|
On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:29:43 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:53:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: 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. In Florida, if one has a clean license (no tickets on record) and is issued a simple traffic ticket, such as for exceeding the speed limit (but less than 15 mph over the legal limit, as speeding more than 15 mph over the limit requires a mandatory court appearance) and challenges it in court, the ticket is practically always dismissed. 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. You are assuming the majority of tickets issued are not dismissed. I do not have statistics on this, but from my (again nameless) police friends, I am told that most times the tickets stand, as long as the cop appears, and the offense is not easily disputable. That's why, in Pa, they normally give you 5 - 10 MPH over the speed limit, so as to eliminate the dispute over accuracies. In many cases the cop does not appear, and you can consider that a "gimme". But there's no way to predict who will show and in which case. Dave "Sandbagger" |
The car, as is the radio spectrum, mine!!!
My car is NOT the DMV's, my radio spectrum is NOT the FCC's.... Regards, John "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... | 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" |
On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:50:49 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "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? In Pa, you sign to acknowledge receipt of the citation. You then have the choice to either plead guilty and remit the amount of the fine to the address included. Or, you can plead "not guilty" and take your chances fighting in court. But unless you have some means of actually proving your innocence beyond that of playing he said- he said with a cop, you pretty much have the cards stacked against you. Oh, and you will be assessed court costs in addition to your fine if found guilty. 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" Whether or not you did something wrong or not may be open to subjective interpretation. Most cops would not bother to write someone a ticket for not coming completely to a stop and waiting the required 3 seconds before proceeding at a stop sign. But the point between what's an acceptable stop and one that's not, is a subjective gray area, and not one that you will usually win. Most traffic law issues are not always black and white. Yes, if you actually feel that you were unfairly targeted, you might be tempted to fight. But if you are still guilty of violating the letter of the law, if not the intent, you might find it a tough battle. On the other hand, if you **** off a cop and he pulls you over and "invents" a few charges to stick you with, you will still have a hard time proving that you did not commit them unless, of course, the cop in question has a history of abusing his power in such a way. Is this fair? No. But is it a fact of life? Certainly. 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. You can fight an NAL as well. In most cases the FCC gives fair warning before handing out the NAL. If you heed the warning, in most cases that will be the end of it. I haven't read any accounts of people popped by the FCC who weren't guilty of the offense charged. In most cases, their "defense" consists of crying poor, or somehow trying to justify their actions. Some of the excuses given are quite laughable. 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? No, he's not always right, but he's more credible in the eyes of the court than Joe Average Citizen. Cops are viewed with a certain amount of public trust. If it comes down to a battle of testimony between you and the cop, the court will side with the cop in most cases. If you present the correct type of evidence, witness's, you will be found innocent. Tell me, just how great are your chances of having an impartial witness around when you need them, or having some other form of concrete exculpatory evidence? You are talking how things should be in theory. I'm talking about how they are in reality. In an ideal world, all innocent people would never be accused or wrongly convicted of a crime. The real world paints an entirely different picture. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just acknowledging that it happens. 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. It's an unfortunate truth that there are some people out there that can't exercise self control and, by their lack of respect for others, pollute the public venues with inappropriate behavior. Barring vigilante justice, government intervention is often the only sensible alternative. Ironically, I tend to be a "minimal governmental intrusion" advocate. But as more and more people adopt an "in your face" attitude with respect to their perceived rights, I start to understand the need for stricter controls. 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 You disagree? You obviously haven't read the studies on the subject. 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? You cannot procreate, which is the whole point of marriage and family. Don't get me wrong Dave, I agree with you on "Gay marriage", I think your words are wrong though. In what way? 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. I'm already here. I'm on lunch right now. My day is 2/3rds over. This small distraction is hardly a dent in my work day. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:31:34 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: 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" A valid comparison can not be reached when you present an intangible vs a tangible. The fact that you refuse to view radio .spectrum as "tangible" is not my problem. Nope, it certainly isn't. But the fact that you do not understand the definition of "tangible" certainly is your problem. Dave ?."Sandbagger" n3cvj |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:50:49 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "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? In Pa, you sign to acknowledge receipt of the citation. You then have the choice to either plead guilty and remit the amount of the fine to the address included. Or, you can plead "not guilty" and take your chances fighting in court. But unless you have some means of actually proving your innocence beyond that of playing he said- he said with a cop, you pretty much have the cards stacked against you. Oh, and you will be assessed court costs in addition to your fine if found guilty. Same here. Yes, if you don't do your homework and submit the evidence correctly, you are at the mercy of the court. Of course if your guilty, why would you be there? If not, do your homework, present a good case with evidence & witness's and you will be found innocent. 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" Whether or not you did something wrong or not may be open to subjective interpretation. Most cops would not bother to write someone a ticket for not coming completely to a stop and waiting the required 3 seconds before proceeding at a stop sign. Why not? if they didn't wait, they could get the ticket. You have "unnamed" cops that are friends, do they tell you that they only ticket people that they see, 100% do something wrong? If they say yes, they are probably lying. But the point between what's an acceptable stop and one that's not, is a subjective gray area, and not one that you will usually win. That's some of my point. If he really didn't see you not stop, he's guessing. If so, then you have your witness's, do your homework and present it accordingly. I was sighted once for that offence, there was no way he could have seen me stop, let alone not stop. I took my pictures, measurements and showed in court that there was no way that the officer could have seen me stop, let alone run the stop sign from the position he said he was in. I won, and I was only 18 years old then. Most traffic law issues are not always black and white. Yes, if you actually feel that you were unfairly targeted, you might be tempted to fight. But if you are still guilty of violating the letter of the law, if not the intent, you might find it a tough battle. Maybe, but if your speedo is off, you can go to court, show that it was off and also show that it was repaired, most of the time the judge will dismiss the case. On the other hand, if you **** off a cop and he pulls you over and "invents" a few charges to stick you with, you will still have a hard time proving that you did not commit them unless, of course, the cop in question has a history of abusing his power in such a way. Maybe again. But if you have someone with you, that type of stuff is less likely to happen (witness factor) Is this fair? No. But is it a fact of life? Certainly. 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. You can fight an NAL as well. In most cases the FCC gives fair warning before handing out the NAL. Warnings are not NAL, so there is nothing to fight. If you heed the warning, in most cases that will be the end of it. I haven't read any accounts of people popped by the FCC who weren't guilty of the offense charged. It doesn't matter Dave, you can't fight a NAL, you either pay it or have a lein on your property or wages garnished. In most cases, their "defense" consists of crying poor, or somehow trying to justify their actions. Some of the excuses given are quite laughable. Same as a real court. 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? No, he's not always right, but he's more credible in the eyes of the court than Joe Average Citizen. Why? He's a person just like anyone else. His credibility rides on what he presents and how he does it, just like you. Cops are viewed with a certain amount of public trust. If it comes down to a battle of testimony between you and the cop, the court will side with the cop in most cases. Again, if you did something wrong, why waste the time of the courts, but if you are innocent and present your case in a legit way, you will probably get off. If you present the correct type of evidence, witness's, you will be found innocent. Tell me, just how great are your chances of having an impartial witness around when you need them, or having some other form of concrete exculpatory evidence? I made a right hand turn onto another street, I proceeded into the right side of the lane partially into the bike lane (legal if with-in a certain distance of the intersection). Cop saw it and gave me a ticket for passing on the right. I showed with both video, pictures and measurements, after the officer said I passed on the right some 1000 to 1300' before the intersection. That being said I would have had to pass him on the right before the previous light (I had turned onto the road in front of him, so how did I pass him?) I was found innocent via US mail and the judge enclosed a note saying that I had come to the court very well prepared with my evidence in proper sequence. You are talking how things should be in theory. I'm talking about how they are in reality. In an ideal world, all innocent people would never be accused or wrongly convicted of a crime. The real world paints an entirely different picture. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just acknowledging that it happens. Sorry, in the real world I'll bet you more people that do the right thing while in court get off more than you think. 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. It's an unfortunate truth that there are some people out there that can't exercise self control and, by their lack of respect for others, pollute the public venues with inappropriate behavior. If you don't like Stern, change the channel, if you don't like Queer eye for the straight guy, don't watch it, but don't ask the government to stand in and say " this is bad, people don't want to watch this, take it off the air. You would have culture shock if you ever get over to Europe. Barring vigilante justice, government intervention is often the only sensible alternative. So when the public is tired of seeing televangelist all day and night, politicians are tired of it, it's ok to bar them from TV? Because you don't have the common sense to turn it off or change channels? That's messed up, you had better hope that the country never gets to that stage. Ironically, I tend to be a "minimal governmental intrusion" advocate. But as more and more people adopt an "in your face" attitude with respect to their perceived rights, I start to understand the need for stricter controls. 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 You disagree? You obviously haven't read the studies on the subject. Nor do I care too, it's not anything that I'm concerned about. 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? You cannot procreate, which is the whole point of marriage and family. Hummm, maybe, but it's not the only reason for marriage. Don't get me wrong Dave, I agree with you on "Gay marriage", I think your words are wrong though. In what way? I think they can have what ever type of saying they want, but marriage is and has always been between a man & a woman, not a man & man or woman & woman. 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. I'm already here. I'm on lunch right now. My day is 2/3rds over. This small distraction is hardly a dent in my work day. Well I have bigger things to do than this group, so time is more precious to me. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Landshark -- __ o /' ) /' ( , __/' ) .' `; o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ; _.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .' ( _. )). `-._ `\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'. `---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.; `-` ` |
On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:00:00 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip 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". That "degree of morality" is established by society, not you, and not any religious activist group. The overwhelming majority of people (99%) feel that murder, sex crimes, etc are 'immoral'. But there isn't much of a majority condemning homosexuality. -That's- how you make a "relative value judgment". snip 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. Now -there's- a quote for the Dave Hall hall-of-shame. snip If you lead a monogamous lifestyle and do not engage in dangerous recreational habits, your chances of contracting AIDS is minuscule. HIV doesn't care if you are gay or straight. And maybe you missed the boat on this one too, but a lot of people got the disease from blood transfusions. So if you are going to suggest that AIDS is a disease that is contracted only by evil people then you are even more ignorant than you have so far demonstrated. 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? I was wrong about you, Dave. I thought you were intelligent but a little misguided. Now I see that you are a certifiable holy-roller racist whacko. snip 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. Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the Constitutional Convention. This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom (as well as other important principles). After being forced by England to practice only one religion (the religion of the state), the new Americans wanted people to have the freedom to practice religion according to their belief, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bhuddism, Taoism, Monoanimism..... or even no religion at all. The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state. 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. Gay marriage doesn't change your legal rights and responsibilities. It doesn't change your tax filing status. It doesn't give your kids birth defects. It doesn't invalidate your will. It doesn't change your life insurance policy premiums, or any other bills you pay. It doesn't change the color of your house, the mileage of your car, or how fast the weeds grow in your garden. It doesn't affect you in any way except the way you feel. And -you- are responsible for the way you feel, not -anybody- else. There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates how a person should feel. If gay marriage weakens the value of your marriage, it does so only because you let it, and that's nobody's fault but your own. If your bigoted brain had any intelligence you would realize that gay marriage would -strengthen- the value of your marriage because it provides a contrast to your own definition of the union. But that's not the case. You just hate homosexuals. It's as simple as that, isn't it, Dave? snip ..... 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" A simple 'yes' would have sufficed. snip 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. You have obviously never read it. snip 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. I see you slept through history -and- science. 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". No, it's -not- your business if I try to "poison" others by stating that I'm an atheist. You have just as much right to declare that you are a Christian (or whatever warped permutation of religion you have adopted to validate your "core beliefs"). And no group of Christians, no matter how large, has the right to impose it's version of morality on me. This is 21st Century America, not the dark ages or the Spanish Inquisition. But it -is- your business to abide by the Constitution the United States, which clearly states that religion has no place in this government. If that makes you feel bad, tuff ****. Learn to live with it or get out. I would highly recommend the latter. snip 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. Rock and roll is here to stay, Dave. snip 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. Oh dear god, you really don't have any clue about how the government works, do you? Three branches of government? Checks and balances? Seperataion of powers? But why should I be suprised -- you haven't even read the Constitution. 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. When I realize that people like you vote, it comes as no suprise that Bush was re-elected..... he has great appeal with the ignorant. It's clear that you never learned the basics of your own government. Just like you never learned the basics of electronics. The problem is that you can't possibly make an informed decision about who to vote for if you don't even know the job description! Climb down off your morality horse and learn about your own country before you wage a holy war against other Americans. And yes, even homosexuals can be American citizens. Does that diminish the value of your citizenship? If it does then you know what you can do, don't you Dave? ----== 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 =---- |
JEEEEZZZZZZ ENOUGH OF THIS GARBAGE. Lets get back to CB'in and
Freebanding. QSL? insert roger beep and\or noise toy here |
On Tue, 3 May 2005 17:29:19 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: A valid comparison can not be reached when you present an intangible vs a tangible. The fact that you refuse to view radio .spectrum as "tangible" is not my problem. Nope, it certainly isn't. But the fact that you do not understand the definition of "tangible" certainly is your problem. You asked for it. Pay particular attention to definition #3: tan·gi·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tnj-bl) adj. 1 a. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin. b. Possible to touch. c. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence. 2. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan. 3. Law. That can be valued monetarily: tangible property. Is not the RF spectrum given a monetary value by virtue of the FCC auctioning it off to the highest commercial bidders? That makes it a tangible asset. No different than a piece of property. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:39:13 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: The car, as is the radio spectrum, mine!!! My car is NOT the DMV's, my radio spectrum is NOT the FCC's.... The FCC owns the rights to the radio spectrum in this country. They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum to people with a legitimate need. It's no different than government owned land. Your car is yours as is your radio gear. But the privilege to operate both is granted by the government, and can be revoked for the proper cause. Another way to look at it. You own your car, but not the roads you drive on. You may own your radio, but not the airwaves you broadcast on. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
He wants a petrolube sandwich...we know this to be true.
|
On Wed, 04 May 2005 04:39:44 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:50:49 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "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? In Pa, you sign to acknowledge receipt of the citation. You then have the choice to either plead guilty and remit the amount of the fine to the address included. Or, you can plead "not guilty" and take your chances fighting in court. But unless you have some means of actually proving your innocence beyond that of playing he said- he said with a cop, you pretty much have the cards stacked against you. Oh, and you will be assessed court costs in addition to your fine if found guilty. Same here. Yes, if you don't do your homework and submit the evidence correctly, you are at the mercy of the court. Of course if your guilty, why would you be there? If not, do your homework, present a good case with evidence & witness's and you will be found innocent. No argument. But finding those witnesses and the evidence is the normally the problem. Too often all you have is your own account of the altercation, and that is not enough to overturn the professional account of a trained police officer, unless you get real lucky. 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" Whether or not you did something wrong or not may be open to subjective interpretation. Most cops would not bother to write someone a ticket for not coming completely to a stop and waiting the required 3 seconds before proceeding at a stop sign. Why not? Because there is a difference between the letter of the law and the intent of the law. I know very few people who come to a complete stop and count to 3 before proceeding. Most of the cops I know will not cite someone if they make the effort to stop, even if the wheel may still be moving slightly. And that's the whole point. The point where a so-called "California stop" is tolerated is often up to the opinion of the cop. if they didn't wait, they could get the ticket. You have "unnamed" cops that are friends, do they tell you that they only ticket people that they see, 100% do something wrong? If they say yes, they are probably lying. I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here. Are you asking me if I know of cases where the cops I know write tickets for infractions which are illegitimate? If that's the case, than no, I don't know of any. Then again, if they did, I'm sure they wouldn't tell me that. Although one of my friends is retired now, so his risk exposure is more limited now. But the point between what's an acceptable stop and one that's not, is a subjective gray area, and not one that you will usually win. That's some of my point. If he really didn't see you not stop, he's guessing. Well, yea, I would think so. But if he didn't actually see you do it, then why chase you down and ticket you in the first place? And even if he did guess, it's still your word against his in court. How do you PROVE that you complied fully with the law? If so, then you have your witness's, do your homework and present it accordingly. What witnesses? You are driving alone in the car, and the only people who can testify to what happened are you and the cop. I was sighted once for that offence, there was no way he could have seen me stop, let alone not stop. I took my pictures, measurements and showed in court that there was no way that the officer could have seen me stop, let alone run the stop sign from the position he said he was in. I won, and I was only 18 years old then. Then the cop did a poor job of presenting his case, and you got off on a technicality. Your whole defense hinged on the cop's ability to see you based on their location. Something they are not required to tell you at the time they give the ticket. But congrats anyway. You managed to successfully prove your innocence. My whole point in the first place. Had you not been able to prove your innocence, the citation would have stood. Hence my original claim that you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence in these cases. I was also once cited for a stop sign violation. In my case, I was in an unfamiliar area, and the stop sign was not in an expected place and somewhat hidden and I blew right through it unconsciously. I drove quite a few blocks before I even noticed the cop behind me. I had no idea where he was when he "saw" me, and he didn't tell me. When he asked me if I knew I had run the stop sign, my response was "What stop sign?". He had me dead to rights and I paid the fine. But even if I had seen the stop sign and stopped at it, I would not have known where he was to mount the sort of defense that you did had he chosen to cite me for an arguably "poor" stop. In retrospect, when a cop stakes out a residential area like that, it's usually in response to neighborhood complaints. Evidently a lot of people blow through that particular stop sign. Which likely is a result of its poor placement. Something they should look into. Most traffic law issues are not always black and white. Yes, if you actually feel that you were unfairly targeted, you might be tempted to fight. But if you are still guilty of violating the letter of the law, if not the intent, you might find it a tough battle. Maybe, but if your speedo is off, you can go to court, show that it was off and also show that it was repaired, most of the time the judge will dismiss the case. Probably. Again, that's why in Pa, they usually give such a wide tolerance before citing people. It's a lot harder to argue accuracy issues when you're 15 MPH or more over. On the other hand, if you **** off a cop and he pulls you over and "invents" a few charges to stick you with, you will still have a hard time proving that you did not commit them unless, of course, the cop in question has a history of abusing his power in such a way. Maybe again. But if you have someone with you, that type of stuff is less likely to happen (witness factor) LESS likely. But remember the court usually takes the personal bias of a passenger into consideration. Is this fair? No. But is it a fact of life? Certainly. 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. You can fight an NAL as well. In most cases the FCC gives fair warning before handing out the NAL. Warnings are not NAL, so there is nothing to fight. Yes, but they should give you fair warning that your on the FCC's radar, and plan accordingly. If you heed the warning, in most cases that will be the end of it. I haven't read any accounts of people popped by the FCC who weren't guilty of the offense charged. It doesn't matter Dave, you can't fight a NAL, you either pay it or have a lein on your property or wages garnished. Not if you can prove that the fine is a financial burden. In many cases, the fine will be lowered. In most cases, their "defense" consists of crying poor, or somehow trying to justify their actions. Some of the excuses given are quite laughable. Same as a real court. Yes. 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? No, he's not always right, but he's more credible in the eyes of the court than Joe Average Citizen. Why? He's a person just like anyone else. His credibility rides on what he presents and how he does it, just like you. A cop is a professional law enforcement officer, trained in the law, and in observational skills. For that reason alone, you have to be better able to present your case. All things being equal, the cop is given more credibility by virtue of his job. Cops are viewed with a certain amount of public trust. If it comes down to a battle of testimony between you and the cop, the court will side with the cop in most cases. Again, if you did something wrong, why waste the time of the courts, Some people can't admit that they did something wrong, or feel that they were somehow "singled out" over everyone else. but if you are innocent and present your case in a legit way, you will probably get off. Yes, but the burden is on you to prove it so. Which is contrary to the idea of "Innocent until proven guilty". If you present the correct type of evidence, witness's, you will be found innocent. Tell me, just how great are your chances of having an impartial witness around when you need them, or having some other form of concrete exculpatory evidence? I made a right hand turn onto another street, I proceeded into the right side of the lane partially into the bike lane (legal if with-in a certain distance of the intersection). Cop saw it and gave me a ticket for passing on the right. Who did you pass? I showed with both video, pictures and measurements, after the officer said I passed on the right some 1000 to 1300' before the intersection. That being said I would have had to pass him on the right before the previous light (I had turned onto the road in front of him, so how did I pass him?) I was found innocent via US mail and the judge enclosed a note saying that I had come to the court very well prepared with my evidence in proper sequence. I guess you had to be there. I don't see how a video dramatization after the fact absolves you of what the cop claimed you did. You are talking how things should be in theory. I'm talking about how they are in reality. In an ideal world, all innocent people would never be accused or wrongly convicted of a crime. The real world paints an entirely different picture. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just acknowledging that it happens. Sorry, in the real world I'll bet you more people that do the right thing while in court get off more than you think. I don't know many people who would go to all the trouble that you did to "prove" your case. Most just appear and "plead" their case verbally. Again, that's why the speed law here has a high threshold, because the court historically will throw out speed infractions tickets which are within the realm of reasonable accuracy disputes. 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. It's an unfortunate truth that there are some people out there that can't exercise self control and, by their lack of respect for others, pollute the public venues with inappropriate behavior. If you don't like Stern, change the channel, if you don't like Queer eye for the straight guy, don't watch it, but don't ask the government to stand in and say " this is bad, people don't want to watch this, take it off the air. You would have culture shock if you ever get over to Europe. A perfect example of why I don't want us going down that path. The fundamental problem is one of lack of respect. Many people feel that their right to express themselves supersedes their responsibility to respect the rights and feelings of others. Too often those people place the burden of responsibility to other people to clean up after, or avoid their social infractions. The whole "if you don't like it, turn it off (or leave)" mentality. I find that mentality to be extremely selfish, and inconsiderate. Barring vigilante justice, government intervention is often the only sensible alternative. So when the public is tired of seeing televangelist all day and night, politicians are tired of it, it's ok to bar them from TV? If they violate a specific indecency law, I would say that they're fair game. Because you don't have the common sense to turn it off or change channels? Sometimes, it's too late. Case in point, the whole Janet Jackson escapade. People have an expectation for a certain level of programming and are unexpectedly "shocked" by something that is not within that expectation. At the very least, the government should impose strict guidelines for programmers. If you want "racy" programming, then there should be specific channels for it, and there needs to be all sorts of warnings associated with it that warn people ahead of time what they will be subjected to. So-called "family rated" channels would not be allowed to carry anything in the least bit sexually or violently explicit. Then at least people might have some choice as to what they can see and not see. With the advent of digital TV and the ability to cram 10 or more MPEG compressed services (at 256 QAM) into the same space as one analog TV channel, bandwidth is not a problem. Regulation does not mean an outright ban. That's messed up, you had better hope that the country never gets to that stage. I'd rather hope that the human race rediscovers the concepts of morality, and both personal and civic responsibility. Ironically, I tend to be a "minimal governmental intrusion" advocate. But as more and more people adopt an "in your face" attitude with respect to their perceived rights, I start to understand the need for stricter controls. 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 You disagree? You obviously haven't read the studies on the subject. Nor do I care too, it's not anything that I'm concerned about. Why not? I am interested in any aspect of society that has the potential to affect me. 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? You cannot procreate, which is the whole point of marriage and family. Hummm, maybe, but it's not the only reason for marriage. No, but that was the original intent. Don't get me wrong Dave, I agree with you on "Gay marriage", I think your words are wrong though. In what way? I think they can have what ever type of saying they want, but marriage is and has always been between a man & a woman, not a man & man or woman & woman. I agree with this, so how is this wrong? BTW, I support the idea of a "civil union" for gay people for the purpose of securing secular benefits (and liabilities) that society normally offers to married couples. I just don't want it called "marriage". I believe that if the gay community would back off from their belligerent insistence on "gay marriage" and concentrate instead on creating civil unions, they'd have far less opposition. 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. I'm already here. I'm on lunch right now. My day is 2/3rds over. This small distraction is hardly a dent in my work day. Well I have bigger things to do than this group, so time is more precious to me. My boss would probably agree with you. But my workload ebbs and flows. A week or so ago, I was very busy, and I couldn't spend much time here. Next week looks to be a busy one too. I play things by ear..... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On 3 May 2005 23:24:29 -0700, "A PROUD FREEBANDER"
wrote: JEEEEZZZZZZ ENOUGH OF THIS GARBAGE. Lets get back to CB'in and Freebanding. QSL? insert roger beep and\or noise toy here Yea really. We wouldn't want to give the impression that radio people have areas of interest which go beyond CB radio...... Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Tue, 03 May 2005 23:24:18 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:00:00 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip 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". That "degree of morality" is established by society, not you, and not any religious activist group. The overwhelming majority of people (99%) feel that murder, sex crimes, etc are 'immoral'. But there isn't much of a majority condemning homosexuality. -That's- how you make a "relative value judgment". Based on what statistics? snip If you lead a monogamous lifestyle and do not engage in dangerous recreational habits, your chances of contracting AIDS is minuscule. HIV doesn't care if you are gay or straight. No, but how you get it most definitely depends on how sexually promiscuous you are. And maybe you missed the boat on this one too, but a lot of people got the disease from blood transfusions. If you read the link I provided, you'd find that the percentage of those people are less than 2%. So if you are going to suggest that AIDS is a disease that is contracted only by evil people then you are even more ignorant than you have so far demonstrated. If you are suggesting that sexual promiscuity and gender orientation have no part in it, then you are more ignorant that you are accusing me of. If you want to drastically slow down the spread of AIDS, the answer is quite simple. Abstain from sex. 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? I was wrong about you, Dave. I thought you were intelligent but a little misguided. Now I see that you are a certifiable holy-roller racist whacko. I am far from a holy roller, but I also cannot deny both the timing and the groups of people who have had the most affect from this disease. I'm not one who believes in random coincidences, so I am forced to consider the possibility that this could be deliberate. It's called having an open mind. Something you have demonstrated that you do not have by discarding it and covering it by an ad-hominem attack at me. BTW, how is this "racist"? snip 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. Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the Constitutional Convention. Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office. This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom (as well as other important principles). After being forced by England to practice only one religion (the religion of the state), the new Americans wanted people to have the freedom to practice religion according to their belief, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bhuddism, Taoism, Monoanimism..... or even no religion at all. The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state. Not "officially", but our whole government is littered with Christian references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings. The swearing on the Bible, and others. Things that have been here for many years, yet liberals are now fighting to have removed. 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. Gay marriage doesn't change your legal rights and responsibilities. It doesn't change your tax filing status. It doesn't give your kids birth defects. It doesn't invalidate your will. It doesn't change your life insurance policy premiums, or any other bills you pay. Actually it may. If insurance is forced to extend benefits to same sex partners, the increased the pool of insured, which will mean that everyone's rates will ultimately increase to cover it. It doesn't change the color of your house, the mileage of your car, or how fast the weeds grow in your garden. It doesn't affect you in any way except the way you feel. It tarnishes the sanctity of marriage. If you are someone who does not believe strongly in anything, then nothing can affect you. Who was it that said that "those who will not stand for anything, stand for nothing"? And -you- are responsible for the way you feel, not -anybody- else. There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates how a person should feel. If gay marriage weakens the value of your marriage, it does so only because you let it, and that's nobody's fault but your own. It diminishes the value of the whole institution. It's not much different in principle than earning a college degree. If they change the requirements for a college degree to only needing 2 years of course study, then it diminishes the value of that degree for those who put in their 4 years. If your bigoted brain had any intelligence you would realize that gay marriage would -strengthen- the value of your marriage because it provides a contrast to your own definition of the union. How does diluting an institution strengthen it? But that's not the case. You just hate homosexuals. It's as simple as that, isn't it, Dave? It's easy for people like you to vilify and demonize any opposing views as hate. That's an overly simplistic justification and usually a sign of someone who's afraid to take on the topic and discuss it to the level that's needed. A common tactic employed by liberals. Are you SURE you're not a liberal Frank? I don't "hate" anyone Frank. But I do acknowledge that homosexuals are biologically and mentally anomalous. It's not "normal" behavior no matter how much anyone wishes to sugar coat it. I also resent efforts to "normalize" obvious abnormal behavior rather than trying harder to correct it. snip ..... 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" A simple 'yes' would have sufficed. But would have been incorrect. snip 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. You have obviously never read it. I have. Many times. Maybe you should. Here it is: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html 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. I see you slept through history -and- science. No, actually those were my strongest subjects. I had to explain to my 4th grade teacher how nuclear fission worked. I have also studied the intricacies of our planet and its ecosystem. It is far too complex to have evolved totally randomly. 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". No, it's -not- your business if I try to "poison" others by stating that I'm an atheist. You can state anything you want. But don't get mad if those who disagree with you, challenge you. You have just as much right to declare that you are a Christian (or whatever warped permutation of religion you have adopted to validate your "core beliefs"). And no group of Christians, no matter how large, has the right to impose it's version of morality on me. Nor do you have the right to denounce any display of religiously inspired morality. This is 21st Century America, not the dark ages or the Spanish Inquisition. But it -is- your business to abide by the Constitution the United States, which clearly states that religion has no place in this government. If that makes you feel bad, tuff ****. Learn to live with it or get out. I would highly recommend the latter. I just wish all those sore losers at the end of the 2004 election would make good on their threats to leave this country and join Canada. Then this country can return to more traditional values. 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. Rock and roll is here to stay, Dave. Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good, and that new ideas are always better than old ones right? March like the rest of the lemming right off the cliff........ snip 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. Oh dear god, you really don't have any clue about how the government works, do you? Three branches of government? Checks and balances? Seperataion of powers? But why should I be suprised -- you haven't even read the Constitution. I told you before. But you don't seem to know how government works. The legislative branch makes the laws. The executive branch enacts them. The judicial branch applies them. Those are your checks and balances. 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. When I realize that people like you vote, it comes as no suprise that Bush was re-elected..... he has great appeal with the ignorant. Then you should have voted for him. No, strike that. You're not ignorant. You're worse. You think you know things, but what you know is twisted. It's clear that you never learned the basics of your own government. Because I don't agree with your warped view of it? Just like you never learned the basics of electronics. The problem is that you can't possibly make an informed decision about who to vote for if you don't even know the job description! I'm not the one who threw away my vote on a non-candidate. One who is the most socialist leaning of any of them. Yet you claim to support the constitution. You are a person of contradictions Frank. No wonder you can't understand what I'm telling you. Climb down off your morality horse Morality is the foundation of any successful government. You have yet to learn that. Dave "Sandbagger" |
Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
Most cops would not bother to write someone a ticket for not coming completely to a stop and waiting the required 3 seconds before proceeding at a stop sign. They will bust your ass here in the high tourist area for that exact offense. There are way too many bicyclists and pedestrians around here and the cops vehemently enforce what is commonly known as the "California Stop" or the "Rolling Stop" through a stop sign. |
Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of a creator or, more generally, the concept of intelligent design. Science is based on logic. Nowhere does science support your position. 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. Now THAT is one hell of a subjective opinion. But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may mistake for "random". There is simply not enough order in chaos for this to happen. You are claiming this oxymoron (chaos in order) does not exist. I agree. Whiole Darwin's theory has yet to be proved because of a single missing link, it is the most widely accepted scholarly and scientific (IE: logic, logical) belief. |
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 3 May 2005 17:29:19 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: A valid comparison can not be reached when you present an intangible vs a tangible. The fact that you refuse to view radio .spectrum as "tangible" is not my problem. Nope, it certainly isn't. But the fact that you do not understand the definition of "tangible" certainly is your problem. You asked for it. Pay particular attention to definition #3: Why? Does it somehow discount #1 and #2? tan=B7gi=B7ble =A0 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tnj-bl) adj. 1 a. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0b. Possible to touch. =A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0c. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence. 2. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan. =A0=A03. Law. That can be valued monetarily: tangible property. LAW? Bull****....THE definitive source accepted worldwide by the AP is the AP Stylebook. Others may refer to the ONLY other acceptable source,,Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. Neither of these contain the word "law". In fact, I checked a few online definitions and none of those contain the word "law". Is not the RF spectrum given a monetary value by virtue of the FCC auctioning it off to .the highest commercial bidders? Monetary value is not the same as tangible. That makes it a tangible asset. No,,you may not touch it,,you may not fell it, as a requirement by virtue of the definition. No different than a piece of property. Very different, but you are apt to believe that the something "tangible" can be something one can not grasp or feel. You're wrong. The be-all definition and final word of this definition you refer is as quoted: - " Of an asset having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and (note the wording. It says 'AND", not "or") therefore being assigned a value in monetary terms". Something tangible, a tangible asset." - Again, in order for something to be tangible, it needs physical properties one can touch, discernible by material or substance. The sepctrum does not meet those parameters and you merely added the term "law" on your own to the definition. You are quite the card, David. Dishonest as hell, but quite the card. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
|
Dave Hall (N3CVJ) Jr. wrote:
(That "degree of morality" is established by society, not you, and not any religious activist group. The overwhelming majority of people (99%) feel that murder, sex crimes, etc are 'immoral'. But there isn't much of a majority condemning homosexuality. -That's- how you make a "relative value judgment".) Based on what statistics? No statistics..just votes making laws giving the queers equal rights. The fact that states are now permitting same sex unions is another example. Your current batch of thugs in Washington is also catering to the gays ever since there was found to be so many of them in the hiarchy of the current administration. |
On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:09:37 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip snip If you lead a monogamous lifestyle and do not engage in dangerous recreational habits, your chances of contracting AIDS is minuscule. HIV doesn't care if you are gay or straight. No, but how you get it most definitely depends on how sexually promiscuous you are. No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug. And maybe you missed the boat on this one too, but a lot of people got the disease from blood transfusions. If you read the link I provided, you'd find that the percentage of those people are less than 2%. I suppose those are acceptable losses, huh? snip Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the Constitutional Convention. Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office. You are -totally- off your rocker, Dave. This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom (as well as other important principles). After being forced by England to practice only one religion (the religion of the state), the new Americans wanted people to have the freedom to practice religion according to their belief, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bhuddism, Taoism, Monoanimism..... or even no religion at all. The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state. Not "officially", Or "unofficially". but our whole government is littered with Christian references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings. As well as religious symbols of other faiths. The swearing on the Bible, And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for an Oath of Affirmation. and others. Things that have been here for many years, yet liberals are now fighting to have removed. Better late than never. snip It doesn't change the color of your house, the mileage of your car, or how fast the weeds grow in your garden. It doesn't affect you in any way except the way you feel. It tarnishes the sanctity of marriage. If you are someone who does not believe strongly in anything, then nothing can affect you. Who was it that said that "those who will not stand for anything, stand for nothing"? Unlike you, I believe in the Constitution. And -you- are responsible for the way you feel, not -anybody- else. There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates how a person should feel. If gay marriage weakens the value of your marriage, it does so only because you let it, and that's nobody's fault but your own. It diminishes the value of the whole institution. It's not much different in principle than earning a college degree. If they change the requirements for a college degree to only needing 2 years of course study, then it diminishes the value of that degree for those who put in their 4 years. If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, and a large number of people get married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God") had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600 concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith. If your bigoted brain had any intelligence you would realize that gay marriage would -strengthen- the value of your marriage because it provides a contrast to your own definition of the union. How does diluting an institution strengthen it? Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are lowered then my degree becomes more valuable. Here's another analogy: If some of the auto makers start making cars of lower quality, what happens to the value of the vehicles made by other manufacturers? Duh. But that's not the case. You just hate homosexuals. It's as simple as that, isn't it, Dave? It's easy for people like you to vilify and demonize any opposing views as hate. That's an overly simplistic justification and usually a sign of someone who's afraid to take on the topic and discuss it to the level that's needed. A common tactic employed by liberals. Are you SURE you're not a liberal Frank? I don't "hate" anyone Frank. Yes you do. You hate homosexuals. You also hate blacks. It's written all over your posts despite your efforts to hide the fact. You can justify your hatred any way you want -- even to yourself. But the more you write about such subjects, the harder you try to skirt an open admission, and the easier it is to see the bigotry in your writings. It's that 'perception window' thing I suggested you read about. Or haven't you found that book yet? But I do acknowledge that homosexuals are biologically and mentally anomalous. It's not "normal" behavior no matter how much anyone wishes to sugar coat it. I also resent efforts to "normalize" obvious abnormal behavior rather than trying harder to correct it. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a person to be "normal". In fact, the world would be a pretty boring place if everyone fit within one standard deviation. But the Constitution -does- say that you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. So how does gay marriage infringe on your rights, Dave? snip I see you slept through history -and- science. No, actually those were my strongest subjects. I had to explain to my 4th grade teacher how nuclear fission worked. I have also studied the intricacies of our planet and its ecosystem. It is far too complex to have evolved totally randomly. That's an argument used by primitive civilations to explain things which they do not understand. If you want to be a part of an enlightened society, the first thing you need to learn is that complexity does not require divine providence. But if that concept is beyond your level of comprehension you can always take up astrology, voodoo, crystal ball gazing..... or even republican economics. snip You have just as much right to declare that you are a Christian (or whatever warped permutation of religion you have adopted to validate your "core beliefs"). And no group of Christians, no matter how large, has the right to impose it's version of morality on me. Nor do you have the right to denounce any display of religiously inspired morality. I have just as much right to denouce it as you do to display it. It's called "freedom of speech". But that freedom doesn't extend to the point that it conflicts with the constitutional precept that seperates church and state. This is 21st Century America, not the dark ages or the Spanish Inquisition. But it -is- your business to abide by the Constitution the United States, which clearly states that religion has no place in this government. If that makes you feel bad, tuff ****. Learn to live with it or get out. I would highly recommend the latter. I just wish all those sore losers at the end of the 2004 election would make good on their threats to leave this country and join Canada. Then this country can return to more traditional values. Yeah, it was a whole lot better when women didn't have the right to vote, the blacks that weren't slaves had their own schools and public facilities, chemical waste could be dumped anywhere, working 16/7 for just enough to eat..... those were the good ol' days, huh? 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. Rock and roll is here to stay, Dave. Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good, Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable. and that new ideas are always better than old ones right? March like the rest of the lemming right off the cliff........ History proves that those who don't accept the changes that come with time are destined to be left behind. That's why the Constitution is considered to be a "living" document -- it adapts to change. You, OTOH, can't. snip Oh dear god, you really don't have any clue about how the government works, do you? Three branches of government? Checks and balances? Seperataion of powers? But why should I be suprised -- you haven't even read the Constitution. I told you before. But you don't seem to know how government works. The legislative branch makes the laws. The executive branch enacts them. The judicial branch applies them. Those are your checks and balances. You have verified my suspicions nicely. Thank you. snip Just like you never learned the basics of electronics. The problem is that you can't possibly make an informed decision about who to vote for if you don't even know the job description! I'm not the one who threw away my vote on a non-candidate. The only people who waste their votes are the people who fall for any bull**** propoganda which proclaims that not voting for a democrat or republican is "wasting your vote". snip Climb down off your morality horse Morality is the foundation of any successful government. You have yet to learn that. "Morality" has been the -DOWNFALL- of more governments than you can imagine. When a government starts dictating morality is when the people usually seek a new government -- one way or another. And the best example of this in recent history is when the 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence. BTW, what's the name of that tech school you claim to have attended? ----== 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:
On 3 May 2005 23:24:29 -0700, "A PROUD FREEBANDER" wrote: JEEEEZZZZZZ ENOUGH OF THIS GARBAGE. Lets get back to CB'in and Freebanding. QSL? insert roger beep and\or noise toy here Yea really. We wouldn't want to give the impression that radio people have areas of interest which go beyond CB radio...... Especially in rec.radio.cb . |
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:38:04 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Nope, it certainly isn't. But the fact that you do not understand the definition of "tangible" certainly is your problem. You asked for it. Pay particular attention to definition #3: Why? Does it somehow discount #1 and #2? No, but it does apply specifically to this situation. tan·gi·ble * ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tnj-bl) adj. 1 a. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin. ********b. Possible to touch. ****c. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence. 2. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan. **3. Law. That can be valued monetarily: tangible property. LAW? Bull****....THE definitive source accepted worldwide by the AP is the AP Stylebook. Others may refer to the ONLY other acceptable source,,Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. Neither of these contain the word "law". In fact, I checked a few online definitions and none of those contain the word "law". Typical of you. When you are shown the error of your ways, your first defense is to attack the sources. When you claim that I am wrong on a particular usage of a word, and I provide the definition which supports my usage, you attack my dictionary. When you claimed that the last sunspot cycle was the strongest, and I provided, not one, but several web sites which claimed the opposite, you then claimed that those sources were all wrong and the only definitive source was a place in Belgium, which (not so) coincidentally has no web site to either confirm or deny your claim. When you made a claim that littering was a felony in Florida, and I provided a link to the Florida statute which showed that littering is a simple summary offense, you made some obscure claim about "greenways", presumably as allusion to a special environmental situation where an infraction would be considered a felony. But that's not simple littering. You are doing it again, with your attempt to weasel out of yet another of your erroneous claims. My source, and you can read it yourself, is easy: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tangible Is not the RF spectrum given a monetary value by virtue of the FCC auctioning it off to .the highest commercial bidders? Monetary value is not the same as tangible. It certainly can be construed as such. The FCC seems to think so. That makes it a tangible asset. No,,you may not touch it,,you may not fell it, as a requirement by virtue of the definition. Being able to physically touch something is only ONE aspect of the definition of tangible. It is not the ONLY one. No different than a piece of property. Very different, but you are apt to believe that the something "tangible" can be something one can not grasp or feel. No, that's only part of it. Tangible is also applicable to something that can be realized and treated as fact. It does not have to have physical properties. You're wrong. The be-all definition and final word of this definition you refer is as quoted: - " Of an asset having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and (note the wording. It says 'AND", not "or") therefore being assigned a value in monetary terms". Something tangible, a tangible asset." Again, that's only ONE aspect of it. - Again, in order for something to be tangible, it needs physical properties one can touch, discernible by material or substance. No, it doesn't. The sepctrum does not meet those parameters and you merely added the term "law" on your own to the definition. Boy are you in for a plate of crow. Go to the site that I provided, and see for your self. Apology accepted. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:43:08 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:39:13 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: The car, as is the radio spectrum, mine!!! My car is NOT the DMV's, my radio spectrum is NOT the FCC's.... The FCC owns the rights to the radio spectrum in this country. That is ludicrous. They do not. They merely are charged with administrating such. The spectrum does not stop at the borders. No, but while inside the borders, you will pay (Sometimes dearly) the FCC for the right to play on the airwaves. Ask any cell phone company owner/administrator. They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum to people with a legitimate need. It's no different than government owned land. Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were already taught. Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways that are similar are what I am talking about. It's a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in the position to claim "ownership" of that spectrum, how could they auction it off? Your car is yours as is your radio gear. But the privilege to operate both is granted by the government, and can be revoked for the proper cause. Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so. Right! On you own land. But venture out on the public street, and they have all the authority. Same goes for radio. If you can somehow prevent your signal from escaping the borders of your property (Which is covered by FCC Part 15), you could do what you want. Once those signals escape into the public venue, they are under the control of the federal government. Another way to look at it, You own your car, but not the roads you drive on. Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars. And administered by the government. You may own your radio, but not the airwaves you broadcast on. Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe. For all practical purposes, yes they do in this country. You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond the confines of your own property. You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the government in the proxy of the FCC. As a condition of that privilege comes your responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in various FCC parts depending on which service you are using. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:11:27 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote: Most cops would not bother to write someone a ticket for not coming completely to a stop and waiting the required 3 seconds before proceeding at a stop sign. They will bust your ass here in the high tourist area for that exact offense. There are way too many bicyclists and pedestrians around here and the cops vehemently enforce what is commonly known as the "California Stop" or the "Rolling Stop" through a stop sign. No argument (and I'll keep that in mind for the next time I visit there). I'm sure it is very much "area dependant". It is also at the discretion of the cop. The letter of the law gives them the authority to be as strict as they want in applying the law. But just like speeding, there are enough blatant violators out there that they don't have to nit pick with those borderline cases. Cops don't want to risk citing someone like Landshark who actually is savvy enough to win his case. At least not in my area. But I live in a semi-rural area, where there is more likely to be horse drawn wagons than hordes of pedestrians. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:50:33 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Dave Hall (N3CVJ) Jr. wrote: (That "degree of morality" is established by society, not you, and not any religious activist group. The overwhelming majority of people (99%) feel that murder, sex crimes, etc are 'immoral'. But there isn't much of a majority condemning homosexuality. -That's- how you make a "relative value judgment".) Based on what statistics? No statistics..just votes making laws giving the queers equal rights. What votes? When have we voted on anything remotely resembling such? Most "gay friendly" laws have come as a result of judicial rulings as a result of a circuit court's interpretation. A duty which is beyond the scope of their responsibilities. It's up to the legislature to make such laws. The fact that states are now permitting same sex unions is another example. A few states have enacted such legislation. Several other states have definitively banned them. And some of those states have done so by popular vote, and have won by a significant majority. Your current batch of thugs in Washington is also catering to the gays ever since there was found to be so many of them in the hiarchy of the current administration. Catering? In what way? Dave http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 04 May 2005 16:44:59 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:09:37 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip snip If you lead a monogamous lifestyle and do not engage in dangerous recreational habits, your chances of contracting AIDS is minuscule. HIV doesn't care if you are gay or straight. No, but how you get it most definitely depends on how sexually promiscuous you are. No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug. And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely. And maybe you missed the boat on this one too, but a lot of people got the disease from blood transfusions. If you read the link I provided, you'd find that the percentage of those people are less than 2%. I suppose those are acceptable losses, huh? Whether or not they are "acceptable" is irrelevant to this discussion. snip Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the Constitutional Convention. Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office. You are -totally- off your rocker, Dave. Am I? I guess you haven't been following the struggle for the appointment of judicial nominees. It is quite obvious that the ones who the dems oppose the most are people with a strong religious faith. Some light reading for you to come up to speed on this issues. http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?cat=3 http://quante.blogspot.com/2005/04/y...-morality.html http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...l_politics.php This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom (as well as other important principles). After being forced by England to practice only one religion (the religion of the state), the new Americans wanted people to have the freedom to practice religion according to their belief, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bhuddism, Taoism, Monoanimism..... or even no religion at all. The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state. Not "officially", Or "unofficially". The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree. but our whole government is littered with Christian references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings. As well as religious symbols of other faiths. Such as? The swearing on the Bible, And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for an Oath of Affirmation. What passage have you quoted? And how does that diminish the fact that swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning? and others. Things that have been here for many years, yet liberals are now fighting to have removed. Better late than never. Says you. I look at it as heading down the wrong path. Sort of like the de-evolution of CB radio over the last 35 years. snip It doesn't change the color of your house, the mileage of your car, or how fast the weeds grow in your garden. It doesn't affect you in any way except the way you feel. It tarnishes the sanctity of marriage. If you are someone who does not believe strongly in anything, then nothing can affect you. Who was it that said that "those who will not stand for anything, stand for nothing"? Unlike you, I believe in the Constitution. No, you don't. Like other leftists, you wear the constitution like a badge of honor when it suits you, but conveniently ignore the parts that do not further your agenda. And -you- are responsible for the way you feel, not -anybody- else. There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates how a person should feel. If gay marriage weakens the value of your marriage, it does so only because you let it, and that's nobody's fault but your own. It diminishes the value of the whole institution. It's not much different in principle than earning a college degree. If they change the requirements for a college degree to only needing 2 years of course study, then it diminishes the value of that degree for those who put in their 4 years. If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, Not true. You are not keeping current. http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls and a large number of people get married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God") had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600 concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith. Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors. A traditional monogamous marriage has been the norm for over 1000 years. At no time in our history was a same sex union ever been justified. The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does not mean that a gay marriage should be now. Your comparison of such is an example of a weak analogy logical fallacy. If your bigoted brain had any intelligence you would realize that gay marriage would -strengthen- the value of your marriage because it provides a contrast to your own definition of the union. How does diluting an institution strengthen it? Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are lowered then my degree becomes more valuable. Only to you. After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has diminished in value. Here's another analogy: If some of the auto makers start making cars of lower quality, what happens to the value of the vehicles made by other manufacturers? Duh. That's not a good analogy in this situation. For this analogy to be applicable, you would have to offer 2 different "marriage systems". One allowing gays, and one not. Then a relative value comparison between two distinct entities can accurately be assessed. But that's not the case. You just hate homosexuals. It's as simple as that, isn't it, Dave? It's easy for people like you to vilify and demonize any opposing views as hate. That's an overly simplistic justification and usually a sign of someone who's afraid to take on the topic and discuss it to the level that's needed. A common tactic employed by liberals. Are you SURE you're not a liberal Frank? I don't "hate" anyone Frank. Yes you do. You hate homosexuals. You also hate blacks. What? Now who's playing crystal ball Frank? Or are you simply projecting? It's written all over your posts despite your efforts to hide the fact. You can justify your hatred any way you want -- even to yourself. But the more you write about such subjects, the harder you try to skirt an open admission, and the easier it is to see the bigotry in your writings. Where have I ever made any statement about blacks in a negative way? You are yet again adopting liberal "debate" topics by demonizing the opposition by referring to them with words that end in -ist. The tactic of course is to silence opposition, rather than encourage open debate of the issues. By branding the opposition with such a label as "racist" you attempt to discredit any perspective that they may have by virtue of a perceived badge of unworthiness. There are problems within many of the ethnic, racial and gender-based communities. Calling attention to these issues does not make one (Insert word here) -ist. I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection, I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy. But I did notice. It's that 'perception window' thing I suggested you read about. Or haven't you found that book yet? But I do acknowledge that homosexuals are biologically and mentally anomalous. It's not "normal" behavior no matter how much anyone wishes to sugar coat it. I also resent efforts to "normalize" obvious abnormal behavior rather than trying harder to correct it. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a person to be "normal". The constitution has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. That is a bond formed before God. In fact, the world would be a pretty boring place if everyone fit within one standard deviation. But a lot easier to live in. But the Constitution -does- say that you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. So how does gay marriage infringe on your rights, Dave? No, it doesn't say that. That is your openly liberal interpretation of it. snip I see you slept through history -and- science. No, actually those were my strongest subjects. I had to explain to my 4th grade teacher how nuclear fission worked. I have also studied the intricacies of our planet and its ecosystem. It is far too complex to have evolved totally randomly. That's an argument used by primitive civilations to explain things which they do not understand. No, magic is usually used to explain that. If you want to be a part of an enlightened society, the first thing you need to learn is that complexity does not require divine providence. But the synergistic and symbiotic nature of our complex ecosystem is such that suggestions that it all evolved randomly is a ludicrous position to take. Order does not come from chaos without help. This is not an endorsement for any particular religion. Just an observation that the probability is high, that there has been an intelligent hand guiding the development of life on this planet. What facts can you point to that discounts the likelihood of an intelligent design? You have just as much right to declare that you are a Christian (or whatever warped permutation of religion you have adopted to validate your "core beliefs"). And no group of Christians, no matter how large, has the right to impose it's version of morality on me. Nor do you have the right to denounce any display of religiously inspired morality. I have just as much right to denouce it as you do to display it. It's called "freedom of speech". And it works both ways, much to the consternation of liberals all around. But that freedom doesn't extend to the point that it conflicts with the constitutional precept that seperates church and state. There is no place in the constitution where it calls for "separation of church and state". What we have is the establishment clause, which only states that the government shall not establish any religion as a "state" religion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it say that matters of state shall not have religious inspiration or influence. You haven't truly read it have you? This is 21st Century America, not the dark ages or the Spanish Inquisition. But it -is- your business to abide by the Constitution the United States, which clearly states that religion has no place in this government. If that makes you feel bad, tuff ****. Learn to live with it or get out. I would highly recommend the latter. I just wish all those sore losers at the end of the 2004 election would make good on their threats to leave this country and join Canada. Then this country can return to more traditional values. Yeah, it was a whole lot better when women didn't have the right to vote, the blacks that weren't slaves had their own schools and public facilities, chemical waste could be dumped anywhere, working 16/7 for just enough to eat..... those were the good ol' days, huh? Another typical liberal tactic. The use of extreme strawman comparisons in order to polarize and vilify the opposing position. These strawman examples bare a sight resemblance or relationship to the main topic, but are a weaker argument and very easy to knock down and discredit, (And by the false analogy fallacy, associate to the main topic) thereby avoiding discussing the main points of the debate. Rock and roll is here to stay, Dave. Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good, Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable. Even if it's bad? Is it not our right to oppose bad changes? Is it civically responsible to allow bad things to happen because "change is inevitable"? That smacks of a cop out to me. and that new ideas are always better than old ones right? March like the rest of the lemmings right off the cliff........ History proves that those who don't accept the changes that come with time are destined to be left behind. That's why the Catholic Church is still here. It's survived some pretty radical social changes over the years. That's why the Constitution is considered to be a "living" document -- it adapts to change. When? If you are a true constitutionalist, as you have claimed, then how can you, on one hand, claim to uphold the values and insight of the framers, and on the other hand, claim that the constitution should "adapt to the changing times". Either the constitution is a document of incredible insight and wisdom, that remains timeless, or it is a "living document" which can change its meaning at any time, including changes to prohibit such things as gay marriage. So which is it? Another in a series of contradictions in your logic Frank. You, OTOH, can't. Eu Contraire. I see the big picture all too clearly. I am just amused at guys like you who spin your wheels defending little pieces of it. You are too engrossed in the "nuts and bolts" aspects to be able to transcend above that. snip Just like you never learned the basics of electronics. The problem is that you can't possibly make an informed decision about who to vote for if you don't even know the job description! I'm not the one who threw away my vote on a non-candidate. The only people who waste their votes are the people who fall for any bull**** propoganda which proclaims that not voting for a democrat or republican is "wasting your vote". Yet you voted for a what amounts to socialist. What does that say about your principles, and support of democracy? snip Climb down off your morality horse Morality is the foundation of any successful government. You have yet to learn that. "Morality" has been the -DOWNFALL- of more governments than you can imagine. Really? Name some. When a government starts dictating morality is when the people usually seek a new government -- one way or another. And the best example of this in recent history is when the 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence. The United States came to be when they adopted their own interpretation of morality. But the government of Great Britain did not cease to exist as a result of it. There's a difference between intrinsic morality, and a desperate attempt to reign in an out of control population by legislating it. Once you get to that level, your done. We are gradually heading that way. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:20:49 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote: Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of a creator or, more generally, the concept of intelligent design. Science is based on logic. Nowhere does science support your position. Well, one of two possibilities exist. Either the earth cooled, formed water, created primordial amino acids which somehow morphed into single celled life, which then somehow determined the need to further specialize and diversify, and all species evolved from there. Somehow they knew that we'd need plants to make oxygen, for the animals that need it. Some species would become food for others. All of this raises many questions, the biggest of which is what force drove these single celled organisms to improve and specialize themselves? What drives evolution? Can accidental random mutation answer these questions satisfactorily. The other possibility is that our existence was carefully guided by an intelligent force. Applying Occam's razor, which scenario is easier to believe? 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. Now THAT is one hell of a subjective opinion. Yes, but it based on probability. But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may mistake for "random". But what drives evolution? If random mutations are the basis for evolution, then what prevents "bad mutations" or several different mutations from leading us down even more diverse paths? Natural selection only answers some of those questions. There is simply not enough order in chaos for this to happen. You are claiming this oxymoron (chaos in order) does not exist. I agree. Whiole Darwin's theory has yet to be proved because of a single missing link, it is the most widely accepted scholarly and scientific (IE: logic, logical) belief. There is much scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. I am not trying to discount it at all. Quite the opposite, I totally endorse the concept of evolution. The difference is that I believe that evolution was "helped" along by an outside intelligence. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:32:11 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug. And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely. Unless your partner is infected. snip Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the Constitutional Convention. Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office. You are -totally- off your rocker, Dave. Am I? I guess you haven't been following the struggle for the appointment of judicial nominees. It is quite obvious that the ones who the dems oppose the most are people with a strong religious faith. Some light reading for you to come up to speed on this issues. http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?cat=3 http://quante.blogspot.com/2005/04/y...-morality.html http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...l_politics.php Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens, maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration. snip The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state. Not "officially", Or "unofficially". The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree. Despite the fact that this majority of Christian citizens is not a majority of American citizens, seperation of church and state is not subject to a majority vote. I think this page says it best: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues but our whole government is littered with Christian references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings. As well as religious symbols of other faiths. Such as? Go search the net for a picture of the wall behind the Supreme Court bench. The swearing on the Bible, And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for an Oath of Affirmation. What passage have you quoted? Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution? And how does that diminish the fact that swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning? Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation. The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly what you claim. It was added because, at the time, some states had oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test" that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests, and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious beliefs. And once again, the clause was added by unanimous consent. snip Unlike you, I believe in the Constitution. No, you don't. Like other leftists, you wear the constitution like a badge of honor when it suits you, but conveniently ignore the parts that do not further your agenda. What parts do I ignore? Let me clue you in here, Dave: Many years ago I took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". I took that oath seriously. In fact, I took it so seriously that I took the time to learn more about what I swore to defend with my life. Maybe if you had taken that oath yourself you might have done the same. If you had, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. And although I was discharged 20 years ago, I still hold myself to that oath. Meaning that I will still defend it with my life if it comes under attack -- even if that attack comes from a large group of people claiming to be Christians. snip If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, Not true. You are not keeping current. http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the rate of marriage: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf and a large number of people get married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God") had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600 concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith. Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors. It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave. If the foundation of your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that would affect the value of marriage. And after such a comparison, gay marriage is -barely- significant, if at all. Yet you are whining about it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant factors. The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals. snip The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does not mean that a gay marriage should be now. I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical. snip Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are lowered then my degree becomes more valuable. Only to you. Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of the gate -- than someone with a lesser education. After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has diminished in value. Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way. But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'. Here's another analogy: If some of the auto makers start making cars of lower quality, what happens to the value of the vehicles made by other manufacturers? Duh. That's not a good analogy in this situation. For this analogy to be applicable, you would have to offer 2 different "marriage systems". One allowing gays, and one not. Then a relative value comparison between two distinct entities can accurately be assessed. I'm not going to make justifications for your bigotry, Dave. How you feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own marriage. snip I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection, I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy. But I did notice. I snipped a lot of stuff. Unlike you, I have to work for a living, and I simply don't have the time to play your game. So if you want to start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other crap you use to water down the topics. snip Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good, Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable. Even if it's bad? Moron. ----== 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, 05 May 2005 09:44:26 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:20:49 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote: Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of a creator or, more generally, the concept of intelligent design. Science is based on logic. Nowhere does science support your position. Well, one of two possibilities exist. Either the earth cooled, formed water, created primordial amino acids which somehow morphed into single celled life, which then somehow determined the need to further specialize and diversify, and all species evolved from there. Somehow they knew that we'd need plants to make oxygen, for the animals that need it. Some species would become food for others. All of this raises many questions, the biggest of which is what force drove these single celled organisms to improve and specialize themselves? What drives evolution? Can accidental random mutation answer these questions satisfactorily. That's about the most ignorant pseudo-scientific argument I have ever heard in favor of creationsim. If you are going to play biochemist at least show a little knowledge of the subject. You could at least address the fact that an imbalance in a complex equilibrium will result in a more complex equilibrium. Or that an ocean full of primordial soup doesn't just sit there and stew in a state of homeostatis -- it's under a constant barrage from a large number of ionizing radiations that can change it's chemistry. After a couple billion years it's hardly inconceivable that symbiotic relationships not only could exist on a planetary scale, but that a threshold of self-sustaining complexity could occur. In fact, it's far more plausible than concluding that everything was willed into existence by some super-ghost. The other possibility is that our existence was carefully guided by an intelligent force. Applying Occam's razor, which scenario is easier to believe? See above. snip But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may mistake for "random". But what drives evolution? If random mutations are the basis for evolution, then what prevents "bad mutations" or several different mutations from leading us down even more diverse paths? A little concept called "survival of the fittest". Natural selection only answers some of those questions. Only if you slept through the class like you did during American History and Social Studies. There is simply not enough order in chaos for this to happen. You are claiming this oxymoron (chaos in order) does not exist. I agree. Whiole Darwin's theory has yet to be proved because of a single missing link, it is the most widely accepted scholarly and scientific (IE: logic, logical) belief. There is much scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. I am not trying to discount it at all. Quite the opposite, I totally endorse the concept of evolution. The difference is that I believe that evolution was "helped" along by an outside intelligence. Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations? ----== 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, 05 May 2005 09:44:26 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote: On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:20:49 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote: Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of a creator or, more generally, the concept of intelligent design. Science is based on logic. Nowhere does science support your position. Well, one of two possibilities exist. Either the earth cooled, formed water, created primordial amino acids which somehow morphed into single celled life, which then somehow determined the need to further specialize and diversify, and all species evolved from there. Somehow they knew that we'd need plants to make oxygen, for the animals that need it. Some species would become food for others. All of this raises many questions, the biggest of which is what force drove these single celled organisms to improve and specialize themselves? What drives evolution? Can accidental random mutation answer these questions satisfactorily. That's about the most ignorant pseudo-scientific argument I have ever heard in favor of creationsim. If you are going to play biochemist at least show a little knowledge of the subject. You could at least address the fact that an imbalance in a complex equilibrium will result in a more complex equilibrium. Or that an ocean full of primordial soup doesn't just sit there and stew in a state of homeostatis -- it's under a constant barrage from a large number of ionizing radiations that can change it's chemistry. After a couple billion years it's hardly inconceivable that symbiotic relationships not only could exist on a planetary scale, but that a threshold of self-sustaining complexity could occur. In fact, it's far more plausible than concluding that everything was willed into existence by some super-ghost. The other possibility is that our existence was carefully guided by an intelligent force. Applying Occam's razor, which scenario is easier to believe? See above. snip But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may mistake for "random". But what drives evolution? If random mutations are the basis for evolution, then what prevents "bad mutations" or several different mutations from leading us down even more diverse paths? A little concept called "survival of the fittest". Natural selection only answers some of those questions. Only if you slept through the class like you did during American History and Social Studies. There is simply not enough order in chaos for this to happen. You are claiming this oxymoron (chaos in order) does not exist. I agree. Whiole Darwin's theory has yet to be proved because of a single missing link, it is the most widely accepted scholarly and scientific (IE: logic, logical) belief. There is much scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. I am not trying to discount it at all. Quite the opposite, I totally endorse the concept of evolution. The difference is that I believe that evolution was "helped" along by an outside intelligence. Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations? ----== 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 Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
(I see you slept through history -and- science.) No, actually those were my strongest subjects. I had to explain to my 4th grade teacher how nuclear fission worked. Oh brother! I have also studied the intricacies of our planet and its ecosystem. Self taught based on nothing more than personal thought you mistakenly refer as empirical observation isn't a valid method. It is far too complex to have evolved totally randomly. (That's an argument used by primitive civilations to explain things which they do not understand. If you want to be a part of an enlightened society, the first thing you need to learn is that complexity does not require divine providence. But if that concept is beyond your level of comprehension you can always take up astrology, voodoo, crystal ball gazing..... or even republican economics.) The ancients sacrificed each other to the "Gods" of the sky when they were angry (thunder, heavy storms)...same goes for the Gods of the sea, the four winds, etc. St. Elmo's Fire was attributed to the Gods by the old salts and still is in superstitious circles of the old time fishermen... |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:43:08 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:39:13 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: (The car, as is the radio spectrum, mine!!! My car is NOT the DMV's, my radio spectrum is NOT the FCC's.... ) The FCC owns the rights to the radio spectrum in this country. That is ludicrous. They do not. They merely are charged with administrating such. The spectrum does not stop at the borders. .No, but while inside the borders, you will pay (Sometimes dearly) the FCC for the right to play on the airwaves. So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few paltry bucks.. Ask any cell phone company owner/administrator. Your selection of cell phone admins does not discount the countless freebanders, cbers or hammies who play on it for free or on the extreme cheap. They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum to people with a legitimate need. It's no different than government owned land. Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were already taught. Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways that are similar are what I am talking about. It's a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in the position to claim "ownership" of that spectrum, how could they auction it off? By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place. They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged with the administering of such. Your car is yours as is your radio gear. But the privilege to operate both is granted by the government, and can be revoked for the proper cause. Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so. Right! On you own land. But venture out on .the public street, and they have all the authority. Same goes for radio. If you can somehow prevent your signal from escaping the borders of your property (Which is covered by FCC Part 15), you could do what you want. Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law? Once those signals escape into the public venue, they are under the control of the federal government. How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public broadcast? Another way to look at it, You own your car, but not the roads you drive on. Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars. And administered by the government. You may own your radio, but not the airwaves you broadcast on. Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe. For all practical purposes, yes they do in this country. You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond the confines of your own property. That is what the cb does. You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the government in the proxy of the FCC. This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a privilege? I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your ticket, but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American citizen is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by ownership of one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege". As a condition of that privilege comes your responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in various FCC parts depending on which service you are using. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right now and have said so on many occasion. They rightly and deservedly go after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby. It is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:11:27 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote: Most cops would not bother to write someone a ticket for not coming completely to a stop and waiting the required 3 seconds before proceeding at a stop sign. They will bust your ass here in the high tourist area for that exact offense. There are way too many bicyclists and pedestrians around here and the cops vehemently enforce what is commonly known as the "California Stop" or the "Rolling Stop" through a stop sign. No argument (and I'll keep that in mind for the next time I visit there). I'm sure it is very much "area dependant". It is also at the discretion of the cop. Not always. For example, in Ybor City, an area of Tampa, There are cameras on the poles that record every move. This led to remote-sent traffic tickets, such as are found at many toll booths around the country. Run the toll, get a ticket in the mail. The letter of the law gives them the authority to be as strict as they want in applying the law. But just like speeding, there are enough blatant violators out there that they don't have to nit pick with those borderline cases. Cops don't want to risk citing someone like Landshark who actually is savvy enough to win his case. At least not in my area. But I live in a semi-rural area, where there is more likely to be horse drawn wagons than hordes of pedestrians. Yea,,,those Mennonites and their charmed ways. Dave ."Sandbagger" n3cv |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:20:49 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote: Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of a creator or, more generally, the concept of intelligent design. Science is based on logic. Nowhere does science support your position. Well, one of two possibilities exist. Why are you limiting yourself to two possibilities? There are a myriad of possibilities and a certain amount of fact to support more than two possibilities. Either the earth cooled, formed water, created primordial amino acids which somehow morphed into single celled life, which then somehow determined the need to further specialize and diversify, and all species evolved from there. Somehow they knew that we'd need plants to make oxygen, for the animals that need it. Ummm,,,in all bio classes, we learn plant life was here before primates. Some species would become food for others. All of this raises many questions, the biggest of which is what force drove these single celled organisms to improve and specialize themselves? Natural selection,,,bio-evolvement. What drives evolution? Can accidental random mutation answer these questions satisfactorily. Science can. If a culture is underground for years and years, they will take on a different appearance. Their skin would be fairer. Their eyes would be slightly larger...and so on it goes. The other possibility is that our existence was carefully guided by an intelligent force. Applying Occam's razor, which scenario is easier to believe? Depends if one places their core belief in faith or science. 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. Now THAT is one hell of a subjective opinion. Yes, but it based on probability. So were the human sacrifices to the Gods, in their time. You can't possibly believe we reached the pinnacle of all intellectualism and physical traits. People continue to live longer, grow larger and stronger, etc. But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may mistake for "random". But what drives evolution? If random mutations are the basis for evolution, then what prevents "bad mutations" or several different mutations from leading us down even more diverse paths? Nothing, There are plenty of "bad mutations" running around...screwed up or damaged or incomplete chromosomes, sequences, and gray matter. Mongoloids are but a single example.. Natural selection only answers some of those questions. There is simply not enough order in chaos for this to happen. =A0 =A0You are claiming this oxymoron (chaos in order) does not exist. I agree. Darwin's theory has yet to be proved because of a single missing link, it is the most widely accepted scholarly and scientific (IE: logic, logical) belief. There is much scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. I am not trying to discount it at all. Quite the opposite, I totally endorse the concept of evolution. The difference is that I believe that evolution was "helped" along by an outside intelligence. Christians do not believe cavemen existed as science depicts. Do you? Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
Well, unless I am mistaken, the following appears in our constitution:
". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." Now, I am an AMERIAN with GREAT respect for the founders and traditions of this country--if the "rule of God" was good enough for them, it is good enough for me, end of story!!!! Regards, John "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... | On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:32:11 -0400, Dave Hall | wrote in : | | snip | No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug. | | And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely. | | | Unless your partner is infected. | | | snip | Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the | main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be | required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the | United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the | Constitutional Convention. | | Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to | the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded | as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office. | | | You are -totally- off your rocker, Dave. | | Am I? I guess you haven't been following the struggle for the | appointment of judicial nominees. It is quite obvious that the ones | who the dems oppose the most are people with a strong religious | faith. | | Some light reading for you to come up to speed on this issues. | | http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?cat=3 | | http://quante.blogspot.com/2005/04/y...-morality.html | | http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...l_politics.php | | | Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens, | maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration. | | | snip | The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state. | | Not "officially", | | | Or "unofficially". | | The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree. | | | Despite the fact that this majority of Christian citizens is not a | majority of American citizens, seperation of church and state is not | subject to a majority vote. | | I think this page says it best: | | http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues | | | but our whole government is littered with Christian | references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings. | | | As well as religious symbols of other faiths. | | Such as? | | | Go search the net for a picture of the wall behind the Supreme Court | bench. | | | The swearing | on the Bible, | | | And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the | passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for | an Oath of Affirmation. | | What passage have you quoted? | | | Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution? | | | And how does that diminish the fact that | swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian | influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning? | | | Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation. | The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly | what you claim. It was added because, at the time, some states had | oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in | God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test" | that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that | didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation | of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests, | and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious | beliefs. | | And once again, the clause was added by unanimous consent. | | | snip | Unlike you, I believe in the Constitution. | | No, you don't. Like other leftists, you wear the constitution like a | badge of honor when it suits you, but conveniently ignore the parts | that do not further your agenda. | | | What parts do I ignore? Let me clue you in here, Dave: Many years ago | I took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all | enemies, foreign and domestic". I took that oath seriously. In fact, I | took it so seriously that I took the time to learn more about what I | swore to defend with my life. Maybe if you had taken that oath | yourself you might have done the same. If you had, we wouldn't be | having this conversation right now. | | And although I was discharged 20 years ago, I still hold myself to | that oath. Meaning that I will still defend it with my life if it | comes under attack -- even if that attack comes from a large group of | people claiming to be Christians. | | | snip | If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you | have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half | of all marriages end in divorce, | | Not true. You are not keeping current. | | http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls | | | No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census | Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take | place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And | for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the | rate of marriage: | | http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf | | | and a large number of people get | married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you | are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is | traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because | that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God") | had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600 | concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that | the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in | definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact | on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph | Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith. | | | Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making | unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors. | | | It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave. If the foundation of | your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's | both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that | would affect the value of marriage. And after such a comparison, gay | marriage is -barely- significant, if at all. Yet you are whining about | it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant | factors. The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do | with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals. | | | snip | The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does | not mean that a gay marriage should be now. | | | I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional | Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical. | | | snip | Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are | lowered then my degree becomes more valuable. | | Only to you. | | | Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that | meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of | the gate -- than someone with a lesser education. | | | After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS | degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by | doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM | Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the | current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of | study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large | will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has | diminished in value. | | | Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way. | But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra | years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'. | | | Here's another analogy: | If some of the auto makers start making cars of lower quality, what | happens to the value of the vehicles made by other manufacturers? Duh. | | That's not a good analogy in this situation. For this analogy to be | applicable, you would have to offer 2 different "marriage systems". | One allowing gays, and one not. Then a relative value comparison | between two distinct entities can accurately be assessed. | | | I'm not going to make justifications for your bigotry, Dave. How you | feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but | yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a | couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own | marriage. | | | snip | I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where | you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection, | I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are | practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints | as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy. | | But I did notice. | | | I snipped a lot of stuff. Unlike you, I have to work for a living, and | I simply don't have the time to play your game. So if you want to | start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your | posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other | crap you use to water down the topics. | | | snip | Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good, | | | Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable. | | | Even if it's bad? | | | Moron. | | | | | | | ----== 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 Fri, 6 May 2005 11:00:49 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote in : Well, unless I am mistaken, the following appears in our constitution: ". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." You -are- mistaken -- that's from the Declaration of Independence. Now, I am an AMERIAN with GREAT respect for the founders and traditions of this country--if the "rule of God" was good enough for them, it is good enough for me, end of story!!!! But it -wasn't- good enough for them, which is why Madison and Jefferson fought so hard against the Conventicle Act and the Test Act, and why the Bill of Rights includes a clause that establishes both freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state. ----== 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 =---- |
You are right, that is the bill of rights--the two documents are inseperable
in my mind--I often refer to them both as one... And, you are right again, we do indeed have freedom of religion--the "state" cannot establish a "state religion" is what that means... I didn't want them to anyway ... with my luck they'd pick the "Jehovah Witnesses"--I'd have gov't people knocking on my door on the weekend!!!! grin Regards, John "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... | On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:00:49 -0700, "John Smith" | wrote in | : | | Well, unless I am mistaken, the following appears in our constitution: | ". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." | | | You -are- mistaken -- that's from the Declaration of Independence. | | | Now, I am an AMERIAN with GREAT respect for the founders and traditions of | this country--if the "rule of God" was good enough for them, it is good | enough for me, end of story!!!! | | | But it -wasn't- good enough for them, which is why Madison and | Jefferson fought so hard against the Conventicle Act and the Test Act, | and why the Bill of Rights includes a clause that establishes both | freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state. | | | | | | | | | ----== 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 Fri, 6 May 2005 14:07:53 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote in : You are right, that is the bill of rights--the two documents are inseperable in my mind--I often refer to them both as one... That's because they -are- one. The Bill of Rights is just a name used for the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. Actually, the bill contained twelve amendments, but the first two didn't pass. One of those two amendments passed 150 years later. The other one deserves reconsideration -- it would establish an upper limit on the number of people that can be represented by a member of the House of Reps. And, you are right again, we do indeed have freedom of religion--the "state" cannot establish a "state religion" is what that means... Absolutely right. Religious freedom is for -everybody-, not just the majority. If the government starts playing favorites then the freedoms enjoyed by the minorities are stifled, and we regress back to the same type of government that ruled over the colonies until they declared independence from Britain. I didn't want them to anyway ... with my luck they'd pick the "Jehovah Witnesses"--I'd have gov't people knocking on my door on the weekend!!!! grin Hmmmm..... Jehovah's Witness IRS agents..... now -that's- scary! ----== 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 Fri, 6 May 2005 10:40:38 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Self taught based on nothing more than personal thought you mistakenly refer as empirical observation isn't a valid method. Why not? It is far too complex to have evolved totally randomly. (That's an argument used by primitive civilations to explain things which they do not understand. If you want to be a part of an enlightened society, the first thing you need to learn is that complexity does not require divine providence. But if that concept is beyond your level of comprehension you can always take up astrology, voodoo, crystal ball gazing..... or even republican economics.) The ancients sacrificed each other to the "Gods" of the sky when they were angry (thunder, heavy storms)...same goes for the Gods of the sea, the four winds, etc. St. Elmo's Fire was attributed to the Gods by the old salts and still is in superstitious circles of the old time fishermen... Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.... The more answers you learn, the more questions you discover. It's a never ending quest. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com