eliminate the risk of AIDS for those with a sordid sexual past, but it will REDUCE the chances of catching AIDS, as the risk exposure is minimized to a great degree. Once again, your rattle has nothing to with my comment. Try again......-your- claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history. You seem hell bent on confusing the term "decreases" with "eliminates". You seem hell bent on believing monogamy somehow reduces the chance of your past history affecting you. While total abstinence before marriage is a concept that's lost on this latest hedonistic generation, the simple truth is that the less partners you have had, the less your chances of catching AIDS. Again and over and over,, you are presenting an argument to which only yourself appears to be unconvinced. I admit it's tough trying to get through to someone with your apparent learning comprehension disability. _ It would depend upon the act. For example, the chance of the transmission of AIDS while a man receives oral sex from a woman is lower than your chances of getting killed in an automobile accident. Which means what in the grand scheme of .things? Which means the chance of catching AIDS from receiving head from a prostitute is no more greater than you catching it from having intercourse in your past. The facts are quite simple. The less sex you engage in, the lesser your chances of getting AIDS. That's bull****..unless, of course, in your self-titled, self-invoked, unsolicited puritan and high moral world, sex is defined only by the act of intercourse. Now try injecting reality into your equation. If it was as simple as you present, the AIDS epidemic would not exist. It's not my fault that a great percentage of the population does not take the AIDS issue seriously enough to override their hedonistic desires, and they continue to engage in risky sexual practices. Exactly, It's your fault for not having the cognitive ability to distinguish between reality and your conjured daydream of utopia and how it "ought to be". .such practice has dogged you for some time.. I have no pity for them if they learn the lesson the hard way. Same can be said for those who smoke in your family. Those who contract the disease have only themselves, by virtue of their activities, to blame in most cases. The same can be said of your wife if she or your daughter contract lung cancer, asthma or pulmonary emboli related problems down the line because of her smoking while she was pregnant. Ah, another hypocritical statement from someone who once claimed to be unconcerned with the personal lives of others. No hypocritical staetement at all. In fact, if your disability permitted you to remember all you initiate, you would find you were told on more than one occasion to take your personal issues to email or to remain on subject. This was your inititated game of getting personal. You were warned you would receive back what you hurl, only ten fold....something at which I am quite adept. To make it even more laughable, I can add this to the growing list of things you have worked to find out about me, which are 100% wrong. Which is why you have the need to explain it away,,,because only one thing matters to you,,what others think. My wife smoked up until she became pregnant. Then something (God?) changed her chemistry such that the taste of a cigarette became physically sickening. She quit immediately and never went back, and she's almost 6 years now smoke free. Gee Dave,,,that's not the way she told it,,,,but hey....you go on explaining away my mistakes, So you can add this to the growing list of gaffes that you have made about my personal life (Which you claimed to not care about) including: Abuse at the hands of my grandfather. Entered after your self-qualifications to make a diagnosis reserved only for physicians, however, your own mental diminished capacitive state record lifted the veil on your preoccupation with those you admire. My wife's name being Kimberly T. Hall. It is. My wife being a teacher. She was. My wife and I being separated/divorced. That was incorrect. The rest are true. You were separated. My not being allowed to see my daughter, except under supervision. (shrug) Something led to the counseling. My home address being wrong on my FCC license. It is wrong. It doesn't match your license plate. Do I have your express and implied and explicit permission to publicly post such information here and let the masses have their input? I'm sure there's more, but I can't remember all of them. You make far too many "oopses" to count. See above. If you are going to hold people to the flame for all their abhorrant behavior, you must begin in your own backyard, lest you have no right to confront others and your soap box is nothing more than a mirage. So you espouse that no one has any right to criticize events, or behavior based on the likelihood that they also have "baggage" of their own? Not when it comes down to the initiating party becoming so frustrated, they resort to threats. Gee, it's a good thing that the major media, and politicians don't have to abide by this, or .we'd hear nothing but quiet every day. The media deals with threats on a regular basis, which is why yours was laughed at. I am quite certain that my risk of contracting AIDS is less than my chances of getting hit by a meteor. Since no one can recall the last time one had been struck with a meteor, that's a hell of a scholarly and meritous claim. Exactly. I am far more concerned with cancer and heart disease as these pose a much greater risk to the members of my family. Diseases that, in large part, can be blamed on your family members by virtue of their poor choices and actions..smoking. Despite research that links certain lifestyle choices to increases in cancer or heart disease risk, there are also certain genetic predispositions. That can be changed with proper diet AND exercise from early on. This has been proved. There are no genetic predispositions to catching AIDS. Welllllllllll, since YOU brought it up,,,you made the claim gays are more prone to catching AIDS,,,and since scientists and researchers have found homosexuality to be a genetic trait, your claims continue to be flubs. AIDS risk can be reduced to minuscule levels if people would take the proactive step in modifying their lifestyles. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ But it was also -your- claim that one can not teach certain cultures anything..this was one of your arguments for bombing Afghanistan,,,,or was it Iraq? : ) |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:00:26 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily the result of man's influence over the environment. (Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.) No there isn't, for the simple reason that we do not have enough climatic history to determine just how and when the climate shifts normally as a reference before we can accurately gauge the additional effects of humans. The history of the earth's climate is well documented back to the begining of the earth's creation...grammar school basic earth and science taught this. Carbon dating confirms much and plays a large part of the techniques used to arrive at such widely accepted and mainstream taught scientific facts. Like I told Frank, science can tell us that, for instance, it was once tropical in Montana, and that Glaciers covered much of the northern United States during different time periods. This proves that the earth's climate has vacillated in a fairly wide range. But what this DOESN'T tell us is how much of the current global warming cycle can be attributed to natural cyclic climatic changes, and how much of it is a direct result of man made pollution. Sure it can, and does. The amount of many chemical releases in the atmosphere are mand made. Many are not man made. Some are both. However, science has methods of measuring each,,including natural occurring vs. manmade chemicals,,,such as methane gases. Without a point of reference, it is extremely difficult to positively determine how much we are changing the climate. The point of reference is the richness/ concentration of the gas. An example can be the amount of methane in a predetermined air sample. Higher concentrations of the gas can be attributed to manmade releases and emissions. It's elementary for anyone with a fair retainment value that took college science classes. _ Chloroflourocarbons released by the burning of fossil fuels is directly linked to global warming. Global warming was proved by the continual shrinkage of the polar ice cap confirmed by 24-7 high tech monitoring of such. Villages that reside in the frozen tundra watch their mountains of ice shrink each year. How much of that shrinkage would still be occurring without man made pollution? As you referred, the climate is thought to adhere to cycles, When the cycles suddenly deviate substantially from the norm, it's dedeucedly decided and accepted that something is amiss. When the glaciers continue shrinking at an alarming rate that deviates from the projected models of which you referred predictable climatic cycles, and the amount of junk released in the air we KNOW has increased,..it's widely accepted by even the republicans at this point. Do you even know what your own party says on this issue now, Dave? You appear to be aruing with -them-. _ You take issue with those free-thinkers and it moves you toward the goblin that you are unable to cast out and exercise of yourself. Once again, you don't get it (Why should I be surprised?). You won't be, because you continue to be on the defensive of everyone that corrects you. You find fault with all of them. It's not us, Dave, it's you. It's apparent it is glaringly painful when you are wrong and corrected, but dammit, man, its not personal. You want to get rid of what you refer to as "poorly crafted laws"? Then great! Go for it! No,,I love the laws and the manner in whcih they are enforced. They keep dicks like you off the freeband and allow the rest of us to play carefree and unfettered from you being reactive (oposed to proactive) from the confines of your own home, much as you do on the internet. It's yourself that has messed all over yourself time and again whining about the lack of enforcement. You have my support. But until then, you are bound to respect and obey the current laws as they stand. Regarding this law and dx, I discriminately and selectively invoke Civil Disobedience. Because you have difficulty comprehending the definitions of words these days, you may seek to "quantify",,,er,,,qualify it. Sorry,,,couldn't resist. David Hall Jr, ."Sandbagger" N3CVJ |
On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:46:48 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:56:31 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. Dr. Kramer probably wouldn't agree. Do you want the book or not? Frank, I can get as much information as I need right from the internet. It's a lot better than finding places to keep all those books. Hence the source of your ingnorance and the reason you find me to be so "puzzling". No, I find you puzzling because you are so pompous and arrogant about what you claim as "knowledge" yet, the application of such knowledge in your own life has been dismally short of achievement. You are either an accomplished liar, or a severe underachiever. For a guy who claims to know as much, and has done as much as you have claimed, all you have to show for yourself is a job as a bartender, driving a 20+ year old vehicle? You're a regular Cliff Clavin. Now you muse about starting a lawn care service. No offense to Steveo, but that's not exactly the skill level job that a man of your supposed "credentials" should be aspiring to. So, what's your (latest) excuse? A man who truly knows the things that you try to pass off to the rest of us here, would be in a high level engineering or marketing position, or perhaps a stint as a university professor, or maybe a government contractor. Or maybe you'd work with me. The bottom line Frank, is that you talk a great line, but you produce very little. I can tell that by the way you approach CB radio troubleshooting. You offer only generic troubleshooting 101 solutions to problems, which indicates that you have very little direct experience with actually repairing a CB radio, which have known problem areas. But you go right ahead and limit yourself to the internet for your sole source of information Once again you make assumptions, a repetitive pattern for you. I never said the internet was my SOLE source of information. But it is the fastest and easiest source of information on a variety of topics, especially current events. It was the internet, that first blew the lid off of "Rathergate", and exposed it as the propaganda smear that it was intended to be. The Blog has become a powerful tool to expose media bias and helps to parse the stories in order to gain the truth. Sure you can read about something in a book, but the internet is instantaneous, interactive, and ever evolving. There are decisive advantages to that. -- let me know when you find the winding specifications for an Ajax M-2-145T, or the firearm most preferred by Deep-River Jim, or why Bessie slashed up her own portrait. If I had any interest in those subjects, I'm sure I'd find them, assuming these people are significant. But while we're on the subject, I have found much information on the local history of my local area, and the trolley, rail, and canal lines that used to run through here over the turn of the century. I have found the horsepower specifications for the triple expansion 4 cylinder piston engines in the Titanic, as well as the Parson's Turbine center engine. I have tracked radio wave propagation, tides, a web cam of my favorite lake, and my friend's pool. There is nothing you can read in print, than can't be scanned into a web page, or pdf file. I have the complete Cisco router manuals on CD ROM. I have access to repeater user's groups where we can seek out and share each other's expertise to solve problems. The list is endless Frank. I might read an intriguing novel by the fireplace on a cool winter's night, but if it's information that I want, the fingers fly to the keyboard. Find a link that explains why you can see the Douglas Firs towering above you in the middle of the woods on a pitch-black and starless night. I'd rather just witness that myself first hand. I do a lot of camping you know. Download the feelings of watching Israeli officers picking off Palistinian schoolkids running out of a burning building like they were ducks in a shooting gallery. And what? You read that in a book? I've come close though. I have corresponded, via E-Mail, with U.S. army folks fighting in Iraq, in order to get their personal perspective on the situation. It's a far different picture than what the mainstream media wants us to think. I'm sure you can find a site that has the cyber-smell file of a Northwest sawmill. As I'm sure you can from a book. But you can go to a Home Depot and get a similar effect. And I'm sure there's some adapter you can plug into the USB port that will let you enjoy the unmatched hospitality (and world-class pastries) offered by a family of Norwegians when all you did was ask to fill up your water can. When have you been to Norway? Did you need to order some new imported beer for the bar? The internet is fun but it's no substitute for books, people, nature, or direct experiences. But you think that you can get everything you need from your computer. You are a fool, Dave. I never claimed to get ALL of my information from the internet. Only that I can research any topic that I wish on the internet and get the same or better information a heck of a lot quicker and easier than using the old fashioned method of buying (or borrowing) a book. You, on the other hand, need to get away from the left coast. It's really affecting your perception. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Tue, 17 May 2005 07:32:43 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:46:48 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:56:31 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. Dr. Kramer probably wouldn't agree. Do you want the book or not? Frank, I can get as much information as I need right from the internet. It's a lot better than finding places to keep all those books. Hence the source of your ingnorance and the reason you find me to be so "puzzling". No, I find you puzzling because you are so pompous and arrogant about what you claim as "knowledge" yet, the application of such knowledge in your own life has been dismally short of achievement. You are either an accomplished liar, or a severe underachiever. You ignore any other possibilities. For a guy who claims to know as much, and has done as much as you have claimed, all you have to show for yourself is a job as a bartender, driving a 20+ year old vehicle? Only if that's how you measure "achievement". I'm not that superficial. You're a regular Cliff Clavin. Even if I did work for the USPS, I'd rather deliver mail than pizzas. Now you muse about starting a lawn care service. No offense to Steveo, but that's not exactly the skill level job that a man of your supposed "credentials" should be aspiring to. By your standards. But you can't seem to understand that not everyone lives by your standards, Dave. So, what's your (latest) excuse? A man who truly knows the things that you try to pass off to the rest of us here, would be in a high level engineering or marketing position, Done that. Boring. or perhaps a stint as a university professor, Done that. Fun, but the pay sucks until you get tenure. or maybe a government contractor. No thanks, I've taken a look at a few government contracts. They barely fit the definition of "legally binding". Or maybe you'd work with me. Doubtful. I -order- pizzas, I don't deliver them. The bottom line Frank, is that you talk a great line, but you produce very little. I can tell that by the way you approach CB radio troubleshooting. You offer only generic troubleshooting 101 solutions to problems, which indicates that you have very little direct experience with actually repairing a CB radio, which have known problem areas. Uh-huh, that's why I narrowed the buzzing-radio problem down to the voltage regulator while you were busy defending your highly generalized assumption that the problem is "almost always caps", huh? But you go right ahead and limit yourself to the internet for your sole source of information Once again you make assumptions, a repetitive pattern for you. I never said the internet was my SOLE source of information. Wrong. You said, "I can get as much information as I need right from the internet." You can try and spin the semantics all you want but it means the same thing. But it is the fastest and easiest source of information on a variety of topics, especially current events. It was the internet, that first blew the lid off of "Rathergate", and exposed it as the propaganda smear that it was intended to be. The Blog has become a powerful tool to expose media bias and helps to parse the stories in order to gain the truth. Sure you can read about something in a book, but the internet is instantaneous, interactive, and ever evolving. There are decisive advantages to that. Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens to be the mayor of my home town? http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/ -- let me know when you find the winding specifications for an Ajax M-2-145T, or the firearm most preferred by Deep-River Jim, or why Bessie slashed up her own portrait. If I had any interest in those subjects, I'm sure I'd find them, assuming these people are significant. I doubt you could find them even if you wanted to. But while we're on the subject, I have found much information on the local history of my local area, and the trolley, rail, and canal lines that used to run through here over the turn of the century. I have found the horsepower specifications for the triple expansion 4 cylinder piston engines in the Titanic, as well as the Parson's Turbine center engine. I have tracked radio wave propagation, tides, a web cam of my favorite lake, and my friend's pool. There is nothing you can read in print, than can't be scanned into a web page, or pdf file. Yet so much -hasn't- been scanned. I have the complete Cisco router manuals on CD ROM. I have access to repeater user's groups where we can seek out and share each other's expertise to solve problems. The list is endless Frank. It's far from endless, Dave. It doesn't even have endless potential. I might read an intriguing novel by the fireplace on a cool winter's night, but if it's information that I want, the fingers fly to the keyboard. Find a link that explains why you can see the Douglas Firs towering above you in the middle of the woods on a pitch-black and starless night. I'd rather just witness that myself first hand. I do a lot of camping you know. No, I don't know. If you haven't witnessed what I described then maybe you haven't done as much camping as you claim. Download the feelings of watching Israeli officers picking off Palistinian schoolkids running out of a burning building like they were ducks in a shooting gallery. And what? You read that in a book? No, I was there, fool. How long have you -really- been in this newsgroup? I've come close though. I have corresponded, via E-Mail, with U.S. army folks fighting in Iraq, in order to get their personal perspective on the situation. It's a far different picture than what the mainstream media wants us to think. You don't have a clue, Dave. I'm sure you can exercise your imagination, but there are experiences in combat situations that have no comparison or common frame of reference to pizza delivery drivers. I'm sure you can find a site that has the cyber-smell file of a Northwest sawmill. As I'm sure you can from a book. But you can go to a Home Depot and get a similar effect. It's not the same. It's like saying you know what a homemade apple pie tastes like because you once bought a Hostess pastry at the 7/11. And I'm sure there's some adapter you can plug into the USB port that will let you enjoy the unmatched hospitality (and world-class pastries) offered by a family of Norwegians when all you did was ask to fill up your water can. When have you been to Norway? 1984. Did you need to order some new imported beer for the bar? No, but I did buy a large 'Norwegian' Bud at a small grocery store. I think I still have the label stashed away somewhere. I also might have a couple labels from bottles of Maccabe beer from Israel. I'm pretty sure I have a couple phone tokens and a few sheckels in coins. The internet is fun but it's no substitute for books, people, nature, or direct experiences. But you think that you can get everything you need from your computer. You are a fool, Dave. I never claimed to get ALL of my information from the internet. Only that I can research any topic that I wish on the internet and get the same or better information a heck of a lot quicker and easier than using the old fashioned method of buying (or borrowing) a book. That's only true if the info is available on the net. So much info -isn't- on the net. You, on the other hand, need to get away from the left coast. It's really affecting your perception. "The West is the best". ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
|
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Why is it only now do certain people find exception to it? You would have to ask one. My guess would be a certain faction is trying to cram their religious beliefs down otehr's throats. Those beliefs have been a part of our culture since this country was founded. The perception that religion is "suddenly" being "Crammed down other people's throats" is held by those who have been conspicuously absent from any religious influences in their lives and see any display of religion as excessive. Yet it is those same people who are the ones at odds with our society, as history will testify to. The problem is both sides. One person find offense with something of a religious over tone in government, he then finds the ACLU and wants it removed. Now the religious zealots start banging the drums in defense of religion. _ You are one of the most vocal in this group to redundantly invoke that just because something is practiced far and wide doesn't make it legal or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree with it. In the case of religious influences in this country, the majority have accepted and endorsed it since the beginning. It's only now that a small, but vocal MINORITY that has a problem with it. When it's not illegal, I agree with it. Except when the law doesn't agree with your point of view or actions. You claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, but you arrogantly claim you break the law intentionally (holding up traffic in the passing lane, paralelling the car in the right lane) in order to enforce another law. Pa law states the left lane is for passing only. You're an uninformed (regarding the law in your own state) hypocrite. It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as you are either passing or maintaining the posted speed limit. Do you honestly expect everyone to run in the right lane once they've hit the posted limit? That's ludicrous. Especially considering the volume of traffic in this area. I can't answer for PA, but in California you would get a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic. I've seen it, so please don't say it doesn't happen. Both of you are severe underachievers. I don't think so. I don't think you are either. I do think that you all are on the far end of political and religious spectrum, as such, this argument between you three will never end. Dave "Sandbagger" Landshark -- The internet is fun but it's no substitute for books, people, nature, or direct experiences. But you think that you can get everything you need from your computer, you are a fool. Frank Gililland |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 May 2005 10:09:54 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: The "law" has been defined in regard to religious influences, since the inception of this country. It was not a problem in 1805, 1905, and 1955, so it should not be a problem in 2005. Only to those who are trapped in the past and who are afraid of and reject change and progress. Not all change is actually "progress". Sure it is. What you are trying to convey is progress isn't always a good thing. But change is inevitable, and you are always playing cath-up. Hell, you are years behind in the knowledge of radio law and government law. It's a matter of some subjectivity depending on your perspective. But those religious influences are adorned all over our government buildings and in our government business. So are other religious symbols besides Christianity. Not many. Haha,,talk about subjective terms. Most are Christian. You have never been west of the Mississippi, obviously. Have you ever been west of Pa? But even so, it illustrates the influence of God, no matter what faith you choose to worship him with. So you worship Allah.,,,the same God you worship, but with a different name. Why is it only now do certain people find exception to it? You would have to ask one. My guess would be a certain faction is trying to cram their religious beliefs down otehr's throats. Those beliefs have been a part of our culture since this country was founded. But they were never FORCED until now. The perception that religion is "suddenly" being "Crammed down other people's throats" is held by those who have been conspicuously absent from any religious influences in their lives and see any display of religion as excessive. What a hypocrite you continue to be,,,you talk morebull**** than a fertilizer farm. One simple christian thing here, DAve.."Thou shall not judge". Yet it is those same people who are the ones at odds with our society, as history will testify to. Your beliefs are not in any way representative of society and society is very diversified, despite your zero toerance for those expressing different religious or lifestyles from your own. _ You are one of the most vocal in this group to redundantly invoke that just because something is practiced far and wide doesn't make it legal or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree with it. In the case of religious influences in this country, the majority have accepted and endorsed it since the beginning. How was it endorsed? "Congress shall make no law........"..it was never endorsed, you just chose to misapply another term when you found yourself talking ahead of your brain. It's only now that a small, but vocal MINORITY that has a problem with it. Which you continue to blame for the Bush failures. _ You still demonstrate hypocrisy here,,.the reason you set forth for justifying it, valid to only yourself. You still demonstrate not knowing the meaning of the word hypocrisy. Nothing in my statement is hypocritical. When it's not illegal, I agree with it. Except when the law doesn't agree with your point of view or actions. You claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, but you arrogantly claim you break the law intentionally (holding up traffic in the passing lane, paralelling the car in the right lane) in order to enforce another law. Pa law states the left lane is for passing only. You're an uninformed (regarding the law in your own state) hypocrite. It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as you are either passing or maintaining the posted speed limit. Wrong,,,it is not permitted to "cruise" in the right lane in Pa. Do you honestly expect everyone to run in the right lane once they've hit the posted limit? That's ludicrous. Especially considering the volume of traffic in this area. Your personal dislikes and opinions of the law are irrelevant to your hypocrisy of offering excuses why you break the law. Your words were "There is NO excuse for breaking the law. Ignorance is no excuse. The hows and whys are irrelevant. You break the law, you're a criminal. : And my favorite "If you don;t like the law, you are bound to obey them or lobby to have them legally changed". So go ahead David, instead of bitching about it and doing a siren's dance around your hypocrisy and crying about how the law is written and whining about traffic, take your own advice and change the law you break, you criminal, you. The fact is that despite recent misinterpretations of the establishment clause in the constitution by left wing zealots, we have had religious influences in our government from the very beginning. That's rich..and wrong. No, it's not wrong. Just look at the Supreme court building and observe the sculpture of Moses holding the 10 commandments. And that is but one example of many. You snipped my post and to what you replied "no it's not"....you lost this point. Next subject. _ Well, then feel free to ahead and explain away how these "left winger misinterpretations" affect religious laws when the republicans are the only party in charge of both the senate and the house....ie: the country. If what you allege was the case, Allege? Are not the repubs in charge? Yet, you continue ot blame those whoare not in charge. Classic abdication of those responsible...your practicied behavior that is almost secod-nature to you. the whole "PC" movement would have been expunged from the country by now. It's not so simple to overturn a few decades of liberal indoctrination, Liberals founded this country. Your hatred towards such founding principles and favoring socialistic government is well documented. But at least the mainstream is now awake and aware of what had previously been a fairly low profile covert operation. Agree,..which is why the Bush approval rating in Iraq is nearing an all time low again. But now all the underhanded, erroneous, immoral, and hypocritical actions of the left are put up for all to see and to judge accordingly. Yet, the left's behavior has you so preoccupied when the repubs are in charge. It kills you. In theory, it should mean nothing. But you know those obstructionist democrats trying to use a filibuster to leverage their minority into a controlling influence. That's one biased opinion. The other side of the coin you seek to ignore is that the fillibuster is the last legal refuge to place an end to the republicans seeking to end and change laws that would prevent a one party rule...theirs. How? There is still a vote. Except ythe repubs seek to cancel the demos. In a vote,the majority rules. That's the way any vote works. I suppose you'd rather apply a "filibuster-ike" rule to challenge any majority vote. (sig) Frank taught you the origins of the filibuster. You continue to have hatred for more American designed security designed to protect us from such fascism. Maybe we should be filibustering the last election, so that you PEST sufferers could leverage your minority rule to place Kerry in office. See what a poor retainment value you employ.....your hatred is so rabid, you erreoneously referred to myself and Frank as demos and Kerry supporters. That downslide is really messing you up. That's all a filibuster is, a desperate attempt by the minority to overturn the wishes of the majority. That is only your misinterpretation of another definition. In fact, what makes this so shocking, is you were given the exact origination of the fillibuster in addition to its proper definition, but you are dogged determined to wallow in your own ignorance. So tell me, how is THAT any more fair, than having a straight up or down vote? And in typical democratic hypocrisy, the same people who are screaming to save the filibuster now, were on record as in favor of removing it, over ten years back, when the democrats were in the majority in congress. Nevertheless, the misinterpretation has been all yours even though Frank neatly wrapped it all up and presented you with the facts clearly indicating congress shall keep the clause of separation of church and state intact. It was never there in the first place. Denial is your best trait.,,but denial when presented proof is learned ignorance. Where is the proof? Your mistake (almost everytime you post this week) is in believing their is some type law doing just what the clause prohibits. There is NOTHING in the constitution which calls for the complete separation of church and state. All it does is prevent the establishment of a state sponsored or endorsed religion, Wait a second,,a few paragraphs above you said it WAS endorsed,,in fact,, that's the exact word you used,,let's see it again.. In the case of religious influences in this country, the majority have accepted and endorsed it since the beginning. HAhahhaa,,what a card you have become, largely opposing yourself and self-contradictions galore. and prevents the government from denying someone the right to observe their religion of choice. Nowhere does the constitution claim or imply that congress persons, the president, justices, or other people shall not be people of faith. No one said otherwise. Your deficit has you confused and focusing on topic only you invoke and conjure. But while you're at it, it also says nothing of your claim that such was "endorsed". Nor does it ban the practices of referring to God in an oath, or during any other proceeding of the government. See above concerning your conjured ramblings taken from outter space. Did you know that every session of congress begins with a prayer, lead by a staff preacher who is paid for by taxpayer dollars? Did you know that there are Bible verses etched in stone all over the federal buildings and monuments in D.C.? There are pictures of the 10 commandments inside the supreme court? And E Pluribus Unum is on the buck. There has NEVER been a complete separation of church and state in this government. Yes, there has. Your misinterpretation has you believing that a faith or belief is equal to an established or endorsed religion or church. The whole idea of any separation in the beginning was not to protect government from religion, it was to protect religion from government. And you arrived at such a conclusion exactly how....? Now go do some research before you buy into left wing propaganda. And that would be another erroneous claim that I am a demo or Kerry supporter,,,hmmm,,,,,it really bugs you when the repubs are made to answer for their incompetence, especially yours. The only zealots that mean anything are the ones in charge...repubs. =A0=A0Because you agree with the religious zealots and have on many occasion admitted that your moral views are to be fostered upon others and if they do not subscribe to your radical positions and admitted (on many occasion) socialistic tendencies, you mistakenly hold them as an enemy of yourself, seeking to take away that of which you believe. I and many others who are currently in the majority. You know, the ones who reelected G.W. Bush. The majority didn't vote, David. The majority of those who voted, voted for Bush. That's a far, far, cry from claiming a majority or a mandate. The ony mandate Bush had was with Jeff Gannon.. As for the rest, who's to say who they would have favored. Any speculation on your part, is just that. As yours. At least I'm not going around illustrating to the world I believe Bush had a mandate. Besides, those who don't play an active part in their government, have no right to complain about it. Such as you and your issues relating to radio of which your life has become largely reactive as opposed to proactivity. You eally sould take your own advice, but hypocrites rarely do. I would argue that it was those influences which made this country one of strong moral and ethical principles. In one sentence you claim the moral and ethical principles of this country have degraded terribly and even said society was reflected on the air. Now you say the country is once again of strong moral fiber and ethical principle. No, I said that this country was FOUNDED on strong moral and ethical principles. No,,you said,,,"Which made this country one of strong moral fiber". Yes, MADE as in FOUNDED, as in "past tense". I know you have trouble comprehending, but I didn't think I had to drop to this level to explain it to you. Only because you are the only one that understands yourself. The only misinterpretation here, is the initial impression I had of you and your education. I thought you were reasonably schooled at one point, until the several weeks, between your gaffes and unlearned comments regrading the law of your own state and the glaring holes in your civics and history knowledge, law knowledge, and FCC knowledge. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com