About Us

[email protected] · September 15th 06, 02:50 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

But the point is that the judicial system has methods besides
self-disqualification to prevent conflict of interest. It does not rely
solely or primarily on judges or jurors disqualifying themselves.

No.

Yes, that's the point.

It wasn't the point I made.

The point is that ethical people behave ethically.

People who behave ethically at all times don't need safeguards.

So ARRL leaders need safeguards?

Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs
safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times.

People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards.

So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment?

You missed that part.

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did.

And who defines what "ethics" are the right ones?

Apparently, ONLY the BoD.

And the membership.

So why in 20 years of ARRL membership have I never encountered an
ethics issue on the ballots?

Was it ethical to appoint someone with no emergency management
experience to head FEMA?

Should the Democrats eventually regain a majority in the House, or the
Whitehouse, will they behave ethically, or as they've always behaved?

They don't have to behave to a very high standard to be more ethical
than the Current Occupants.

Perhaps. But no matter how low the bar, the Democrats probably cannot
rise to it.

Was it ethical to give lucrative no-bid contracts to a company that
used to be run by a top administrator who helped make the decision?

That's exactly what Pres. Clinton did in 1995 when he attacked
Yugoslavia. Haliburton, no-bid, huge cost overruns. NO PROBLEM.

Who says it wasn't a problem?

You never mentioned it before.

And the contracts I referred to were for 2005 hurricane relief efforts.
Hurricanes aren't a new thing, yet the efforts to deal with them were
handled a lot better by previous administrations.

Bush Sr.

August 1992. "Andrew would ultimately become the most expensive
natural disaster in American history. More than 60 people were killed
and scores more injured, 117,000 homes were destroyed or suffered major
damage, some two million residents had to be temporarily evacuated.
Flooding and high winds destroyed thousands of acres of crops. And
overall estimates placed the storm's cost at more than $20 billion."

And was it Clinton who went into Yugoslavia - or the UN?

You know the answer to that one, and you know that I know, so don't lie
to me.

Was it done to start a war or to stop one?

We had absolutely no interests in Yugoslavia. It was a European
problem that they could have handled.

And how did that effort turn out?

Lots and lots of new DX.

Was there more violence, disorder and
destruction in Yugoslavia after "Mission Accomplished" than before?

Clinton had an exit strategy. No matter what, we would be out in one
year. Clinton was saying that as I tagged people during the 1995
Thanksgiving week. Just the other day I ran into some soldiers that
were returning from Bosnia.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.	Slow Code	Antenna	58	September 17th 06 04:11 AM
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?	RLW	General	3	August 26th 06 10:16 PM
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?	Slow Code	Shortwave	42	August 23rd 06 03:28 PM
If you had to die to save someone's life, would that person send CW?	Buck	Antenna	0	July 21st 06 08:29 AM
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good	[email protected]	Antenna	0	April 25th 05 04:43 AM

Menu

About Us