|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:34:48 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Open your eyes, if you haven't noticed MANY don't seem to have any respect for the law--pay attention. If it isn't the same in your city I am happy for you--but here it is just getting damn dangerous!!! The downright silly decisions the judges are making is ONE MAJOR cause, the youngsters are laughing behind judges backs... Would you even begin to attempt to convince me that you get anything more than the justice you can afford? Those lawyers are not going to be bothered with freebanders/CB'ers--they simply don't have the type of money the lawyers need to fill their pockets.... Get real... Regards, John anyone that makes a response to post and doesn't quote the original post so that we know who the hell you are responding to, is dumber than a ****ing ice cube!!!! |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:40:49 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Those hams are just about to get one BIG surprise... Those export radios are ending up in Mexico, with BIG Liinears! I hope all those hams can speak Spanish. And, furthere south, the South American skip should just get better and better! grin Regards, John anyone that makes a response to post and doesn't quote the original post so that we know who the hell you are responding to, is dumber than a ****ing ice cube!!!! |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:47:04 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: You waste your time, attempting to show logic to Dave, he is obivously a ham or "ham groupie." He is just here to stop any progressive changes--write your congressmen!!! Anyway, whether he does what he does or not--the winds of change begin to blow.... Regards, John anyone that makes a response to post and doesn't quote the original post so that we know who the hell you are responding to, is dumber than a ****ing ice cube!!!! |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:10:55 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Your arguments ALL would call for a CHANGE!--I am simply stating what IS... GET REAL! Regards, John anyone that makes a response to post and doesn't quote the original post so that we know who the hell you are responding to, is dumber than a ****ing ice cube!!!! |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:56:45 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:19:51 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:24:02 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : the commission usually sends a warning to an alleged violator prior to issuing an NAL. If the warning is ignored then the subsequent NAL is prosecuted as a violation that was done both willingly and -intentionally-. Ok, you win that one. That is usually the case. The facts are that there ARE illegal intruders on 10 meters. The how's and why's are irrelevant. Intent is -very- relevant because some of those dopes don't know that they are operating illegally. (and there are those who think we should open up the whole spectrum to dopes like that. A perfect example of why there are licenses and rules) Ignorance of the law is no excuse. At least it didn't used to be. With all the liberals running around looking to paint every lawbreaker as a victim, I guess ignorance might be a legitimate excuse now. I see it a little differently: When we the people are subject to mountains of laws that can be fully understood only by an army of lawyers, ignorance can be a very reasonable excuse in many cases. It's simply impractical (and nearly impossible) for the average citizen to know and understand all the laws that apply to every circumstance. I agree, the law was never intended to be so complicated that only a legal expert can comprehend all the nuances of it. I tend to believe that lawyers do this deliberately to justify and continue their existence. Maybe a few think that way, but I think it's mostly to protect against the ambulance-chasing opportunists that force court interpretation of every little flaw, as you stated with the following: Even worse is when a seemingly cut and dry law get's "what-if'd" to death in a courtroom battle of hypotheticals which may never occur. This is why you are required to sign dozens of forms for what should be a simple transaction in many cases. snip It's true that the FCC usually sends out warning notices first, but they don't have to. That's called discretion (the better part of valor). Actually, they do need to send out those notices in almost all cases. The reason behind it is the FCC's pseudo-constitutional system of law enforcement and the need to establish "willful and malicious" conduct of the violator. This bypasses the criminal court system, forwards the forfeiture order directly to the DOJ for collection, and pre-empts evasion of payment if the violator files for bankruptcy -- an NAL is a debt that cannot be discharged under any chapter of bankruptcy law. If the debt -was- dischargeable then the FCC would be forced to file an adversarial complaint and subsequently defend their law enforcement practices in Federal court, which is something they have no intention of doing because they would lose. This is interesting. The FCC has in the past taken certain violators to criminal court. In the vast majority of cases though, you are correct. There would seem to be some threshold which determines their course of action. What I am especially curious about is your assertion that if the FCC took a clear violator to federal court that they would lose. Why do you feel that way? I would presume that once the FCC decided to act upon a violator that they would have enough evidence to prove their case. It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion. So the FCC avoids any constitutional challenge to the NAL, even to the point of settling before it goes to court. You suggested that there is some threshold they use to decide which actions to take, and I would suggest that you are right -- a critera based on the willingness and resourcefulness of the accused to mount a legal challenge against the FCC's NAL system. ----== 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 =---- |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:42:39 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Yeah, we know that is YOUR opinion... big deal... John you are just an ignorant freebander, still dumber than an ice cube. Hams Rule!! |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:43:17 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Read my above post, it is still valid here... Regards, John read my post above still valid here. down with freedand!!!! |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:44:21 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Read my top, new, post, still valid here... John more proof that you are dumber than dog **** Hams Rule the world!!!! |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:49:34 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Uh, from now on, just refer to my first post on this subject, or attempt to memorize it--it is only ONE LINE FOR CRISSAKES!!! John your posts make no sense,ice cube mentality!!! |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:10:23 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Forget that! Just write this down on a piece of paper, "REMEMBER! Next doctors visit, ask him about a medication for Alzheimers." And, pin it on your chest! John quote text, than you won't look so ignorant Hams Rules the world!!! freebanders are ignorant wanna be hams |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:32:41 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: snip It's true that the FCC usually sends out warning notices first, but they don't have to. That's called discretion (the better part of valor). Actually, they do need to send out those notices in almost all cases. The reason behind it is the FCC's pseudo-constitutional system of law enforcement and the need to establish "willful and malicious" conduct of the violator. This bypasses the criminal court system, forwards the forfeiture order directly to the DOJ for collection, and pre-empts evasion of payment if the violator files for bankruptcy -- an NAL is a debt that cannot be discharged under any chapter of bankruptcy law. If the debt -was- dischargeable then the FCC would be forced to file an adversarial complaint and subsequently defend their law enforcement practices in Federal court, which is something they have no intention of doing because they would lose. This is interesting. The FCC has in the past taken certain violators to criminal court. In the vast majority of cases though, you are correct. There would seem to be some threshold which determines their course of action. What I am especially curious about is your assertion that if the FCC took a clear violator to federal court that they would lose. Why do you feel that way? I would presume that once the FCC decided to act upon a violator that they would have enough evidence to prove their case. It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion. "Probably" unconstitutional? How so? So the FCC avoids any constitutional challenge to the NAL, even to the point of settling before it goes to court. You suggested that there is some threshold they use to decide which actions to take, and I would suggest that you are right -- a critera based on the willingness and resourcefulness of the accused to mount a legal challenge against the FCC's NAL system. If, as you allege, the NAL system is constitutionally flawed, there would be far more people challenging FCC NAL's and winning. This goes beyond simple citizen's 2-way radio issues. Big guns like Howard Stern have been fined by the FCC, and his respective companies forced to pay. They can afford some heavy legal muscle. If the NAL system was unconstitutional, you would think that these fines would have been overturned in a legal battle on that basis. Then, of course, the FCC would have to refine their methods if they wish to remain effective in enforcement. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:22:20 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: I am afraid Dave is not even good entertainment... more of a boring/repetitive slug... He reminds me of an old woman with nothing better to do than harass anyone in disagreement with them. . a Chihuahua, nipping at ones ankles--best ignored. However, when not here, he is most likely in his mobile, pursuing truckers (complete with a rotating caution light on his trunk and wearing a bunch of pseudo-official badges, patches and ball caps purchased at ham fests), I suppose it is better to have him here than out annoying the truckers, at least they can get some honest work done then! grin I see stereotyping is a standard method of operation for you. As opposed to actually dissecting your issues and discussing their relative worth. Any society that expects to live together must enact rules which set limits on what people can do to one another, and generally set's boundaries on an individual's right of access and right of property. Anyone who thinks that these rules are overly restrictive or otherwise "wrong" need to do some serious research on history and sociology. This applies to the radio spectrum as well. There are millions of licensed users who are granted the privilege of operating on a specified band of frequencies to accomplish a particular task. Things like wireless internet, cell phones, GPS, the drive-in at a fast food joint, long haul telephone service, satellite and broadcast radio, television, and many more conveniences that some of us take for granted, need clear spectrum to operate properly. That is why the FCC controls who goes where. What do you suppose would happen if the FCC were to disappear and anyone was allowed to transmit on any frequency they pleased? Common citizens have access to certain portions of spectrum to conduct personal business or engage in hobby talk. As you demonstrate increased responsibility and technical competence, you are granted increased privileges. That is why ham radio has more bands, modes, and power. A ham license is a certificate that demonstrates that the holder has passed tests showing that he understands the FCC operational rules, as well as possessing enough technical skill to operate higher power transmitters, erect proper antenna systems, and mitigate interference complaints. That is not to say that there aren't CB operators equally qualified in these areas. But until they prove their competence, the FCC does not recognize it. Eliminating ham radio and replacing it with a "no-holds-barred" radio service where people are allowed to run class "C" amps on AM, or running 10 KW into a poorly decoupled antenna, generating RFI, etc., is a recipe for disaster. One way to illustrate how anarchy is a poor choice for RF spectrum management, is by turning the tables. If there are no rules, then you might think it's a good thing. But what if you were engaged in a radio activity that you enjoyed. All of a sudden that activity was interrupted by another station creating interference. You could no longer partake in what it is that you enjoy, thanks to the interference from the other station. Now, what do you do? There is no FCC to complain to right? Who stands up for your right of access? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:49:08 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion. "Probably" unconstitutional? How so? For many of the same reasons Bush's Patriot Act is unconstitutional: you don't have the right to a fair trial or to contest all evidence; the accused is not afforded the right to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty" because guilt is presumed (or, in the words of the FCC, "liability" is "apparent"); and guilt is determined by the accuser which is a conflict of interest. Not only that, but the procedure was concocted without any legal history or precedent -- they just came up with the idea and made it law. According the the Supreme Court, that's not "due process of law". So the FCC avoids any constitutional challenge to the NAL, even to the point of settling before it goes to court. You suggested that there is some threshold they use to decide which actions to take, and I would suggest that you are right -- a critera based on the willingness and resourcefulness of the accused to mount a legal challenge against the FCC's NAL system. If, as you allege, the NAL system is constitutionally flawed, there would be far more people challenging FCC NAL's and winning. This goes beyond simple citizen's 2-way radio issues. Big guns like Howard Stern have been fined by the FCC, and his respective companies forced to pay. They can afford some heavy legal muscle. If the NAL system was unconstitutional, you would think that these fines would have been overturned in a legal battle on that basis. Then, of course, the FCC would have to refine their methods if they wish to remain effective in enforcement. "Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions based on monetary values, not moral principles. Recent examples are Proctor & Gamble's decision to pull their commercials from "Queer Eye" and "Will & Grace", and Bill Gates pulling his support of gay rights legislation, all because of boycotts by some culturally intolerant right-wing religious homophobes. The god-squads do not represent the majority by any means, but they can put a dent in the profits of these corps who, BTW, will eventually reverse their decisions after the gay rights groups begin their own boycotts. Money, not constitutionality, is the motivating factor behind the decisions of big business. Back to the topic.... The FCC fines have increased over the years but have never exceeded the cost of mounting a full-scale legal challenge; so the companies just take the hit, pay the fine and kiss FCC butt. I'm sure that someday the FCC will slap someone with an NAL based on a faulty financial assessment of a company and get challenged, but I'm also sure they have a contingency plan in case that ever happens. After all, they have had plenty of time to plan strategies to defend against any possible legal confrontation. But until that day comes, the FCC will continue operating as a rouge government outside the boundries of the Constitution. ----== 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 =---- |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:04:46 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (John=A0Smith) (You waste your time, attempting to show logic to Dave, he is obivously a ham or "ham groupie." He is just here to stop any progressive changes--write your congressmen!!! Anyway, whether he does what he does or not--the winds of change begin to blow.... Regards, John ) Dave is capable of giving good entertainment when he remains cool, stays on topic, and steers clear of emotional outbursts. Why thank you! That's the closest thing to a compliment that I've seen in a while. Now how 'bout a big hug? Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj I'll settle for staying on topic in the future. Maybe it can even lead to a Fresca some day. |
|
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:1918-4270FF3E- : From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) LOL there he goes again accusing innocent people. why not come to my house pussy boy Ill pay the gas Off you go now,,disappear for a week and reappear the day Dave Hall comes back, why don't you : ) get your stories straight tipsy you said I was dave hall a few months ago then reniged, and stevoe says I am chris busch... you both havent the foggiest do you. What scares the living hell out of you, is one of us is correct. |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:45:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:49:08 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion. "Probably" unconstitutional? How so? For many of the same reasons Bush's Patriot Act is unconstitutional: you don't have the right to a fair trial or to contest all evidence; the accused is not afforded the right to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty" because guilt is presumed (or, in the words of the FCC, "liability" is "apparent"); and guilt is determined by the accuser which is a conflict of interest. It's not much different than getting a speeding ticket. You are presumed guilty by virtue of the citation, and have to go to court to prove innocence, if you are so inclined. Nothing unusual about that. Not only that, but the procedure was concocted without any legal history or precedent -- they just came up with the idea and made it law. The idea that every law has to have "legal history" is ludicrous. At some point in history a precedent has to be set based on little more than circumstances. Laws which deal with technology which did not exist 200+ years ago, cannot have much history. There has to be a definite beginning. According the the Supreme Court, that's not "due process of law". Not in the sense of a criminal court. But then again, neither would the handling of summary offenses such as littering or speeding. So the FCC avoids any constitutional challenge to the NAL, even to the point of settling before it goes to court. You suggested that there is some threshold they use to decide which actions to take, and I would suggest that you are right -- a critera based on the willingness and resourcefulness of the accused to mount a legal challenge against the FCC's NAL system. If, as you allege, the NAL system is constitutionally flawed, there would be far more people challenging FCC NAL's and winning. This goes beyond simple citizen's 2-way radio issues. Big guns like Howard Stern have been fined by the FCC, and his respective companies forced to pay. They can afford some heavy legal muscle. If the NAL system was unconstitutional, you would think that these fines would have been overturned in a legal battle on that basis. Then, of course, the FCC would have to refine their methods if they wish to remain effective in enforcement. "Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions based on monetary values, not moral principles. That may be true, but at some point, it becomes cheaper to fight the charge than to continually pay fines as was the case with Stern. Recent examples are Proctor & Gamble's decision to pull their commercials from "Queer Eye" and "Will & Grace", and Bill Gates pulling his support of gay rights legislation, all because of boycotts by some culturally intolerant right-wing religious homophobes. What you call a "right wing homophobe", others might call correcting blind acceptance of abhorrent behavior. You open that door, and it becomes only a matter of subjective degree as increasingly more decadent behavior is attempted to be justified by those who partake in it. The god-squads do not represent the majority by any means, but they can put a dent in the profits of these corps who, BTW, will eventually reverse their decisions after the gay rights groups begin their own boycotts. Most businesses don't care what they think. The most vocal of these activists do not represent significant buying power. And, as you pointed out so accurately, it's all about money. Money, not constitutionality, is the motivating factor behind the decisions of big business. True in most cases. Back to the topic.... The FCC fines have increased over the years but have never exceeded the cost of mounting a full-scale legal challenge; I'm not so sure of that. But if it is true, that only serves to illustrate just how lawyers have corralled the legal field beyond the means of anyone who wishes to challenge perceived unfair practices. so the companies just take the hit, pay the fine and kiss FCC butt. I'm sure that someday the FCC will slap someone with an NAL based on a faulty financial assessment of a company and get challenged, but I'm also sure they have a contingency plan in case that ever happens. Are you implying that the FCC only contemplates fining those who they feel cannot mount a successful legal challenge? I'm not sure I buy into this level of conspiratorial thought. After all, they have had plenty of time to plan strategies to defend against any possible legal confrontation. But until that day comes, the FCC will continue operating as a rouge government outside the boundries of the Constitution. The Constitution does not specifically define many agencies and policies in the federal government, such as the NSA, black ops, Area 51etc.. The Constitution could not possibly foresee the need for many of them, including the FCC. The creation of the FCC is perfectly legal, as it falls under the discretion of the congress, even if you may disagree with their tactics. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:1918-4270FF3E- : From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) LOL there he goes again accusing innocent people. why not come to my house pussy boy Ill pay the gas Off you go now,,disappear for a week and reappear the day Dave Hall comes back, why don't you : ) get your stories straight tipsy you said I was dave hall a few months ago then reniged, and stevoe says I am chris busch... you both havent the foggiest do you. What scares the living hell out of you, is one of us is correct. Bagged and tagged. ;) |
Yes, and we have great laws which protect us from unthinkable evils!!!
1) Can't spit on sidewalk... 2) Can't be naked in public... 3) Can't use profane language in public... 4) No urninating on public lands.. (but, sometimes I just can't hold it!) 5) No fishing without a licence... 6) No hunting without a licence... 7) No using the ham bands without a licence... Now, the bleeding heart liberals are going to cry when we start executing people for violating these laws, but, YOU MUST HAVE ORDER!!!! John |
Yes, and he IS HERE A LOT!!!
Even his fellow hams are about as anxious to be anonyed by him as we are--or, at least it seems that way... Regards, John |
"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote in message ... (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:15053-427250A5- : From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:1918-4270FF3E- : From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) LOL there he goes again accusing innocent people. why not come to my house pussy boy Ill pay the gas Off you go now,,disappear for a week and reappear the day Dave Hall comes back, why don't you : ) get your stories straight tipsy you said I was dave hall a few months ago then reniged, and stevoe says I am chris busch... you both havent the foggiest do you. What scares the living hell out of you, is one of us is correct. You keep telling yourselves that, like you have if you keep guessing one day you may be right so far you guys are in left field and I truely mean that. But then again, who really gives a ****? BTW, was my ex any good? |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:39:04 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:45:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:49:08 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion. "Probably" unconstitutional? How so? For many of the same reasons Bush's Patriot Act is unconstitutional: you don't have the right to a fair trial or to contest all evidence; the accused is not afforded the right to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty" because guilt is presumed (or, in the words of the FCC, "liability" is "apparent"); and guilt is determined by the accuser which is a conflict of interest. It's not much different than getting a speeding ticket. You are presumed guilty by virtue of the citation, and have to go to court to prove innocence, if you are so inclined. Not in my state. You aren't found guilty unless you admit to the infraction, ignore the ticket, or lose the contest in court. I've already hashed this out with Leland a while back. Nothing unusual about that. Not only that, but the procedure was concocted without any legal history or precedent -- they just came up with the idea and made it law. The idea that every law has to have "legal history" is ludicrous. At some point in history a precedent has to be set based on little more than circumstances. Laws which deal with technology which did not exist 200+ years ago, cannot have much history. There has to be a definite beginning. Actually, the common and statutory laws of England were adopted for the US, and the laws that were contrary to the Constitution were thrown out. You can't just make up laws on a whim -- they have to be founded on pre-existing law, be it statute, common or case law. According the the Supreme Court, that's not "due process of law". Not in the sense of a criminal court. But then again, neither would the handling of summary offenses such as littering or speeding. Call them 'summary offenses' or 'civil infractions', they are still violations of law and subject to due process under the Constitution. You still have the right to appear in court, to contest the evidence, to appeal the ruling, etc, etc. And unless you can find a state that convicts upon being cited, you are still innocent until proven guilty. So the FCC avoids any constitutional challenge to the NAL, even to the point of settling before it goes to court. You suggested that there is some threshold they use to decide which actions to take, and I would suggest that you are right -- a critera based on the willingness and resourcefulness of the accused to mount a legal challenge against the FCC's NAL system. If, as you allege, the NAL system is constitutionally flawed, there would be far more people challenging FCC NAL's and winning. This goes beyond simple citizen's 2-way radio issues. Big guns like Howard Stern have been fined by the FCC, and his respective companies forced to pay. They can afford some heavy legal muscle. If the NAL system was unconstitutional, you would think that these fines would have been overturned in a legal battle on that basis. Then, of course, the FCC would have to refine their methods if they wish to remain effective in enforcement. "Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions based on monetary values, not moral principles. That may be true, but at some point, it becomes cheaper to fight the charge than to continually pay fines as was the case with Stern. It appears that they found it cheaper to eliminate Howard Stern than risk further fines. Indirect censorship at it's finest (and no, I don't like Howard Stern). Recent examples are Proctor & Gamble's decision to pull their commercials from "Queer Eye" and "Will & Grace", and Bill Gates pulling his support of gay rights legislation, all because of boycotts by some culturally intolerant right-wing religious homophobes. What you call a "right wing homophobe", others might call correcting blind acceptance of abhorrent behavior. You open that door, and it becomes only a matter of subjective degree as increasingly more decadent behavior is attempted to be justified by those who partake in it. Oh man..... I could stand on this soap box for hours, but I won't. I'll just give you one glaring example of what's -really- abhorrent: A TV censorship system where war and murder are suitable for all viewers but Janet Jackson's nipples are strictly off limits. And if you need more examples just ask, cause I have a long list of things "abhorrent" ranging from the Bush administration to dandelions. But back to the topic, it's not up to you or any right-wing fanatic group to dictate how others should live their lives. If you are a Christian, great, but don't push your religion on me. You have your values, I have mine, and others have theirs. And if you can't accept the concept of "E Pluribus Unum" then leave. The god-squads do not represent the majority by any means, but they can put a dent in the profits of these corps who, BTW, will eventually reverse their decisions after the gay rights groups begin their own boycotts. Most businesses don't care what they think. Hogwash. I just gave you two recent examples of major corps bowing to pressure from these fanatics. The most vocal of these activists do not represent significant buying power. And, as you pointed out so accurately, it's all about money. They don't represent a -significant- part of the economy but they -can- put a dent in the profits, which is what I already said. Corps make their decisions based on numbers, and if they think that dropping ads from a couple shows is going to be less expensive than a dent in profits from a small boycott then you can bet your bottom dollar that the ads will be yanked. Money, not constitutionality, is the motivating factor behind the decisions of big business. True in most cases. Back to the topic.... The FCC fines have increased over the years but have never exceeded the cost of mounting a full-scale legal challenge; I'm not so sure of that. But if it is true, that only serves to illustrate just how lawyers have corralled the legal field beyond the means of anyone who wishes to challenge perceived unfair practices. That's a very good point. Justice is for the rich because lawyers are greedy *******s. so the companies just take the hit, pay the fine and kiss FCC butt. I'm sure that someday the FCC will slap someone with an NAL based on a faulty financial assessment of a company and get challenged, but I'm also sure they have a contingency plan in case that ever happens. Are you implying that the FCC only contemplates fining those who they feel cannot mount a successful legal challenge? Cannot or will not. I'm not sure I buy into this level of conspiratorial thought. Well, conspiracies do exist. And if my conclusions are true, the FCC wouldn't call it a conspiracy. In fact, I wouldn't either. I -would- call it a grossly unethical and unfair method of law enforcement. The FCC would probably call it "cost effective management" or some similar euphamism. After all, they have had plenty of time to plan strategies to defend against any possible legal confrontation. But until that day comes, the FCC will continue operating as a rouge government outside the boundries of the Constitution. The Constitution does not specifically define many agencies and policies in the federal government, such as the NSA, black ops, Area 51etc.. The Constitution could not possibly foresee the need for many of them, including the FCC. The creation of the FCC is perfectly legal, as it falls under the discretion of the congress, even if you may disagree with their tactics. I never claimed the FCC was established illegally. My contention is that they are using procedures that are unconstitutional. ----== 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 =---- |
Freebandersblowgoats wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:10:23 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: Forget that! Just write this down on a piece of paper, "REMEMBER! Next doctors visit, ask him about a medication for Alzheimers." And, pin it on your chest! John quote text, than you won't look so ignorant Hams Rules the world!!! freebanders are ignorant wanna be hams Wrong wrong wrong you hams are ignorant, while us freebanders RULE the universe |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:52:55 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:39:04 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:45:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:49:08 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion. "Probably" unconstitutional? How so? For many of the same reasons Bush's Patriot Act is unconstitutional: you don't have the right to a fair trial or to contest all evidence; the accused is not afforded the right to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty" because guilt is presumed (or, in the words of the FCC, "liability" is "apparent"); and guilt is determined by the accuser which is a conflict of interest. It's not much different than getting a speeding ticket. You are presumed guilty by virtue of the citation, and have to go to court to prove innocence, if you are so inclined. Not in my state. You aren't found guilty unless you admit to the infraction, ignore the ticket, or lose the contest in court. I've already hashed this out with Leland a while back. I guess it all depends on your perspective. You are given a ticket. You can either accept it (Admit guilt) or fight it. If you fight it, your only chance is to hope that either the cop doesn't show up, or that the conditions were such that the judge might agree that you might not "deserve" the ticket. But it basically amounts to you "fighting" for your innocence. The court tends to side with the police barring concrete evidence to the contrary. Nothing unusual about that. Not only that, but the procedure was concocted without any legal history or precedent -- they just came up with the idea and made it law. The idea that every law has to have "legal history" is ludicrous. At some point in history a precedent has to be set based on little more than circumstances. Laws which deal with technology which did not exist 200+ years ago, cannot have much history. There has to be a definite beginning. Actually, the common and statutory laws of England were adopted for the US, and the laws that were contrary to the Constitution were thrown out. Our whole system of government was modeled after the parliamentary system in England. It was, after all, the most prevalent model for the founding fathers at the time. They took the time to "correct" what they perceived were the flaws in the English system. You can't just make up laws on a whim -- they have to be founded on pre-existing law, be it statute, common or case law. But every law had to start sometime. If there was never a condition that needed a specific law before, you can't very well have one to base it on. According the the Supreme Court, that's not "due process of law". Not in the sense of a criminal court. But then again, neither would the handling of summary offenses such as littering or speeding. Call them 'summary offenses' or 'civil infractions', they are still violations of law and subject to due process under the Constitution. You still have the right to appear in court, to contest the evidence, to appeal the ruling, etc, etc. And unless you can find a state that convicts upon being cited, you are still innocent until proven guilty. But in most of those cases, the burden of proving that innocence is yours, even if it might not be worded quite that way. "Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions based on monetary values, not moral principles. That may be true, but at some point, it becomes cheaper to fight the charge than to continually pay fines as was the case with Stern. It appears that they found it cheaper to eliminate Howard Stern than risk further fines. Indirect censorship at it's finest (and no, I don't like Howard Stern). First off, WNBC thought it better to eliminate Stern. Then he moved to infinity and the rest was history. He was such a cash cow for them that the fines were justifiable compared to revenue realized. In fact the publicity surrounding the FCC and Stern actually increased interest (ratings) in his show. Infinity did not "eliminate" Stern. Stern quit to move to Sirius Satellite radio where, he feels, his "creativity" would not be so constrained by the FCC rules of decency. The gamble he's making is whether the tongue dragging set that lives and dies by his every guffaw will shell out the money to listen to him on Sirius. Mel Karmazin, Viacom's COO who jumped ship to become the CEO of Sirius, seems to think so. I'm waiting until the FCC gets into the Satellite radio scene. What you call a "right wing homophobe", others might call correcting blind acceptance of abhorrent behavior. You open that door, and it becomes only a matter of subjective degree as increasingly more decadent behavior is attempted to be justified by those who partake in it. Oh man..... I could stand on this soap box for hours, but I won't. Probably a wise move. There's way too much subjectivity. I'll just give you one glaring example of what's -really- abhorrent: A TV censorship system where war and murder are suitable for all viewers but Janet Jackson's nipples are strictly off limits. And if you need more examples just ask, cause I have a long list of things "abhorrent" ranging from the Bush administration to dandelions. What I find abhorrent is a decline in social morality, and a growing sense that tolerance should be universal and unlimited. But back to the topic, it's not up to you or any right-wing fanatic group to dictate how others should live their lives. Why not? A group of people sat together and drew up the framework of the laws that we live under today. If you are a Christian, great, but don't push your religion on me. This has little to do with any specific religion. You have your values, I have mine, and others have theirs. So, then who get's to pick the "right" choices? And if you can't accept the concept of "E Pluribus Unum" then leave. I accept the concepts of "one nation Under God", and "endowed by our creator". The god-squads do not represent the majority by any means, but they can put a dent in the profits of these corps who, BTW, will eventually reverse their decisions after the gay rights groups begin their own boycotts. Most businesses don't care what they think. Hogwash. I just gave you two recent examples of major corps bowing to pressure from these fanatics. Gay fanatics? That's who I was referring to. They don't represent enough buying power to make any difference. The most vocal of these activists do not represent significant buying power. And, as you pointed out so accurately, it's all about money. They don't represent a -significant- part of the economy but they -can- put a dent in the profits, which is what I already said. So who would you rather **** off, a group of abhorrent activists, or mainstream Christians? Corps make their decisions based on numbers, and if they think that dropping ads from a couple shows is going to be less expensive than a dent in profits from a small boycott then you can bet your bottom dollar that the ads will be yanked. Well sure. It is all about money. So far mainstream Christians still outnumber gay groups. Money, not constitutionality, is the motivating factor behind the decisions of big business. True in most cases. Back to the topic.... The FCC fines have increased over the years but have never exceeded the cost of mounting a full-scale legal challenge; I'm not so sure of that. But if it is true, that only serves to illustrate just how lawyers have corralled the legal field beyond the means of anyone who wishes to challenge perceived unfair practices. That's a very good point. Justice is for the rich because lawyers are greedy *******s. Exactly! And that only underscores the point that with enough money you can hire enough defensive legal power to beat almost any criminal or civil charge. ABSCAM alumnus Ozzie Meyers was once quoted as saying "If you have enough money in this country, you can do almost anything". O.J. is a free man today because of such practices. so the companies just take the hit, pay the fine and kiss FCC butt. I'm sure that someday the FCC will slap someone with an NAL based on a faulty financial assessment of a company and get challenged, but I'm also sure they have a contingency plan in case that ever happens. Are you implying that the FCC only contemplates fining those who they feel cannot mount a successful legal challenge? Cannot or will not. I'm not sure I buy into this level of conspiratorial thought. Well, conspiracies do exist. Yes, but I'm concerned about the ones you choose to believe in. And if my conclusions are true, the FCC wouldn't call it a conspiracy. In this case "IF" is a mighty big word. One that is not interchangeable for fact. In fact, I wouldn't either. I -would- call it a grossly unethical and unfair method of law enforcement. The FCC would probably call it "cost effective management" or some similar euphamism. There have been cases over the years brought by people who tried to claim that the IRS and income tax itself was unconstitutional. There seems to be some credibility to the claim. But in every case, it gets shot down. I suspect that a similar claim against the FCC would be treated in a similar fashion. After all, they have had plenty of time to plan strategies to defend against any possible legal confrontation. But until that day comes, the FCC will continue operating as a rouge government outside the boundries of the Constitution. Down with the man! The Constitution does not specifically define many agencies and policies in the federal government, such as the NSA, black ops, Area 51etc.. The Constitution could not possibly foresee the need for many of them, including the FCC. The creation of the FCC is perfectly legal, as it falls under the discretion of the congress, even if you may disagree with their tactics. I never claimed the FCC was established illegally. My contention is that they are using procedures that are unconstitutional. I would be very interested in the hows and whys of this alleged unconstitutionality. I suspect a great deal of subjectivity in this interpretation. Many people who claim to adhere to the strict wording of the constitution, would find many of our laws and governmental agencies to be "unconstitutional". The whole abortion law, as a result of Roe V. Wade, is one such example, as it was established as a result of a judicial ruling rather than a legislative action. Like the Bible, and religion in general, it's surprising at how many different interpretations you can find from a single source of information. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:16:10 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:04:46 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (John*Smith) (You waste your time, attempting to show logic to Dave, he is obivously a ham or "ham groupie." He is just here to stop any progressive changes--write your congressmen!!! Anyway, whether he does what he does or not--the winds of change begin to blow.... Regards, John ) Dave is capable of giving good entertainment when he remains cool, stays on topic, and steers clear of emotional outbursts. Why thank you! That's the closest thing to a compliment that I've seen in a while. Now how 'bout a big hug? I'll settle for staying on topic in the future. I'll stay on topic if you will. Maybe it can even lead to a Fresca some day. You'd have to agree to a face-face for that. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:17:32 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (John*Smith) (I am afraid Dave is not even good entertainment... more of a boring/repetitive slug... He reminds me of an old woman with nothing better to do than harass anyone in disagreement with them. a Chihuahua, nipping at ones ankles--best ignored. However, when not here, he is most likely in his mobile, pursuing truckers (complete with a rotating caution light on his trunk and wearing a bunch of pseudo-official badges, patches and ball caps purchased at ham fests), I suppose it is better to have him here than out annoying the truckers, at least they can get some honest work done then! grin Regards, John) - Well, when he is here he isn't on the air, at least. Well that's true. I'm usually on the air at night..... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:57:12 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Yes, and he IS HERE A LOT!!! Even his fellow hams are about as anxious to be annoyed by him as we are--or, at least it seems that way... Yet you have yet to justify your position that the FCC should just give away radio spectrum to unlicensed users. Taking pot shots at me tells me that you have no substance to back up your claims. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
|
|
|
I am not arguing that the FCC should do ANYTHING!!! Well, other than assist
the people in using "THEIR" radio spectrum... the radio spectrum is NOT theirs to do anything with!!! Regards, John "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... | On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:57:12 -0700, "John Smith" | wrote: | | Yes, and he IS HERE A LOT!!! | Even his fellow hams are about as anxious to be annoyed by him as we | are--or, at least it seems that way... | | | Yet you have yet to justify your position that the FCC should just | give away radio spectrum to unlicensed users. Taking pot shots at me | tells me that you have no substance to back up your claims. | | | Dave | "Sandbagger" | http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
My god! this is going on and on and on and on! WHEN WILL THIS EVER
STOPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!! |
On Mon, 02 May 2005 07:33:16 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip It's not much different than getting a speeding ticket. You are presumed guilty by virtue of the citation, and have to go to court to prove innocence, if you are so inclined. Not in my state. You aren't found guilty unless you admit to the infraction, ignore the ticket, or lose the contest in court. I've already hashed this out with Leland a while back. I guess it all depends on your perspective. You are given a ticket. You can either accept it (Admit guilt) or fight it. If you fight it, your only chance is to hope that either the cop doesn't show up, or that the conditions were such that the judge might agree that you might not "deserve" the ticket. But it basically amounts to you "fighting" for your innocence. The court tends to side with the police barring concrete evidence to the contrary. The court gives weight to the citation because it's basically an affidavit by the LEO who witnessed the infraction. IOW, the citation itself is evidence. If you contest the ticket then you must challenge that evidence (or the law). That's the way it works in criminal court, too. snip You can't just make up laws on a whim -- they have to be founded on pre-existing law, be it statute, common or case law. But every law had to start sometime. Law evolves (or de-evolves) in tandem with civilization. It does so because it is a necessary part of any social order. If there was never a condition that needed a specific law before, you can't very well have one to base it on. Sure you can -- it's called a "constitution". According the the Supreme Court, that's not "due process of law". Not in the sense of a criminal court. But then again, neither would the handling of summary offenses such as littering or speeding. Call them 'summary offenses' or 'civil infractions', they are still violations of law and subject to due process under the Constitution. You still have the right to appear in court, to contest the evidence, to appeal the ruling, etc, etc. And unless you can find a state that convicts upon being cited, you are still innocent until proven guilty. But in most of those cases, the burden of proving that innocence is yours, even if it might not be worded quite that way. Wrong. The burden is on the accuser to prove guilt. If there is no evidence to convict then the verdict must be not guilty. But the sworn affidavit of the LEO (the ticket itself) is strong evidence. So it is not the burden of the accused to prove his innocence but to discredit the evidence against him. "Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions based on monetary values, not moral principles. That may be true, but at some point, it becomes cheaper to fight the charge than to continually pay fines as was the case with Stern. It appears that they found it cheaper to eliminate Howard Stern than risk further fines. Indirect censorship at it's finest (and no, I don't like Howard Stern). First off, WNBC thought it better to eliminate Stern. Then he moved to infinity and the rest was history. He was such a cash cow for them that the fines were justifiable compared to revenue realized. In fact the publicity surrounding the FCC and Stern actually increased interest (ratings) in his show. Infinity did not "eliminate" Stern. Stern quit to move to Sirius Satellite radio where, he feels, his "creativity" would not be so constrained by the FCC rules of decency. The gamble he's making is whether the tongue dragging set that lives and dies by his every guffaw will shell out the money to listen to him on Sirius. Mel Karmazin, Viacom's COO who jumped ship to become the CEO of Sirius, seems to think so. Whatever the situation, the point is that sometimes it's cheaper to eliminate the source of the problem than to pay fines to the FCC. I'm waiting until the FCC gets into the Satellite radio scene. I'm waiting until the FCC starts regulating the internet. What you call a "right wing homophobe", others might call correcting blind acceptance of abhorrent behavior. You open that door, and it becomes only a matter of subjective degree as increasingly more decadent behavior is attempted to be justified by those who partake in it. Oh man..... I could stand on this soap box for hours, but I won't. Probably a wise move. There's way too much subjectivity. That's a matter of opinion..... I'll just give you one glaring example of what's -really- abhorrent: A TV censorship system where war and murder are suitable for all viewers but Janet Jackson's nipples are strictly off limits. And if you need more examples just ask, cause I have a long list of things "abhorrent" ranging from the Bush administration to dandelions. What I find abhorrent is a decline in social morality, and a growing sense that tolerance should be universal and unlimited. I'll worry about declining morality when the government declares that murder is a God-given right, or grants constitutional protection from discrimination for sex-offenders, or permits human sacrifice in the exercise of a religious ceremony. Because -that- would be abhorrent. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of your business. You may not like knowing that homosexuality exists, but the fact is that it does. More than a hundred years ago it was "abhorrent" for a woman to expose her bare ankles in public. Is that immoral? Now take a little time to remember your history classes; it wasn't that long ago when cocaine and heroin were sold over the counter, children worked 16 hours/day in sweat shops for pennies, wife beating was not only tolerated but often encouraged, slavery was legal in half the country, and people were burned at the stake on the mere accusation of witchcraft (sounds a lot like some of our present-day "allies"). A mere half-century ago there were some people who didn't like the idea of treating black people as equals. They especially didn't want blacks to be able to vote. Some even used the argument that a black vote would diminish the value of their own vote, which was a weak rationalization of their racist attitudes. You are no different than those racists, Dave. You don't like the idea that gays have just as much right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as yourself, and you use the excuse that gay marriage will somehow diminish -your- values. And ironically, you are right because your values are founded on generations of discrimination and bigotry. And in your ignorance, you think this country is in a state of moral decline because more and more people are recognizing the fact that homosexuality isn't evil. But you are wrong, Dave -- the state of public morality is actually improving -despite- your best efforts to prevent it. For example, in the past 20 years the public perception surrounding AIDS has changed from one of gay-bashing to one of acceptance. It changed because it was learned that the disease was -not- the product of rampant homosexuality as it was first assumed. Science therefore vindicated the gay community. But it also exposed people to their own misperceptions about homosexuality. Apparently you weren't paying attention. So the problem you face is not one of moral decline. What you refuse to see is that the -church- is in a state of decline. More and more people are getting educated and learning that the world works according to the laws of science and logic, -not- according to the fatalistic and vengeful edicts of some big, scary 'god'. Religion is losing customers and you feel threatened. Well, kick back and pop a brew, Dave, because this is America, and you have the right to practice your religion as you see fit -- just let the rest of us do the same. But back to the topic, it's not up to you or any right-wing fanatic group to dictate how others should live their lives. Why not? A group of people sat together and drew up the framework of the laws that we live under today. Maybe you skipped history class that day, but the Constitution was constructed to -prevent- minority rule. As for television, the number of viewers determines the ratings of a show, so let the ratings determine what companies sponser what shows. That's how a free-market economy works. Or do you support the position of right-wing conservative Christians who say (by their actions) that any participation of fags in America's free-market economy should be supressed? If you are a Christian, great, but don't push your religion on me. This has little to do with any specific religion. Sure it does. You talk of morality but fail to understand that different religions impose different moralities. According to Christianity, I'm immoral because I commit blasphemy. Yet there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids atheism. On the contrary, it -protects- my beliefs, right or wrong. It also seperates religion from the government so my rights cannot be compromised by lawmakers who think that atheism should be illegal just because -they- think it is immoral. You have your values, I have mine, and others have theirs. So, then who get's to pick the "right" choices? The "right" choice is any choice that isn't unconstitutional. And if you can't accept the concept of "E Pluribus Unum" then leave. I accept the concepts of "one nation Under God", The phrase "under God" was added in the 50's for whatever reason. Considering that it was done at the height of the cold war and that the Soviet Union had outlawed religion, I think it was a good idea. But guess what, Dave: the cold war is over. and "endowed by our creator". My "creator" is Mother Nature. If you choose to reject science and logic, that's your business. If I'm wrong then you can rest assured that I'll pay for my indiscretions -- but that's -my- business, not your's. The god-squads do not represent the majority by any means, but they can put a dent in the profits of these corps who, BTW, will eventually reverse their decisions after the gay rights groups begin their own boycotts. Most businesses don't care what they think. Hogwash. I just gave you two recent examples of major corps bowing to pressure from these fanatics. Gay fanatics? That's who I was referring to. They don't represent enough buying power to make any difference. Religious fanatics, gay fanatics, save-the-whales fanatics..... it doesn't make any difference. The point is that a minority group can force a corporation to make a decision based on discrimination and intolerance. It happens. The most vocal of these activists do not represent significant buying power. And, as you pointed out so accurately, it's all about money. They don't represent a -significant- part of the economy but they -can- put a dent in the profits, which is what I already said. So who would you rather **** off, a group of abhorrent activists, or mainstream Christians? Is there some reason you can't understand the simple concepts involved when a company evaluates cost, profit and risk? Corps make their decisions based on numbers, and if they think that dropping ads from a couple shows is going to be less expensive than a dent in profits from a small boycott then you can bet your bottom dollar that the ads will be yanked. Well sure. It is all about money. So far mainstream Christians still outnumber gay groups. Does that make it right? Are Christians permitted to subjugate and subvert the lives of other Americans simply because they outnumber them? These "Christians" really need to start practicing what they preach. Or at least how to live and let live. Money, not constitutionality, is the motivating factor behind the decisions of big business. True in most cases. Back to the topic.... The FCC fines have increased over the years but have never exceeded the cost of mounting a full-scale legal challenge; I'm not so sure of that. But if it is true, that only serves to illustrate just how lawyers have corralled the legal field beyond the means of anyone who wishes to challenge perceived unfair practices. That's a very good point. Justice is for the rich because lawyers are greedy *******s. Exactly! And that only underscores the point that with enough money you can hire enough defensive legal power to beat almost any criminal or civil charge. ABSCAM alumnus Ozzie Meyers was once quoted as saying "If you have enough money in this country, you can do almost anything". O.J. is a free man today because of such practices. And many people are on death row because of the same practices. But again you fail to address the fact that many times it's cheaper to settle or take the hit than to fight the charge in court, and the decision to fight is usually one based on money. -My- contention is that the FCC uses this fact to it's advantage when it decides who to fine and how much to fine them. so the companies just take the hit, pay the fine and kiss FCC butt. I'm sure that someday the FCC will slap someone with an NAL based on a faulty financial assessment of a company and get challenged, but I'm also sure they have a contingency plan in case that ever happens. Are you implying that the FCC only contemplates fining those who they feel cannot mount a successful legal challenge? Cannot or will not. I'm not sure I buy into this level of conspiratorial thought. Well, conspiracies do exist. Yes, but I'm concerned about the ones you choose to believe in. You should concern yourself with the conflict between facts and your "core beliefs". And if my conclusions are true, the FCC wouldn't call it a conspiracy. In this case "IF" is a mighty big word. One that is not interchangeable for fact. I never said it was fact, Dave. Or haven't you been paying attention? In fact, I wouldn't either. I -would- call it a grossly unethical and unfair method of law enforcement. The FCC would probably call it "cost effective management" or some similar euphamism. There have been cases over the years brought by people who tried to claim that the IRS and income tax itself was unconstitutional. There seems to be some credibility to the claim. But in every case, it gets shot down. It probably has something to do with the Sixteenth Amendment. I suspect that a similar claim against the FCC would be treated in a similar fashion. We'll never know until it gets there. After all, they have had plenty of time to plan strategies to defend against any possible legal confrontation. But until that day comes, the FCC will continue operating as a rouge government outside the boundries of the Constitution. Down with the man! The Constitution does not specifically define many agencies and policies in the federal government, such as the NSA, black ops, Area 51etc.. The Constitution could not possibly foresee the need for many of them, including the FCC. The creation of the FCC is perfectly legal, as it falls under the discretion of the congress, even if you may disagree with their tactics. I never claimed the FCC was established illegally. My contention is that they are using procedures that are unconstitutional. I would be very interested in the hows and whys of this alleged unconstitutionality. Then feel free to read through the rrcb archives. I suspect a great deal of subjectivity in this interpretation. Many people who claim to adhere to the strict wording of the constitution, would find many of our laws and governmental agencies to be "unconstitutional". The whole abortion law, as a result of Roe V. Wade, is one such example, as it was established as a result of a judicial ruling rather than a legislative action. Once again you are confused, Dave. It was statutory law that initiated the Constitutional challenge. The statute was -overthrown- by the Supreme Court, not established. And case law is just as much 'law' as statutory law because of the system of 'checks and balances' -- to suggest that a law is something less because it is a "judicial ruling" is completely bogus. Like the Bible, and religion in general, it's surprising at how many different interpretations you can find from a single source of information. It doesn't affect you one bit if two homosexuals get married. You can interpret it any way you want, but it's simply none of your business. Just like it's none of your business if your neighbor gets his dick pierced, or your Aunt Bertha gets orgasms riding a Hog. If that's how they get their kicks then more power to them. Live and let live. As for abortion, I'll wait until the discovery process is finished. ----== 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 =---- |
On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:53:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: I guess it all depends on your perspective. You are given a ticket. You can either accept it (Admit guilt) or fight it. If you fight it, your only chance is to hope that either the cop doesn't show up, or that the conditions were such that the judge might agree that you might not "deserve" the ticket. But it basically amounts to you "fighting" for your innocence. The court tends to side with the police barring concrete evidence to the contrary. The court gives weight to the citation because it's basically an affidavit by the LEO who witnessed the infraction. IOW, the citation itself is evidence. If you contest the ticket then you must challenge that evidence (or the law). That's the way it works in criminal court, too. But in criminal court the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to gain a guilty verdict. You are presumed innocent until then. Traffic court is not quite the same. While they may not specifically say it this way, the fact that you got a ticket, is evidence of guilt, and you have to try your best to prove that you're not guilty. The word of one cop is enough, in most cases, to render a "guilty" verdict, unless you're damn lucky and can somehow "prove" your innocence. snip You can't just make up laws on a whim -- they have to be founded on pre-existing law, be it statute, common or case law. But every law had to start sometime. Law evolves (or de-evolves) in tandem with civilization. It does so because it is a necessary part of any social order. Absolutely. Now if we could only convince those anarchists....... If there was never a condition that needed a specific law before, you can't very well have one to base it on. Sure you can -- it's called a "constitution". The constitution can not be expected to address each and every social condition that may develop as a result of unforseen advances in technology, education, and awareness. But in most of those cases, the burden of proving that innocence is yours, even if it might not be worded quite that way. Wrong. The burden is on the accuser to prove guilt. If there is no evidence to convict then the verdict must be not guilty. But the sworn affidavit of the LEO (the ticket itself) is strong evidence. In most cases, it is not concrete evidence. It's no better than "he said-she said" testimony. So it is not the burden of the accused to prove his innocence but to discredit the evidence against him. Why play word games? The end result is the same. The accuser has to prove his innocence, by discrediting the evidence against him. The cop is not required to demonstrate 6 different ways from Sunday how the accuser is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". He only has to show up and testify that the accuser ran such and such red light, and it's his word against the accuser's. So who does the court tend to believe? How is this a "presumption of innocence"? "Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions based on monetary values, not moral principles. That may be true, but at some point, it becomes cheaper to fight the charge than to continually pay fines as was the case with Stern. It appears that they found it cheaper to eliminate Howard Stern than risk further fines. Indirect censorship at it's finest (and no, I don't like Howard Stern). First off, WNBC thought it better to eliminate Stern. Then he moved to infinity and the rest was history. He was such a cash cow for them that the fines were justifiable compared to revenue realized. In fact the publicity surrounding the FCC and Stern actually increased interest (ratings) in his show. Infinity did not "eliminate" Stern. Stern quit to move to Sirius Satellite radio where, he feels, his "creativity" would not be so constrained by the FCC rules of decency. The gamble he's making is whether the tongue dragging set that lives and dies by his every guffaw will shell out the money to listen to him on Sirius. Mel Karmazin, Viacom's COO who jumped ship to become the CEO of Sirius, seems to think so. Whatever the situation, the point is that sometimes it's cheaper to eliminate the source of the problem than to pay fines to the FCC. Sure. The radio archives are full of Stern wannabees who pushed the envelope just a little too far. Guys like the Greaseman, Opie and Anthony, and others who I can't remember right now. I'm waiting until the FCC gets into the Satellite radio scene. I'm waiting until the FCC starts regulating the internet. It's coming. What you call a "right wing homophobe", others might call correcting blind acceptance of abhorrent behavior. You open that door, and it becomes only a matter of subjective degree as increasingly more decadent behavior is attempted to be justified by those who partake in it. Oh man..... I could stand on this soap box for hours, but I won't. Probably a wise move. There's way too much subjectivity. That's a matter of opinion..... ;-) Chuckle. That's clever. I'm glad you have a sense of humor. I'll just give you one glaring example of what's -really- abhorrent: A TV censorship system where war and murder are suitable for all viewers but Janet Jackson's nipples are strictly off limits. And if you need more examples just ask, cause I have a long list of things "abhorrent" ranging from the Bush administration to dandelions. What I find abhorrent is a decline in social morality, and a growing sense that tolerance should be universal and unlimited. I'll worry about declining morality when the government declares that murder is a God-given right, or grants constitutional protection from discrimination for sex-offenders, or permits human sacrifice in the exercise of a religious ceremony. The difference between you and I is only a matter of degree. When you make relative value judgements, this is the danger you run into. When you apply logic in the justification for allowing certain behaviors, the same logic can be applied to a successive list of increasingly abhorrent behaviors and practices. It comes down to what you are willing to tolerate. Once you start down that slippery slope, there's no turning back, without abandoning your logic and adopting some sort of "bigotry". Because -that- would be abhorrent. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of your business. The fact that someone hides behind the walls of their house is irrelevant. Murder is still murder, if it is done on a public street or in the bedroom. The same principle applies for other behaviors. You may not like knowing that homosexuality exists, but the fact is that it does. As does a number of mental illnesses. It still does not make it right. More than a hundred years ago it was "abhorrent" for a woman to expose her bare ankles in public. And judging by the increasingly immoral tendencies in the mainstream, it won't be long before women are parading around bare chested. Yet we are somehow supposed to embrace this as a sign of "progress" or "enlightenment." Is that immoral? That depends on what it was alleged to signify. Now take a little time to remember your history classes; it wasn't that long ago when cocaine and heroin were sold over the counter, children worked 16 hours/day in sweat shops for pennies, wife beating was not only tolerated but often encouraged, slavery was legal in half the country, and people were burned at the stake on the mere accusation of witchcraft (sounds a lot like some of our present-day "allies"). A mere half-century ago there were some people who didn't like the idea of treating black people as equals. They especially didn't want blacks to be able to vote. Some even used the argument that a black vote would diminish the value of their own vote, which was a weak rationalization of their racist attitudes. You are confusing racism with morality. They're not the same, even if some of the methods seem similar. You are no different than those racists, Dave. You don't like the idea that gays have just as much right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as yourself, and you use the excuse that gay marriage will somehow diminish -your- values. Homosexuality is a disorder of the brain. Not much different than schizophrenia, bipolar, or a host of other disorders. We should be looking for ways to treat and correct it, not for reasons to excuse it. A marriage is a symbolic ritual of bonding that occurs between biologically compatible couples. There can be no natural procreation in a homosexual union. So yes, those values ARE diminished. And ironically, you are right because your values are founded on generations of discrimination and bigotry. You forgot the most important one - biology. And in your ignorance, you think this country is in a state of moral decline because more and more people are recognizing the fact that homosexuality isn't evil. The prisons are full of people who didn't think they did anything wrong either...... But you are wrong, Dave No, I'm not. -- the state of public morality is actually improving -despite- your best efforts to prevent it. You consider tolerance of an increasing list of bad behaviors and habits as "improving"? For example, in the past 20 years the public perception surrounding AIDS has changed from one of gay-bashing to one of acceptance. It changed because it was learned that the disease was -not- the product of rampant homosexuality as it was first assumed. The number one group most responsible of the proliferation of AIDS is still, to this day, homosexual males having unprotected sex . http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1102.pdf If you lead a monogamous lifestyle and do not engage in dangerous recreational habits, your chances of contracting AIDS is minuscule. Science therefore vindicated the gay community. But it also exposed people to their own misperceptions about homosexuality. Apparently you weren't paying attention. I was paying attention. To the facts. There are many who believe that AIDS is the work of God, sent to punish those who engage in "unworthy" behavior. It's easy for those who have little faith in a supreme being to deny this possibility. But it's interesting in where the highest percentages of HIV cases are, and what activities place people at the most risk. Coincidence? So the problem you face is not one of moral decline. What you refuse to see is that the -church- is in a state of decline. After watching the hubub surrounding the Pope, I'd say that religion is alive and well. More and more people are getting educated and learning that the world works according to the laws of science and logic, -not- according to the fatalistic and vengeful edicts of some big, scary 'god'. You call that "education"? I call that institutionalized ignorance. Science and logic are not necessarily diametrically opposed to the concepts of intelligent design. In fact they work hand in hand. Religion is losing customers and you feel threatened. Actually no. The more the world plunges into civil unrest, school shootings, terrorism, general decay in decency and morality, the more religion is making a comeback. In the period following 9/11, there was a sharp increase in religious belief and interest in spirituality. Well, kick back and pop a brew, Dave, because this is America, A nation founded by Christian people based on Christian doctrine, even if the 1st amendment decries that there is no "official" state sponsored religion. and you have the right to practice your religion as you see fit -- just let the rest of us do the same. As long as what you do doesn't infringe on what I do or diminish the values that this country was originally founded on. But back to the topic, it's not up to you or any right-wing fanatic group to dictate how others should live their lives. Why not? A group of people sat together and drew up the framework of the laws that we live under today. Maybe you skipped history class that day, but the Constitution was constructed to -prevent- minority rule. But it was still drawn up and approved by a specific group of people. As for television, the number of viewers determines the ratings of a show, so let the ratings determine what companies sponser what shows. That's how a free-market economy works. Or do you support the position of right-wing conservative Christians who say (by their actions) that any participation of fags in America's free-market economy should be supressed? Sometimes politics is at odds with economic considerations. Sometimes you have to cut off your own nose to make a much larger point. That's called "principle" If you are a Christian, great, but don't push your religion on me. This has little to do with any specific religion. Sure it does. You talk of morality but fail to understand that different religions impose different moralities. Morality does not necessarily have to go hand in hand with any specific religion. According to Christianity, I'm immoral because I commit blasphemy. Yet there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids atheism. On the contrary, it -protects- my beliefs, right or wrong. It also seperates religion from the government so my rights cannot be compromised by lawmakers who think that atheism should be illegal just because -they- think it is immoral. Well, you make a gamble. Hopefully, when your body becomes worm food, you won't find that you made the wrong choice. You have your values, I have mine, and others have theirs. So, then who get's to pick the "right" choices? The "right" choice is any choice that isn't unconstitutional. The constitution is relative as well. It was framed by Christian people with their religious inspired morality contained within its wording. And if you can't accept the concept of "E Pluribus Unum" then leave. I accept the concepts of "one nation Under God", The phrase "under God" was added in the 50's for whatever reason. Considering that it was done at the height of the cold war and that the Soviet Union had outlawed religion, I think it was a good idea. It's STILL a good idea. Especially when you contrast our country with the anti-religious Soviet Union, and the communists. But guess what, Dave: the cold war is over. No, it's not. We just changed players. and "endowed by our creator". My "creator" is Mother Nature. Call it whatever you wish. But there is a creator. If you choose to reject science and logic, that's your business. Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of a creator or, more generally, the concept of intelligent design. Our whole ecosystem, the intricate specialization of the various functions of our bodies and other aspects of nature are far too complex to have occurred and evolved at random. There is simply not enough order in chaos for this to happen. If I'm wrong then you can rest assured that I'll pay for my indiscretions -- but that's -my- business, not your's. Yes, it is. But it's my business if you try to poison others by "immoral" thinking. And hence we have the classic "moral dilemma". Hogwash. I just gave you two recent examples of major corps bowing to pressure from these fanatics. Gay fanatics? That's who I was referring to. They don't represent enough buying power to make any difference. Religious fanatics, gay fanatics, save-the-whales fanatics..... it doesn't make any difference. The point is that a minority group can force a corporation to make a decision based on discrimination and intolerance. It happens. I don't believe that tolerance should be universal. The most vocal of these activists do not represent significant buying power. And, as you pointed out so accurately, it's all about money. They don't represent a -significant- part of the economy but they -can- put a dent in the profits, which is what I already said. So who would you rather **** off, a group of abhorrent activists, or mainstream Christians? Is there some reason you can't understand the simple concepts involved when a company evaluates cost, profit and risk? I understand fully. Hence my comment on who they'd rather **** off. **** off the small potatoes to keep the larger ones happy. After all, the larger ones have the most money. Corps make their decisions based on numbers, and if they think that dropping ads from a couple shows is going to be less expensive than a dent in profits from a small boycott then you can bet your bottom dollar that the ads will be yanked. Well sure. It is all about money. So far mainstream Christians still outnumber gay groups. Does that make it right? No, but it doesn't make it wrong either. Are Christians permitted to subjugate and subvert the lives of other Americans simply because they outnumber them? Well, there is the concept of majority rules. These "Christians" really need to start practicing what they preach. Or at least how to live and let live. Not when abhorrent behavior is cancerous to their way of life. They have a right to fight for what they believe in, just as much as those who would throw traditional morality to the wind in support of the latest hedonistic pop-culture fad. That's a very good point. Justice is for the rich because lawyers are greedy *******s. Exactly! And that only underscores the point that with enough money you can hire enough defensive legal power to beat almost any criminal or civil charge. ABSCAM alumnus Ozzie Meyers was once quoted as saying "If you have enough money in this country, you can do almost anything". O.J. is a free man today because of such practices. And many people are on death row because of the same practices. Unfortunately true. But neither case should be acceptable. Justice SHOULD be about finding the truth, not about the lawyer who puts on the best show for the jury. But again you fail to address the fact that many times it's cheaper to settle or take the hit than to fight the charge in court, and the decision to fight is usually one based on money. I agree. But in many cases the decision to fight also hinges on the chances of winning. If the truth is on your side, then you should fight. If your case is weak, then perhaps not. -My- contention is that the FCC uses this fact to it's advantage when it decides who to fine and how much to fine them. I'd be more inclined to believe your allegation of institutionalized discrimination, if there were specific examples that highlight this pattern. In the personal radio arena, the FCC often takes into consideration the ability of the defendant to pay the fine. In many cases, the fines were lowered if the defendant can prove hardship. Are you implying that the FCC only contemplates fining those who they feel cannot mount a successful legal challenge? Cannot or will not. I'm not sure I buy into this level of conspiratorial thought. Well, conspiracies do exist. Yes, but I'm concerned about the ones you choose to believe in. You should concern yourself with the conflict between facts and your "core beliefs". As should you. And if my conclusions are true, the FCC wouldn't call it a conspiracy. In this case "IF" is a mighty big word. One that is not interchangeable for fact. I never said it was fact, Dave. Or haven't you been paying attention? No but you present it as if it were. I'm merely putting the situation in its proper perspective. I never claimed the FCC was established illegally. My contention is that they are using procedures that are unconstitutional. I would be very interested in the hows and whys of this alleged unconstitutionality. Then feel free to read through the rrcb archives. Them's a mighty big group. Specifics please. I suspect a great deal of subjectivity in this interpretation. Many people who claim to adhere to the strict wording of the constitution, would find many of our laws and governmental agencies to be "unconstitutional". The whole abortion law, as a result of Roe V. Wade, is one such example, as it was established as a result of a judicial ruling rather than a legislative action. Once again you are confused, Dave. It was statutory law that initiated the Constitutional challenge. The statute was -overthrown- by the Supreme Court, not established. Exactly. But what right should a branch of government which is supposed to interpret and apply the law, have in making or overturning standing law? That is the job for the legislature. And case law is just as much 'law' as statutory law because of the system of 'checks and balances' -- to suggest that a law is something less because it is a "judicial ruling" is completely bogus. I call it "overstepping their bounds". No law that is made by the legislature should be struck down by a panel of judges without debate, which should include the legislature who passed the law in the first place. Like the Bible, and religion in general, it's surprising at how many different interpretations you can find from a single source of information. It doesn't affect you one bit if two homosexuals get married. Yes it does. It diminishes the sanctity of the institution of marriage. One that has existed for thousands of years. You can interpret it any way you want, but it's simply none of your business. But it is. Just like it's none of your business if your neighbor gets his dick pierced, Fine, just don't parade it in front of me or (more importantly) my kids. And excuse me while a laugh my ass off at his stupidity. or your Aunt Bertha gets orgasms riding a Hog. That's deviant. If that's how they get their kicks then more power to them. Live and let live. Some people get their kicks by having sex with small children. Should we allow them to just live and let live? If not, then why not? Then explain how this logic differs from any other justification for other immoral behavior. Then we're back to the slippery slope. As for abortion, I'll wait until the discovery process is finished. Killing an innocent life, with no means of defense, is murder. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Mon, 2 May 2005 13:19:33 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: I am not arguing that the FCC should do ANYTHING!!! Well, other than assist the people in using "THEIR" radio spectrum... the radio spectrum is NOT theirs to do anything with!!! Then neither is your car. I hope you won't mind if I "borrow" it. You don't mind a little mud do you? Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
|
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:53:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: While they may not specifically say it this way, the fact that you got a ticket, is evidence of guilt, and you have to try your best to prove that you're not guilty. The word of one cop is enough, in most cases, to render a "guilty" verdict, unless you're damn lucky and can somehow "prove" your innocence Um Dave, when the officer hands the book to you and says "sign here" he always says: " This is not an admission of guilt, but a promissory to appear in court", so how does your statement apply? It doesn't. If you didn't do anything wrong, you have the RIGHT to appear in court, present your evidence to the JUDGE and let him make the decision, not a bunch of people sitting around a table, drinking coffee, eating donuts and then saying....."um, this guy said SH*T, let's fine him..........$25,000.00, yeah, that's a good amount" You have a better chance of beating a ticket if your inocent than an FCC fine, at least you appear before a Judge and you can request a jury trial, try to do that with a FCC NAL. Why play word games? The end result is the same. The accuser has to prove his innocence, by discrediting the evidence against him. The cop is not required to demonstrate 6 different ways from Sunday how the accuser is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". He only has to show up and testify that the accuser ran such and such red light, and it's his word against the accuser's. So who does the court tend to believe? How is this a "presumption of innocence"? What word games? The officer presents his evidence, then you have your turn, do you think that just because he's a police officer he's always right? If you present the correct type of evidence, witness's, you will be found innocent. I'm waiting until the FCC gets into the Satellite radio scene. I'm waiting until the FCC starts regulating the internet. It's coming. That's a very sad statement Dave, if you can't regulate what you hear and watch, you have to have the governmet do it for you. A clear case.......... Lack of self control. Homosexuality is a disorder of the brain. Not much different than schizophrenia, bipolar, or a host of other disorders. We should be looking for ways to treat and correct it, not for reasons to excuse it. LOL!!!! Dr. Sigmund Hall is in the office..... Too funny A marriage is a symbolic ritual of bonding that occurs between biologically compatible couples. There can be no natural procreation in a homosexual union. So yes, those values ARE diminished. Symbolic Yes. I'm not sure what you mean by "biologically compatible" Do you mean, if your gay, you can't be a compatible couple? Don't get me wrong Dave, I agree with you on "Gay marriage", I think your words are wrong though. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Too much stuff to comment on here Dave, you have got way to much time on your hands, I for one have to get to work, see yaa................ Landshark -- Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you will help them become what they are capable of becoming. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com