Maple syrup or honey?
Dillon Pyron
President three weeks and he's already waffling, on something his own
freaking party wants to do. Something that Barney Franks says is
non-negotiable.
--
- dillon I am not invalid
Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and Olympic Gold isn't the only
Gold I'm thinking of.
Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and when I'm on Maui, Wowwie.
1hogrider
> Which do you think Obama likes with his waffles. Hell, he hasn't been
> President three weeks and he's already waffling, on something his own
> freaking party wants to do. Something that Barney Franks says is
> non-negotiable.
Hell, "O" the holiest, started that crap before the campaign got a good
head of steam. Remember the promise to accept public funds?
He didn't accept public funds so he didn't have to disclose who was
donating to his campaign. Makes me wonder what he has to hide, who
(besides ACORN) he "owes". Who was trying so hard to get him elected?
and why?
Jer
What makes you think he's hiding something because he chose not to use
public campaign funds? IMO, he didn't use public funds because he
didn't have to.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Greg Mossman
wikipedia:
"From the inception of this program in 1976 through 1992, almost all
candidates who could qualify accepted matching funds in the primary.
However, in 1996 Republican Steve Forbes opted out of the program. In
2000, Forbes and George W. Bush opted out. In 2004 Bush and Democrats
John Kerry and Howard Dean chose not to take matching funds in the
primary.
"In 2008, Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and Republicans
Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul decided not to take matching
funds. Republicans Tom Tancredo[3] & John McCain and Democrats Chris
Dodd[4], Joe Biden[5] and John Edwards elected to take public
financing."
Huh, what's that? George W. Bush opted out so he didn't have to
disclose who was donating to his campaign? Makes me wonder what he
had to hide. Well, no. We obviously know what he had to hide.
As for Obama, Lee has already told us that he's a secret Muslim
terrorist bent on infiltrating the U.S. from the top down, so
obviously all the secret donations came from Bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein. Didn't you hear today's news, that our national language has
been changed to Arabic? In'shallah!
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
news:_6qdner2qZeASQfU...@posted.internetamerica...
With the sort of morals and principles you've displayed here, I'm sure
that would be your opinion.
The fact that he told a public, barefaced lie doesn't affect you in the
least.
The fact that you have no suspicions that he's hiding something just
reflects your lack of situational awareness.
--
--
Popeye
"If one does as God does enough times, one
will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector.
www.finalprotectivefire.com
http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
1hogrider
> "From the inception of this program in 1976 through 1992, almost all
> candidates who could qualify accepted matching funds in the primary.
> However, in 1996 Republican Steve Forbes opted out of the program. In
> 2000, Forbes and George W. Bush opted out. In 2004 Bush and Democrats
> John Kerry and Howard Dean chose not to take matching funds in the
> primary.
>
> "In 2008, Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and Republicans
> Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul decided not to take matching
> funds. Republicans Tom Tancredo[3] & John McCain and Democrats Chris
> Dodd[4], Joe Biden[5] and John Edwards elected to take public
> financing."
>
> Huh, what's that? George W. Bush opted out so he didn't have to
> disclose who was donating to his campaign? Makes me wonder what he
> had to hide. Well, no. We obviously know what he had to hide.
But I thought this last entire election was about "change".
Yup....we got "change" alright....from Republicans to the Democrats who
are doing the same thing. Hell...I think I will just "forget" to file
my taxes and maybe get myself a cabinet position in the "new"
administration. That seems to be a requirement.
Jer
Oh, I forgot about the secret muslim status of BO, so a belief in that
BS would give rise to additional BS.
Jer
I suspect BO has already made improvements in his vetting process.
Jer
> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:_6qdner2qZeASQfU...@posted.internetamerica...
>> 1hogrider wrote:
>>> Dillon Pyron wrote:
>>>> Which do you think Obama likes with his waffles. Hell, he hasn't been
>>>> President three weeks and he's already waffling, on something his own
>>>> freaking party wants to do. Something that Barney Franks says is
>>>> non-negotiable.
>>>
>>> Hell, "O" the holiest, started that crap before the campaign got a
>>> good head of steam. Remember the promise to accept public funds?
>>>
>>> He didn't accept public funds so he didn't have to disclose who was
>>> donating to his campaign. Makes me wonder what he has to hide, who
>>> (besides ACORN) he "owes". Who was trying so hard to get him
>>> elected? and why?
>>>
>>
>> What makes you think he's hiding something because he chose not to use
>> public campaign funds? IMO, he didn't use public funds because he
>> didn't have to.
>
> With the sort of morals and principles you've displayed here, I'm sure
> that would be your opinion.
>
> The fact that he told a public, barefaced lie doesn't affect you in the
> least.
I'm not convinced he told any such lie. I am convinced a number of
people don't make much of an effort to be certain they understand
something clearly, and that may well be because the speaker didn't make
much of an effort to speak clearly. But, this doesn't rise to the level
of a lie, absence of malice and all that.
>
> The fact that you have no suspicions that he's hiding something just
> reflects your lack of situational awareness.
>
I may well be afflicted with a lack of situational awareness, but it's
going to take a lot more from someone besides you via usenet to change that.
Lee Bell
> public campaign funds? IMO, he didn't use public funds because he didn't
> have to.
Neither does anybody else that's willing to take illegal campaign
contributions, some of which have already been proven. Much more of which
are strongly suspected. Perhaps you think that the poverty stricken, down
trodden of this country actually provided the funds that got him elected.
If so, ask yourself why, if they have that much disposable income, they need
so much welfare.
Lee
Lee Bell
> don't make much of an effort to be certain they understand something
> clearly, and that may well be because the speaker didn't make much of an
> effort to speak clearly. But, this doesn't rise to the level of a lie,
> absence of malice and all that.
Pure bullshit.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
>> news:_6qdner2qZeASQfU...@posted.internetamerica...
>>> 1hogrider wrote:
>>>> Dillon Pyron wrote:
>>>>> Which do you think Obama likes with his waffles. Hell, he hasn't been
>>>>> President three weeks and he's already waffling, on something his own
>>>>> freaking party wants to do. Something that Barney Franks says is
>>>>> non-negotiable.
>>>>
>>>> Hell, "O" the holiest, started that crap before the campaign got a good
>>>> head of steam. Remember the promise to accept public funds?
>>>>
>>>> He didn't accept public funds so he didn't have to disclose who was
>>>> donating to his campaign. Makes me wonder what he has to hide, who
>>>> (besides ACORN) he "owes". Who was trying so hard to get him elected?
>>>> and why?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What makes you think he's hiding something because he chose not to use
>>> public campaign funds? IMO, he didn't use public funds because he
>>> didn't have to.
>>
>> With the sort of morals and principles you've displayed here, I'm sure
>> that would be your opinion.
>>
>> The fact that he told a public, barefaced lie doesn't affect you in the
>> least.
>
> I'm not convinced he told any such lie.
No doubt, regardless of how easily verifiable it is.
If you don't educate yourself, you won't have to admit you're wrong.
That's just not a new paradigm among those I usually argue with here.
> I am convinced a number of people don't make much of an effort to be
> certain they understand something clearly,
No doubt you are convinced of that.
I didn't bother offering a score of cites, because you'd find a plethora
of preposterous points to discount them.
It's in your best interests to remain ignorant.
> and that may well be because the speaker didn't make much of an effort to
> speak clearly. But, this doesn't rise to the level of a lie, absence of
> malice and all that.
He signed a document, dude.
>> The fact that you have no suspicions that he's hiding something just
>> reflects your lack of situational awareness.
>>
>
> I may well be afflicted with a lack of situational awareness, but it's
> going to take a lot more from someone besides you via usenet to change
> that.
No one here would argue any bit of that.
In fact, that task may be beyond worldly accomplishment.
1hogrider
Greg Mossman
> But I thought this last entire election was about "change".
> Yup....we got "change" alright....from Republicans to the Democrats who
> are doing the same thing. Hell...I think I will just "forget" to file
> my taxes and maybe get myself a cabinet position in the "new"
> administration. That seems to be a requirement.
Change exactly. No one gives a crap about all the political BS. What
we want for change is to get the heck of Iraq where we never should
have been in the first place, restore environmental protections that
Bush devastated and focus on the global warming issue instead of
pretending it doesn't exist, worry more about whether the middle
classes can put food on the table (if they still have a table and
haven't chopped it up for firewood) than whether the upper classes get
yet another tax break to shield their millions and billions, and worry
more about the rights of living starving American children than unborn
unwanted fetuses. As far as I can tell, Obama is working on all those
issues or plans to, but right now he's a bit distracted by the worst
economic conditions in recent history that Bush left as his legacy.
Greg Mossman
> If so, ask yourself why, if they have that much disposable income, they need
> so much welfare.
I'm still too busy asking myself why, if they have that much
disposable income, they need free generators?
There are plenty of middle income folk, government employees like
yourself, teachers, union workers, etc. that felt it was worth a small
contribution to make sure we didn't suffer another 4 years of
Republican foulups, not to mention plenty of wealthy people ranging
from the rich investors and corporate CEOs to the stars of the
entertainment industries. Did you somehow miss all the rallies, the
parades, the million or so people that took buses across the country
to the inauguration? Maybe Fox News forget to cover it.
1hogrider
of Treasury who can't even manage his own taxes. Hell, thats like
appointing a Surgeon General who "forgot" how to put a bandaid on a
minor laceration.
...and just how is ACORN going to create jobs with the $400 megabuck
"gift" and why do they need stimulus money when they can afford the
massive campaign donations to "The Holiest "O".
Greg Mossman
> > Change exactly. No one gives a crap about all the political BS. What
> > we want for change is to get the heck of Iraq where we never should
> > have been in the first place, restore environmental protections that
> > Bush devastated and focus on the global warming issue instead of
> > pretending it doesn't exist, worry more about whether the middle
> > classes can put food on the table (if they still have a table and
> > haven't chopped it up for firewood) than whether the upper classes get
> > yet another tax break to shield their millions and billions, and worry
> > more about the rights of living starving American children than unborn
> > unwanted fetuses. As far as I can tell, Obama is working on all those
> > issues or plans to, but right now he's a bit distracted by the worst
> > economic conditions in recent history that Bush left as his legacy.
>
> ...and he is off to a fantastic running start by getting the Secretary
> of Treasury who can't even manage his own taxes. Hell, thats like
> appointing a Surgeon General who "forgot" how to put a bandaid on a
> minor laceration.
You think all Surgeon Generals to date have never made any mistakes?
> ...and just how is ACORN going to create jobs with the $400 megabuck
> "gift" and why do they need stimulus money when they can afford the
> massive campaign donations to "The Holiest "O".
I dunno, but it's sure a change from giving all the money to
Halliburton subsidiaries. I like change.
It seems to me that it takes money to pay people who work, so it's
entirely possible that they might use the stimulus money to pay people
to work, i.e. create jobs.
For more information about ACORN:
"What has ACORN Accomplished?
This is a sampling of things ACORN has accomplished thus far.
Community Reinvestment
Negotiated landmark agreements with banks in St. Louis, Baton Rouge,
Boston, Bridgeport, New York City, Jersey City, Philadelphia, Phoenix,
Denver, Little Rock, New Orleans, Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Brooklyn, Des Moines, Dallas and Washington, D.C., making over a
billion dollars available for loans in low-income neighborhoods.
Blocked the gutting of the federal Community Reinvestment Act. Forced
Fannie Mae to establish a precedent-setting program to buy community
reinvestment mortgages.
Housing
Created or upgraded homesteading programs that turn over vacant houses
to low-income residents in Philadelphia, Detroit, Brooklyn Bridgeport,
Chicago, Phoenix, St. Louis, and Little Rock. Won passage of a
national homesteading bill. Forced HUD to reform policies and
procedures to make it easier for low and moderate-income people to
purchase HUD-owned properties.
Schools
Won establishment of alternative public schools in ACORN®
neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens, Jersey City, and St. Paul. Improved
school facilities and governance in Chicago, New York, San Jose,
Little Rock and Bridgeport. Stopped school closings in Des Moines, won
free transportation to schools in Little Rock, upgraded school safety
in New Orleans and Detroit.
Living Wages
Taken a leadership role in more than a dozen jobs and living wage
campaigns, including victories in Chicago, Cook County, Boston,
Oakland, Detroit, Minneapolis, and St. Paul. To help build the growing
living wage movement, ACORN has established the Living Wage Resource
Center to provide assistance to living wage campaigns wherever they
arise.
Jobs
Secured "First Source" ordinances or agreements requiring developers
to hire low-income unemployed residents in Miami, Washington, D.C.,
Bridgeport, Pittsburgh, Dallas, St. Louis, Little Rock and Des
Moines.
Voter Participation
Registered over 1.1 million new voters in 2004. Struck down barriers
to voter registration in Bridgeport, Pine Bluff, Little Rock, Atlanta,
Grand Rapids and Pittsburgh. Replaced at-large City Council elections
with a district election system in Pine Bluff and Pittsburgh.
Recruited and trained ACORN® members to run for public office in
Little Rock, Pine Bluff, Philadelphia, Bridgeport, New York, San Jose,
Chicago, Tulsa, St. Louis and Des Moines.
Health and Environmental Justice
Forced companies to clean up, move, or cancel plans for toxic chemical
plants, dumps, discharges, or waste incinerators in Memphis, Ft.
Worth, Philadelphia, Des Moines, New Orleans, Dallas, Minneapolis,
Jacksonville, St. Paul, Chicago, and St. Louis. Improved hospital care
in Little Rock, Dallas and New York. Expanded childhood immunization
in New Orleans. Organized parents of lead poisoning victims to
pressure local governments for improved screening and treatment in New
York, Detroit, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.
Neighborhood Safety
Forced police and city officials to respond more effectively to rapes
in low-income neighborhoods and to establish rape-prevention programs
in St. Louis, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans and Des Moines. Won
programs to fight drugs, ranging from more police foot patrols to
better recreation facilities in New Orleans, Philadelphia, St. Louis,
Minneapolis, St. Paul, Boston, and Detroit.
http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=2726&L=0%2Findex.php
That all sounds a lot better to me than giving the money to banks to
give to their wealthy execs as yet more lucrative bonuses.
1hogrider
> On Feb 17, 2:39 pm, 1hogrider <nitesp...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>...and he is off to a fantastic running start by getting the Secretary
>>of Treasury who can't even manage his own taxes. Hell, thats like
>>appointing a Surgeon General who "forgot" how to put a bandaid on a
>>minor laceration.
>
>
> You think all Surgeon Generals to date have never made any mistakes?
I would hope that someone who has the tremendous responsibility and
power that goes with a US Cabinet position should be able to at least
manage their own taxes.
>
>
>>...and just how is ACORN going to create jobs with the $400 megabuck
>>"gift" and why do they need stimulus money when they can afford the
>>massive campaign donations to "The Holiest "O".
>
>
> I dunno, but it's sure a change from giving all the money to
> Halliburton subsidiaries. I like change.
Like this?
"VA 2005 In 2005, the Virginia State Board of Elections admonished
Project Vote and ACORN for turning in a significant number of faulty
voter registrations. An audit revealed that 83% of sampled registrations
that were rejected for carrying false or questionable information were
submitted by Project Vote. Many of these registrations carried social
security numbers that exist for other people, listed non-existent or
commercial addresses, or were for convicted felons in violation of state
and federal election law.
In a letter to ACORN, the State Board of Elections reported that 56% of
the voter registration applications ACORN turned in were ineligible.
Further, a full 35% were not submitted in a timely manner, as required
by law. The State Board of Elections also commented on what appeared to
be evidence of intentional voter fraud. "Additionally,” they wrote,
“information appears to have been altered on some applications where
information given by the applicant in one color ink has been scratched
through and re-entered in another color ink. Any alteration of a voter
registration application is a Class 5 Felony in accordance with §
24.2-1009 of the Code of Virginia."
Greg Mossman
> In a letter to ACORN, the State Board of Elections reported that 56% of
> the voter registration applications ACORN turned in were ineligible.
> Further, a full 35% were not submitted in a timely manner, as required
> by law. The State Board of Elections also commented on what appeared to
> be evidence of intentional voter fraud. "Additionally,” they wrote,
> “information appears to have been altered on some applications where
> information given by the applicant in one color ink has been scratched
> through and re-entered in another color ink. Any alteration of a voter
> registration application is a Class 5 Felony in accordance with §
> 24.2-1009 of the Code of Virginia."
I didn't realize ACORN was vested with verifying each and every
registration application they handed in. That's up to the State Board
of Elections, isn't it? As I recall, none of the "evidence of
intentional voter fraud" was pointed at ACORN, but at the registration
applicants themselves. Shame on those applicants, but kudos to ACORN
for at least trying. If only 56% were ineligible, that means that a
full 44% of the applications, which is still a heck of a lot of
voters, ended up voting because of ACORN. That's great.
Surely you wouldn't hold the bank president liable if some of his
mortgagors falsified their applications, would you? The last
administration actually rewarded these bank presidents by giving their
banks stimulus funds without any controls, which the banks of course
used to grant large bonuses to their presidents. And the auto
manufacturers execs likewise are getting rewarded for their screwups
in completely failing to anticipate their market. So why shouldn't
ACORN too be rewarded for its mistakes?
1hogrider
If it were me on the BOD of a bank and there was 56% problem with faulty
loans (falsification, etc), I would want that presidents head on a
platter. (figuratively of course).
You bet ACORN is getting rewarded. I would say $400 megabucks is a
pretty nice reward. Lets see, suppose an attorney lost 56% of his/her
cases because he didn't research the law, or some other serious error.
Me thinks the state bar would address that. At least they will in this
part of the world. Or a doctor who lost 56% of his patients in the
operating room because of his screwups. I expect the Medical Review
boards would be looking at that closely.
To me the voter registration process is so overly simple it seems a
person has to TRY and screw up. So WHY do these people need so much
assistance in registering to vote? Which begs the question, if they
need THAT much assistance, how can their judgement be trusted to choose
the person best qualified? We have a minimum voting age and I suspect
even elementary school kids could easily complete the registration process.
Greg Mossman
> You bet ACORN is getting rewarded. I would say $400 megabucks is a
> pretty nice reward. Lets see, suppose an attorney lost 56% of his/her
> cases because he didn't research the law, or some other serious error.
> Me thinks the state bar would address that. At least they will in this
> part of the world. Or a doctor who lost 56% of his patients in the
> operating room because of his screwups. I expect the Medical Review
> boards would be looking at that closely.
What about police that fail to catch 56% of the criminals? Yet we
keep throwing more money at them, new cars, new uniforms, bullets, all
that expensive stuff even though plenty of the time the criminals get
away with it.
ACORN didn't screw up. It processed the applications and did its job
correctly. It's not ACORN's fault anymore than it's the cop's fault
when the criminals they catch lie on the stand and convince the jury
that they're innocent, or when a doctor fails to catch an illness
because the patient lies about his symptoms.
> To me the voter registration process is so overly simple it seems a
> person has to TRY and screw up. So WHY do these people need so much
> assistance in registering to vote? Which begs the question, if they
> need THAT much assistance, how can their judgement be trusted to choose
> the person best qualified? We have a minimum voting age and I suspect
> even elementary school kids could easily complete the registration process.
Then push for a constitutional amendment to require an intelligence
test before being allowed to vote. In the meantime, even the retarded
are free to select the president of their choosing. That's how Bush
got elected!
You could use all sorts of qualifications to eliminate potential
voters when you start down that slippery slope. Clearly people who
made the wrong decision in marriage shouldn't be allowed to choose
something as important as president, so eliminate all the divorcees.
Then eliminate all the people who bought houses they couldn't afford
because they obviously can't make an important decision very well
either. Eliminate any women who ever got knocked up unintentionally,
any man who ever knocked up a woman unintentionally, and while you're
at it, eliminate anyone who's ever received any sort of traffic
violation because anyone stupid enough to risk themselves and others
around them by doing something as thoughtless as speeding has no
business deciding who should be president.
Let the three remainining Americans who have consistently shown good
judgment throughout their adult lives make the decision.
Now who gets to decide who the deciders are?
1hogrider
> On Feb 17, 4:22 pm, 1hogrider <nitesp...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>You bet ACORN is getting rewarded. I would say $400 megabucks is a
>>pretty nice reward. Lets see, suppose an attorney lost 56% of his/her
>>cases because he didn't research the law, or some other serious error.
>>Me thinks the state bar would address that. At least they will in this
>>part of the world. Or a doctor who lost 56% of his patients in the
>>operating room because of his screwups. I expect the Medical Review
>>boards would be looking at that closely.
>
>
> What about police that fail to catch 56% of the criminals? Yet we
> keep throwing more money at them, new cars, new uniforms, bullets, all
> that expensive stuff even though plenty of the time the criminals get
> away with it.
IF the police failed to catch 56% of the criminals due to laziness,
deriliction of duty, mishandling of evidence, corruption, etc, then
should we keep throwing money at that? Should they be allowed to remain
in that position? Most of the cases I see lost are witnesses that
"don't want to get involved", the complainant is involved in criminal
activity themselves and lie, etc. Relatively few cases are lost soley
because the officer was grossly negligent in how he/she performed their
duties. YMMV.
>
> ACORN didn't screw up. It processed the applications and did its job
> correctly. It's not ACORN's fault anymore than it's the cop's fault
> when the criminals they catch lie on the stand and convince the jury
> that they're innocent, or when a doctor fails to catch an illness
> because the patient lies about his symptoms.
Nah.,...they did a wonderful job of assisting 56% of unqualified people
into the voting process.
>
>
>>To me the voter registration process is so overly simple it seems a
>>person has to TRY and screw up. So WHY do these people need so much
>>assistance in registering to vote? Which begs the question, if they
>>need THAT much assistance, how can their judgement be trusted to choose
>>the person best qualified? We have a minimum voting age and I suspect
>>even elementary school kids could easily complete the registration process.
>
>
> Then push for a constitutional amendment to require an intelligence
> test before being allowed to vote. In the meantime, even the retarded
> are free to select the president of their choosing. That's how Bush
> got elected!
I am certain some retarded citizens voted in the last 3 presidential
elections. Whom they voted for, I have no way of knowing. Perhaps you
do.
>
> You could use all sorts of qualifications to eliminate potential
> voters when you start down that slippery slope. Clearly people who
> made the wrong decision in marriage shouldn't be allowed to choose
> something as important as president, so eliminate all the divorcees.
> Then eliminate all the people who bought houses they couldn't afford
> because they obviously can't make an important decision very well
> either. Eliminate any women who ever got knocked up unintentionally,
> any man who ever knocked up a woman unintentionally, and while you're
> at it, eliminate anyone who's ever received any sort of traffic
> violation because anyone stupid enough to risk themselves and others
> around them by doing something as thoughtless as speeding has no
> business deciding who should be president.
Heck...just make the deciding factor of who should be able to vote as
simple as completing the registration process on your own. No one had
to take me to the registrars office. No one had to show me how to fill
out the form. No one had to go out and "recruit" me to go to the polls.
It was an easy process. It is a civic duty. If a person lacks the
comprehension skills to fill out even the most basic form and lacks the
civic motivation to go do it, then how can they make any type of
intelligent decision for whom to cast their vote?
Curtis
> I am certain some retarded citizens voted in the last 3 presidential
> elections. Whom they voted for, I have no way of knowing. Perhaps you
> do.
Easy.
Gore, Kerry & Obama.
Greg Mossman
> Heck...just make the deciding factor of who should be able to vote as
> simple as completing the registration process on your own. No one had
> to take me to the registrars office. No one had to show me how to fill
> out the form. No one had to go out and "recruit" me to go to the polls.
> It was an easy process. It is a civic duty. If a person lacks the
> comprehension skills to fill out even the most basic form and lacks the
> civic motivation to go do it, then how can they make any type of
> intelligent decision for whom to cast their vote?
Or they could take the other tack and force people to do it, just like
that other "civic duty" of jury duty. If you don't show up to vote,
or at least mail in your absentee ballot by a certain date: 30 days of
hard labor, picking up trash on the interstate.
But I don't think it's either fair or right to disenfranchise people
just because they're easily confused. If we're gonna do that, might
as well deport them.
dechucka
"Greg Mossman" <mos...@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:fcc837c6-aae8-49f8...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
====================================================
btw what is acorn
Jer
Oh look who's talking here - Mr. Employed Free Generator.
Lee Bell
>>> public campaign funds? IMO, he didn't use public funds because he
>>> didn't have to.
>>
>> Neither does anybody else that's willing to take illegal campaign
>> contributions, some of which have already been proven. Much more of
>> which are strongly suspected. Perhaps you think that the poverty
>> stricken, down trodden of this country actually provided the funds that
>> got him elected. If so, ask yourself why, if they have that much
>> disposable income, they need so much welfare.
> Oh look who's talking here - Mr. Employed Free Generator.
Apparently words like "illegal" have no meaning to you. Apparently $800
million and $800 seem the same to you. Let's try this one. $40 billion
back to the organization that assisted people to register that would vote
for Obama, 56% of which turned out to be illegal or bogus.
Dennis (Icarus)
news:WwIml.11840$cI2....@newsfe09.iad...
<snip>
>
> If it were me on the BOD of a bank and there was 56% problem with faulty
> loans (falsification, etc), I would want that presidents head on a
> platter. (figuratively of course).
One measure would be comparing voter applications taken by acorn vs those
turne din at other locales.
If Acorn had significantly more faulty applications than those turned in to
state-run voter registration efforts, then at the least it inidcates a
problem.
<snip>
Dennis
Joe
> On Feb 17, 4:22 pm, 1hogrider <nitesp...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You bet ACORN is getting rewarded. I would say $400 megabucks is a
>> pretty nice reward. Lets see, suppose an attorney lost 56% of his/her
>> cases because he didn't research the law, or some other serious error.
>> Me thinks the state bar would address that. At least they will in this
>> part of the world. Or a doctor who lost 56% of his patients in the
>> operating room because of his screwups. I expect the Medical Review
>> boards would be looking at that closely.
>
> What about police that fail to catch 56% of the criminals? Yet we
> keep throwing more money at them, new cars, new uniforms, bullets, all
> that expensive stuff even though plenty of the time the criminals get
> away with it.
Exactly why we fight for less gun control and more criminal control.
Thanks for making our point for the right to carry.
>
> ACORN didn't screw up. It processed the applications and did its job
> correctly. It's not ACORN's fault anymore than it's the cop's fault
> when the criminals they catch lie on the stand and convince the jury
> that they're innocent, or when a doctor fails to catch an illness
> because the patient lies about his symptoms.
>
>> To me the voter registration process is so overly simple it seems a
>> person has to TRY and screw up. So WHY do these people need so much
>> assistance in registering to vote? Which begs the question, if they
>> need THAT much assistance, how can their judgement be trusted to choose
>> the person best qualified? We have a minimum voting age and I suspect
>> even elementary school kids could easily complete the registration process.
>
> Then push for a constitutional amendment to require an intelligence
> test before being allowed to vote. In the meantime, even the retarded
> are free to select the president of their choosing. That's how Bush
> got elected!
You are correct, Greg the retarded did help Bush get elected, they were
all in the hospital being treated. However, Acorn registered them and
voted absentee in the election of 2008, glad you pointed that out.
Joe
dechucka - google it maybe you can figure out what they are. They seem
to be a lot of things, none of which appear to be very worthwhile.
They'll talk a good game but it comes down to another government
sponsored giveaway project.
Greg Mossman
wrote:
> "1hogrider" <nitesp...@cox.net> wrote in message
Hardly. ACORN is obviously reaching out to more people and more types
of people than "those turne din at other locales" because unlike
"other locales", they don't passively wait for them to be turned in,
but actively seek people wishing to fulfill their civic duty.
The other thing to consider is that ACORN was possibly set up by
Republicans intent on defaming their good works by taking ACORN-
distributed applications and falsifying them in hopes that their
misdeed would rub off on ACORN. This sort of smear campaign is
typical Rovian politics. Fortunately we Democrats have learned to see
through thinly-veiled Republican shenanigans and absolve ACORN of any
wrongdoing. Fortunately we Democrats are now in charge so we can do
that.
Greg Mossman
If you know of any illegal activity, I suggest you inform your local
police. That's a pretty serious matter and if you keep your
information to yourself, you might be guilty of obstructing justice,
or worse, of abetting or conspiring to cover up the alleged crimes.
dechucka
"Joe" <J*e...@joe.com> wrote in message
news:499c0877$0$4113$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
This the project Lee got his generator on?
Chris Guynn
"Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
<snip>
> I'm not convinced he told any such lie. I am convinced a number of people
> don't make much of an effort to be certain they understand something
> clearly, and that may well be because the speaker didn't make much of an
> effort to speak clearly. But, this doesn't rise to the level of a lie,
> absence of malice and all that.
Interesting... I'm taking an ethics course right now and the section about
telling lies doesn't mention anything about malice that I've been able to
find.
I don't know if he was telling lies either though, because I never saw the
original statement. At this point, it really won't matter for another 3
years and change though, so we all have to deal with it (good or bad).
Personally, I'm hoping that it turns out good, and I've seen some things
that give me hope, but I'm not yet convinced. Of course, I also think that
the Republicans lost this election for the same reason the Democrats lost
the previous two. That reason being that they decided not to run a decent
candidate who might be able to actually do some good for the country.
Jer
> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:V4CdnXfJf5DhZQfU...@posted.internetamerica...
> <snip>
>
>> I'm not convinced he told any such lie. I am convinced a number of people
>> don't make much of an effort to be certain they understand something
>> clearly, and that may well be because the speaker didn't make much of an
>> effort to speak clearly. But, this doesn't rise to the level of a lie,
>> absence of malice and all that.
>
> Interesting... I'm taking an ethics course right now and the section about
> telling lies doesn't mention anything about malice that I've been able to
> find.
It's in the chapter called "what did you know and when did you know it?"
Just like in any courtroom, if the speaker (witness) believes a
statement to be true, it's not a lie, regardless of how untrue the
statement ultimately proves to be. And this still applies even if the
speaker should have know the truth, yet didn't. Yes, sanctions can be
held for negligence, but not for lying.
>
> I don't know if he was telling lies either though, because I never saw the
> original statement. At this point, it really won't matter for another 3
> years and change though, so we all have to deal with it (good or bad).
>
> Personally, I'm hoping that it turns out good, and I've seen some things
> that give me hope, but I'm not yet convinced. Of course, I also think that
> the Republicans lost this election for the same reason the Democrats lost
> the previous two. That reason being that they decided not to run a decent
> candidate who might be able to actually do some good for the country.
>
>
Likewise.
1hogrider
> Chris Guynn wrote:
>
>> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
>> news:V4CdnXfJf5DhZQfU...@posted.internetamerica...
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I'm not convinced he told any such lie. I am convinced a number of
>>> people don't make much of an effort to be certain they understand
>>> something clearly, and that may well be because the speaker didn't
>>> make much of an effort to speak clearly. But, this doesn't rise to
>>> the level of a lie, absence of malice and all that.
>>
>>
>> Interesting... I'm taking an ethics course right now and the section
>> about telling lies doesn't mention anything about malice that I've
>> been able to find.
>
>
> It's in the chapter called "what did you know and when did you know it?"
> Just like in any courtroom, if the speaker (witness) believes a
> statement to be true, it's not a lie, regardless of how untrue the
> statement ultimately proves to be. And this still applies even if the
> speaker should have know the truth, yet didn't. Yes, sanctions can be
> held for negligence, but not for lying.
>
"Lying" in the true since of the word involves "intent to deceive".
"lie
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression;
imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his
accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression."
Sanctions CAN be held in United States courtroom for deliberate
deception under oath. It is called perjury and where I live it is a felony.
Bob
says...
-:Jer wrote:
-:> Chris Guynn wrote:
-:>
-:>> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
-:>> news:V4CdnXfJf5DhZQfU...@posted.internetamerica...
-:>> <snip>
-:>>
-:>>> I'm not convinced he told any such lie. I am convinced a number of
-:>>> people don't make much of an effort to be certain they understand
-:>>> something clearly, and that may well be because the speaker didn't
-:>>> make much of an effort to speak clearly. But, this doesn't rise to
-:>>> the level of a lie, absence of malice and all that.
-:>>
-:>>
-:>> Interesting... I'm taking an ethics course right now and the section
-:>> about telling lies doesn't mention anything about malice that I've
-:>> been able to find.
-:>
-:>
-:> It's in the chapter called "what did you know and when did you know it?"
-:> Just like in any courtroom, if the speaker (witness) believes a
-:> statement to be true, it's not a lie, regardless of how untrue the
-:> statement ultimately proves to be. And this still applies even if the
-:> speaker should have know the truth, yet didn't. Yes, sanctions can be
-:> held for negligence, but not for lying.
-:>
-:
-:"Lying" in the true since of the word involves "intent to deceive".
maybe we need a new word.
definition: saying something to be true,
passing something off as true fact,
when you have no proof that it is true.
perhaps pompous ignorant blowhard would work. PIB.
-:
-:
-:"lie
-:
-:=3Fnoun
-:1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
-:intentional untruth; a falsehood.
-:2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression;
-:imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
-:3. an inaccurate or false statement.
-:4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his
-:accusers.
-:=3Fverb (used without object)
-:5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
-:6. to express what is false; convey a false impression."
-:
-:
-:Sanctions CAN be held in United States courtroom for deliberate
-:deception under oath. It is called perjury and where I live it is a felony.
-:
pugetso...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
> >> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> >>> 1hogrider wrote:
> >>>> Dillon Pyron wrote:
> >>>>> Which do you think Obama likes with his waffles. Hell, he hasn't been
> >>>>> President three weeks and he's already waffling, on something his own
> >>>>> freaking party wants to do. Something that Barney Franks says is
> >>>>> non-negotiable.
>
> >>>> Hell, "O" the holiest, started that crap before the campaign got a good
> >>>> head of steam. Remember the promise to accept public funds?
>
> >>>> He didn't accept public funds so he didn't have to disclose who was
> >>>> donating to his campaign. Makes me wonder what he has to hide, who
> >>>> (besides ACORN) he "owes". Who was trying so hard to get him elected?
> >>>> and why?
>
> >>> What makes you think he's hiding something because he chose not to use
> >>> public campaign funds? IMO, he didn't use public funds because he
> >>> didn't have to.
>
> >> that would be your opinion.
>
> >> The fact that he told a public, barefaced lie doesn't affect you in the
> >> least.
>
> > I'm not convinced he told any such lie.
>
>
> If you don't educate yourself, you won't have to admit you're wrong.
>
> That's just not a new paradigm among those I usually argue with here.
>
> > I am convinced a number of people don't make much of an effort to be
> > certain they understand something clearly,
>
> No doubt you are convinced of that.
>
> I didn't bother offering a score of cites, because you'd find a plethora
> of preposterous points to discount them.
>
> It's in your best interests to remain ignorant.
>
> > and that may well be because the speaker didn't make much of an effort to
> > speak clearly. But, this doesn't rise to the level of a lie, absence of
> > malice and all that.
>
> He signed a document, dude.
>
> >> The fact that you have no suspicions that he's hiding something just
> >> reflects your lack of situational awareness.
>
> > I may well be afflicted with a lack of situational awareness, but it's
> > going to take a lot more from someone besides you via usenet to change
> > that.
>
> No one here would argue any bit of that.
>
> In fact, that task may be beyond worldly accomplishment.
>
> --
>
> --
> Popeye
> "If one does as God does enough times, one
> will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector.
>
> www.finalprotectivefire.com
> http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
Jer
Actually, we already have a word for it - it's called an opinion.
Chris Guynn
Interesting... especially considering that numbers 3 and 6 don't say
anything at all about "intent to deceive" or, for that matter, knowledge of
the untruth.
1hogrider
As with many words in the English language there are multiple definitions.
3 and 6 could would probably apply to a situation that lacks the
capacity to form intent. Such as a mechanical or electrical device.
Example- "The worker wrote down the meter readout not realizing it had
lied to him".
Joe
Lee Bell
>> definition: saying something to be true,
>> passing something off as true fact,
>> when you have no proof that it is true.
>>
>> perhaps pompous ignorant blowhard would work. PIB.
>
>
> Actually, we already have a word for it - it's called an opinion.
No. Opinion is not "passing something off as true fact."
Jer
No, I don't think I misspelled anything. My comment wasn't intended to
infer that. I could have, but I chose not to.
Jer
As to whether a stated opinion is factual is the business of the
listener, not the speaker. You've had this problem for quite a while
now. Isn't there a pill for that now?
Bob
gd...@airmail.ten says...
-:Bob wrote:
-:> In article <HGxnl.13832$Si4....@newsfe22.iad>, nite...@cox.net
-:> says...
-:> -:Jer wrote:
-:> -:> Chris Guynn wrote:
-:> -:>
-:> -:>> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
-:> -:>> <snip>
-:> -:>>
-:> -:>>> I'm not convinced he told any such lie. I am convinced a number of
-:> -:>>> something clearly, and that may well be because the speaker didn't
-:> -:>>> make much of an effort to speak clearly. But, this doesn't rise to
-:> -:>>> the level of a lie, absence of malice and all that.
-:> -:>>
-:> -:>>
-:> -:>> Interesting... I'm taking an ethics course right now and the section
-:> -:>> been able to find.
-:> -:>
-:> -:>
-:> -:> statement to be true, it's not a lie, regardless of how untrue the
-:> -:> statement ultimately proves to be. And this still applies even if the
-:> -:> speaker should have know the truth, yet didn't. Yes, sanctions can be
-:> -:> held for negligence, but not for lying.
-:> -:>
-:> -:
-:> -:"Lying" in the true since of the word involves "intent to deceive".
-:> maybe we need a new word.
-:> definition: saying something to be true,
-:> passing something off as true fact,
-:> when you have no proof that it is true.
-:>
-:> perhaps pompous ignorant blowhard would work. PIB.
-:
-:
-:Actually, we already have a word for it - it's called an opinion.
correct, if it is presented as such.
what you missed, jer, is that some people do not distinguish
between fact and unfounded opinion,
if they even know the difference.
-:
-:
-:
-:
-:
Bob
gd...@airmail.ten says...
-:Lee Bell wrote:
-:>>> maybe we need a new word.
-:>>> definition: saying something to be true,
-:>>> passing something off as true fact,
-:>>> when you have no proof that it is true.
-:>>>
-:>>> perhaps pompous ignorant blowhard would work. PIB.
-:>>
-:>> Actually, we already have a word for it - it's called an opinion.
-:>
-:> No. Opinion is not "passing something off as true fact."
-:>
-:>
-:
-:As to whether a stated opinion is factual is the business of the
-:listener, not the speaker.
what an amazing position.
coming from you, it makes sense, and explains things.
-:You've had this problem for quite a while
-:now. Isn't there a pill for that now?
-:
-:
Lee Bell
The question is not whether the opinion is correct or not, but whether it is
"passed off as true fact" when it's only an opinion. For example, I've "had
this problem for quite a while now" is your opinion, but not a fact. That
you are an illiterate fool is both my opinion and fact. See the difference?
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
As I've previously attempted to educate you-
Opinions may or may not be lies, or truths, or facts or wildly unsupported
supposition.
Just because you hold the opinion that the moon is made of cheese or that
a stork brings babies, doesn't make the point valid.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
> Lee Bell wrote:
>>>> maybe we need a new word.
>>>> definition: saying something to be true,
>>>> passing something off as true fact,
>>>> when you have no proof that it is true.
>>>>
>>>> perhaps pompous ignorant blowhard would work. PIB.
>>>
>>> Actually, we already have a word for it - it's called an opinion.
>>
>> No. Opinion is not "passing something off as true fact."
>
> As to whether a stated opinion is factual is the business of the listener,
> not the speaker.
That's a lie.
>You've had this problem for quite a while now. Isn't there a pill for that
>now?
You seem somewhat familiar with such therapy.
>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'
--
Rod
WOW !!!!! thats ummmm interesting
Jer
>>>>> maybe we need a new word.
>>>>> definition: saying something to be true,
>>>>> passing something off as true fact,
>>>>> when you have no proof that it is true.
>>>>>
>>>>> perhaps pompous ignorant blowhard would work. PIB.
>>>> Actually, we already have a word for it - it's called an opinion.
>>> No. Opinion is not "passing something off as true fact."
>
>> As to whether a stated opinion is factual is the business of the listener,
>> not the speaker. You've had this problem for quite a while now. Isn't
>> there a pill for that now?
>
> The question is not whether the opinion is correct or not, but whether it is
> "passed off as true fact" when it's only an opinion.
There's no such thing as a correct or incorrect opinion. If the facts
aren't in evidence, it's an opinion, maybe a good one, maybe not. To
'pass something off as fact' requires the presenter and receiver to
agree on it's factual validity. If the presenter offers nothing more
than a mere statement, there's nothing to be accepted as factual. For
the receiver to assume anything more than that is not the responsibility
of the presenter.
> For example, I've "had
> this problem for quite a while now" is your opinion, but not a fact.
True statement.
> That
> you are an illiterate fool is both my opinion and fact. See the difference?
>
It's still just an opinion, and you're welcome to it regardless of how I
(or anyone else) believes it to be qualified.
Practically everything I've ever read in this forum has been an opinion
from the poster, sometimes I've agreed with it, sometimes not. But,
unlike others, I don't ascribe any validity to any statement beyond that
of being an opinion without some additional supporting and verifiable
information, ie. evidence.
Now, Mr. G-man, the above statement is my own personal opinion intended
to offer a glimpse on how I roll. I see many things on the internet,
but as to whether *any* of it is factually valid depends on some
additional qualifying information, preferably from an independent
source. And I'm not going to do anyone's homework - if you expect me to
believe a statement to be considered factual, bring your homework to the
table so as to offer some credibility to support your statement.
Otherwise, it's an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
Jer
Agreed.
Jer
I don't believe you're smart enough to educate me about much of
anything. It's okay if you try, just don't expect to be successful.
>
> Opinions may or may not be lies, or truths, or facts or wildly
> unsupported supposition.
>
> Just because you hold the opinion that the moon is made of cheese or
> that a stork brings babies, doesn't make the point valid.
>
It *is* valid if the listener believes it to be so.
Bob
Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com says...
-:"Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
-:news:JNqdncorR4qcvj3U...@posted.internetamerica...
-:> Lee Bell wrote:
-:>>>> maybe we need a new word.
-:>>>> definition: saying something to be true,
-:>>>> passing something off as true fact,
-:>>>> when you have no proof that it is true.
-:>>>>
-:>>>> perhaps pompous ignorant blowhard would work. PIB.
-:>>>
-:>>> Actually, we already have a word for it - it's called an opinion.
-:>>
-:>> No. Opinion is not "passing something off as true fact."
-:>
-:> As to whether a stated opinion is factual is the business of the listener,
-:> not the speaker.
-:
-: That's a lie.
I would have said that it was not correct.
-:
-:>You've had this problem for quite a while now. Isn't there a pill for that
-:>now?
-:
-: You seem somewhat familiar with such therapy.
-:
-:>
-:> --
-:> jer
-:> email reply - I am not a 'ten'
-:
-:
-:
-:--
-:
-:
ben bradlee
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>>
>> As I've previously attempted to educate you-
>
> I don't believe you're smart enough to educate me about much of anything.
Doug is wrong about 99% of the time. Even with that dismal record, we
possibly can learn something from Doug the other 1% of the time.
ben bradlee
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>>
>> As I've previously attempted to educate you-
>
> I don't believe you're smart enough to educate me about much of anything.
Doug is wrong about 99% of the time. Even with that dismal record, we
Lee Bell
> There's no such thing as a correct or incorrect opinion.
Of course there is.
> If the facts aren't in evidence, it's an opinion, maybe a good one, maybe
> not.
Whether the evidence is there or not, the opinion can be correct or
incorrect. Not being able to prove something is correct does not change
whether or not it is.
> To 'pass something off as fact' requires the presenter and receiver to
> agree on it's factual validity.
Not at all. I can pass something off as fact that you don't accept as fact.
You don't have to agree.
> If the presenter offers nothing more than a mere statement, there's
> nothing to be accepted as factual.
You're reading this on some form of display. I stated that as if it were a
fact when, in truth, it's only my opinion. I'm pretty sure, however, that
it's correct.
> For the receiver to assume anything more than that is not the
> responsibility of the presenter.
A lie does not require the receiver to depend on it, or even to believe it.
> Practically everything I've ever read in this forum has been an opinion
> from the poster . . .
Stated as if it were a fact. If you know it to be otherwise, it's a lie.
> . . . sometimes I've agreed with it, sometimes not.
Stated as a fact by the only person that could know. Unless it's a
deliberate lie, it is a fact, not an opinion.
> But, unlike others, I don't ascribe any validity to any statement beyond
> that of being an opinion without
> some additional supporting and verifiable information, ie. evidence.
So you ascribe no validity to the fact that I work for the government or
that I have a generator that was paid for, in part, by FEMA, right? If not
right, your statement is a lie.
> Now, Mr. G-man, the above statement is my own personal opinion intended to
> offer a glimpse on how I roll. I see many things on the internet, but as
> to whether *any* of it is factually valid depends on some additional
> qualifying information, preferably from an independent source.
Nope. Whether or not you believe it is fact may depend on verification, but
whehter it is factually valid or not has nothing to do with your opinion on
the subject.
> And I'm not going to do anyone's homework - if you expect me to believe a
> statement to be considered
> factual, bring your homework to the table so as to offer some credibility
> to support your statement. Otherwise, it's an opinion, nothing more,
> nothing less.
By your own words, your statement is not factual because you have not
supported it with independent evidence. If you stated it as fact, which you
did, believing it to be nothing more than opinion, it's a lie, and you're a
liar. Open mouth, insert foot.
Lee Bell
> It's okay if you try, just don't expect to be successful.
We don't, but we live in hope.
Scott
"ben bradlee" <No...@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
news:ZZKdnVhKTNWyDz3U...@centurytel.net...
At least he is usually smart enought to reply once.
Chris Guynn
If that's truly the case, I would have expected the dictionary to say as
much. Of course, that also doesn't mean that you're wrong.
Chris Guynn
"Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> Lee Bell wrote:
>>>>>> maybe we need a new word.
>>>>>> definition: saying something to be true,
>>>>>> passing something off as true fact,
>>>>>> when you have no proof that it is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> perhaps pompous ignorant blowhard would work. PIB.
>>>>> Actually, we already have a word for it - it's called an opinion.
>>>> No. Opinion is not "passing something off as true fact."
>>
>>> As to whether a stated opinion is factual is the business of the
>>> listener, not the speaker. You've had this problem for quite a while
>>> now. Isn't there a pill for that now?
>>
>> The question is not whether the opinion is correct or not, but whether it
>> is "passed off as true fact" when it's only an opinion.
>
> There's no such thing as a correct or incorrect opinion. If the facts
> aren't in evidence, it's an opinion, maybe a good one, maybe not. To
> 'pass something off as fact' requires the presenter and receiver to agree
> on it's factual validity. If the presenter offers nothing more than a
> mere statement, there's nothing to be accepted as factual. For the
> receiver to assume anything more than that is not the responsibility of
> the presenter.
Funny, everything I've ever learned about communication says that the
communicator has more responsibility for conveying their message than the
communicatee has in receiving it. If the communictor is communicating an
opinion, it is their responsibility to make sure that the communicatee
understands that. On the other hand, if the communicatee refuses to
understand anything that the communicator communicates, I'm not sure there's
anything the communicator can do about it except cease communications.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
news:ZMGdnUzYwpGwPz3U...@supernews.com...
Kennybenny sees red.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
news:MPG.240a5a3d...@news.verizon.net...
> In article <ErWdnel-S9Tqyj3U...@supernews.com>,
> Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com says...
> -:"Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> -:news:JNqdncorR4qcvj3U...@posted.internetamerica...
> -:> Lee Bell wrote:
> -:>>>> maybe we need a new word.
> -:>>>> definition: saying something to be true,
> -:>>>> passing something off as true fact,
> -:>>>> when you have no proof that it is true.
> -:>>>>
> -:>>>> perhaps pompous ignorant blowhard would work. PIB.
> -:>>>
> -:>>> Actually, we already have a word for it - it's called an opinion.
> -:>>
> -:>> No. Opinion is not "passing something off as true fact."
> -:>
> -:> As to whether a stated opinion is factual is the business of the
> listener,
> -:> not the speaker.
> -:
> -: That's a lie.
>
> I would have said that it was not correct.
Not if it's intentional obfuscation.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
Got another story for us?
"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
message news:...
> "ben bradlee" <No...@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
>> Aren't you the guy who's in favor of killing prairie dogs for sport?
>
> Poor kennybenny.
>
> You're reaching the point of Futilian Apoplectic Dementia where your
> fevered, rabid little pea brain starts inventing fantasies to justify your
> fervent Popeye hate.
>
> I don't support shooting prairie dogs en masse, and wouldn't do it, and I
> don't remember even commenting on it.
>
> But that just doesn't work for your attack, does it?
>
>>It's the Canadians you don't believe have the right to kill seals for the
>>skin?
>
> And that's not remotely what I said, either this time or during several
> previous discussions that seem to have escaped you.
>
> What I said (vis-à-vis "turd polishing") could be clearly grasped by
> anyone with the reading comprehension of a seven year old, but you
> couldn't begin to see it through the red.
>
> You're forced to bend or simply invent context to try and take a very
> pathetic attempt at a cheap shot.
>
> That's why I rule.
>
>> Thought so.
>
> I know.
>
> I know, Ken.
>
> We're sure what you believed, however utterly false, seemed palpably true
> true to you in your twisted, ravaged sleep.
>
>>You're solidly in the 99%.
>
> I'm still 1% above you.
>
> If you ever wonder why I own you, or Futile John, or STUPID, STUPID,
> STUPID Dave Frank, it's because your tattered self esteem -forces- you to
> tell barefaced lies like this in an anonymous (to you) usenet forum to
> maintain even a -shred- of an illusion of self-respect.
>
> How ever low I've ever been here, I've never been anywhere -near- -that-
> low.
>
> Like when I force you to take your own name off your own written words.
>
> You just can't help it.
>
> At least Francis finally realized what he had become, and scraped up
> enough dignity to leave.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>>>> maybe we need a new word.
>>>> definition: saying something to be true,
>>>> passing something off as true fact,
>>>> when you have no proof that it is true.
>>>>
>>>> perhaps pompous ignorant blowhard would work. PIB.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, we already have a word for it - it's called an opinion.
>>
>> As I've previously attempted to educate you-
>
> I don't believe you're smart enough to educate me about much of anything.
That's certainly an opinion.
> It's okay if you try, just don't expect to be successful.
When I do, it's to make you an example to others.
As I previously said, I doubt anyone would be successful educating you
about anything.
>> Opinions may or may not be lies, or truths, or facts or wildly
>> unsupported supposition.
>>
>> Just because you hold the opinion that the moon is made of cheese or
>> that a stork brings babies, doesn't make the point valid.
>>
>
> It *is* valid if the listener believes it to be so.
So if you believe the moon is made of cheese, it is?
That explains a lot.
>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'
--
Scott
> Kennybenny sees red.
Vulva pink...
Dennis (Icarus)
The listener isn't the one stating or implying something is true when it's
unspoorted. Supporting what one says or writes is the responsibility of the
orator/author. The listener can choose to verify.
Dennis
Jer
Everything I've ever learned about communication says that the presenter
and receiver equally share responsibility for being clearly understood.
> If the communictor is communicating an
> opinion, it is their responsibility to make sure that the communicatee
> understands that.
Yep, it's the presenter's responsibility to be clear with the
presentation. It's the receiver's responsibility to ascribe any
validity to the statement.
> On the other hand, if the communicatee refuses to
> understand anything that the communicator communicates, I'm not sure there's
> anything the communicator can do about it except cease communications.
>
Yep, if it's a requirement the presenter's statements be accepted as
factual, and it's impossible for the presenter to provide anything the
receiver would accept as factual, then STFU always works.
Jer
True enough. But, a listener can ascribe validity to any statement
without any supporting information. If they do, and they're wrong in
doing so, it's not the fault of the presenter.
Jer
Well, okay, we can always hope.
Jer
> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:Ue-dnSJoIc1SED3U...@posted.internetamerica...
>> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>
>>>>> maybe we need a new word.
>>>>> definition: saying something to be true,
>>>>> passing something off as true fact,
>>>>> when you have no proof that it is true.
>>>>>
>>>>> perhaps pompous ignorant blowhard would work. PIB.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, we already have a word for it - it's called an opinion.
>>>
>>> As I've previously attempted to educate you-
>>
>> I don't believe you're smart enough to educate me about much of anything.
>
> That's certainly an opinion.
>
>> It's okay if you try, just don't expect to be successful.
>
> When I do, it's to make you an example to others.
Okay... I've always wanted to be a hero.
>
> As I previously said, I doubt anyone would be successful educating you
> about anything.
You may well be surprised at the success some have had.
>
>>> Opinions may or may not be lies, or truths, or facts or wildly
>>> unsupported supposition.
>>>
>>> Just because you hold the opinion that the moon is made of cheese or
>>> that a stork brings babies, doesn't make the point valid.
>>>
>>
>> It *is* valid if the listener believes it to be so.
>
> So if you believe the moon is made of cheese, it is?
If I believe the moon is made of cheese, it *is* made of cheese AFAIC.
If that isn't factual, then it's my fault for accepting something to be
factual when it wasn't.
>
> That explains a lot.
It explains I'm willing to accept my responsibility for assuming
opinions from others as being factual, nor not. I also accept that I'm
not wired the same way a lot of others are, and that's okay too. It may
not be okay as far as your concerned, but that's not really my problem
is it?
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>> So if you believe the moon is made of cheese, it is?
>
>
> If I believe the moon is made of cheese, it *is* made of cheese AFAIC.
I think this statement speaks for itself.
> If that isn't factual, then it's my fault for accepting something to be
> factual when it wasn't.
You're obfuscating.
It's either a fact, or it isn't.
What fault you may or may not choose to accept is irrelevant.
Your belief or opinion thereof has absolutely no bearing, except to
quantify how much you choose to delude yourself.
Chris Guynn
"Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
Even in that case, "For the receiver to assume anything more than that is
not the responsibility of
the presenter" seems that it would be just as much the responsibility of the
presenter as the receiver.
Bob
pugetso...@geemail.com says...
-:
-:"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
-:message news:j5idnU8OLsGzUT3U...@supernews.com...
-:
-:> Kennybenny sees red.
-:
-:Vulva pink...
-:
-:
-:
from the inside...
Dennis (Icarus)
> Dennis (Icarus) wrote:
>> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
>> news:JNqdncorR4qcvj3U...@posted.internetamerica...
>>> Lee Bell wrote:
>>>>>> maybe we need a new word.
>>>>>> definition: saying something to be true,
>>>>>> passing something off as true fact,
>>>>>> when you have no proof that it is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> perhaps pompous ignorant blowhard would work. PIB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, we already have a word for it - it's called an opinion.
>>>>
>>>> No. Opinion is not "passing something off as true fact."
>>>
>>> As to whether a stated opinion is factual is the business of the
>>> listener, not the speaker. You've had this problem for quite a while
>>> now. Isn't there a pill for that now?
>>
>> The listener isn't the one stating or implying something is true when
>>
>> Dennis
>
>
> True enough. But, a listener can ascribe validity to any statement
Thanks.
> without any supporting information. If they do, and they're wrong in
> doing so, it's not the fault of the presenter.
By that..uhm.."logic" fraud, con games, even perjury, would not, could not,
be crimes.
Dennis
Lee Bell
> without any supporting information. If they do, and they're wrong in
Not necessarily.
Lee Bell
> and receiver equally share responsibility for being clearly understood.
Then you need to go back and learn some more. Ignorance can be cured.
ben bradlee
> "ben bradlee" <No...@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
> news:TrCdnfZ527qGDz3U...@centurytel.net...
>> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
>> news:Ue-dnSJoIc1SED3U...@posted.internetamerica...
>>> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As I've previously attempted to educate you-
>>>
>>> I don't believe you're smart enough to educate me about much of
>>> anything.
>>
>> Doug is wrong about 99% of the time. Even with that dismal record, we
>> possibly can learn something from Doug the other 1% of the time.
>
> Got another story for us?
It's a matter of giving credit where credit is due.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
Absolutely.
That's why I asked if you had another paranoid fantasy for us.
"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
message news:...
> "ben bradlee" <No...@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
>> Aren't you the guy who's in favor of killing prairie dogs for sport?
ben bradlee
> "ben bradlee" <No...@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
> news:C9mdnYInx6wtAj_U...@centurytel.net...
>>
>> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
>> message news:kpWdnT7D2NoJUz3U...@supernews.com...
>>> "ben bradlee" <No...@Way.Bite.Me> wrote in message
>>> news:TrCdnfZ527qGDz3U...@centurytel.net...
>>>> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
>>>> news:Ue-dnSJoIc1SED3U...@posted.internetamerica...
>>>>> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I've previously attempted to educate you-
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe you're smart enough to educate me about much of
>>>>> anything.
>>>>
>>>> Doug is wrong about 99% of the time. Even with that dismal record, we
>>>> possibly can learn something from Doug the other 1% of the time.
>>>
>>> Got another story for us?
>>
>> It's a matter of giving credit where credit is due.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> That's why I asked if you had another paranoid fantasy for us.
And you jump back into the 99% area in the blink of an eye.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
>>>>>>> As I've previously attempted to educate you-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe you're smart enough to educate me about much of
>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doug is wrong about 99% of the time. Even with that dismal record, we
>>>>> possibly can learn something from Doug the other 1% of the time.
>>>>
>>>> Got another story for us?
>>>
>>> It's a matter of giving credit where credit is due.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> That's why I asked if you had another paranoid fantasy for us.
>
> And you jump back into the 99% area in the blink of an eye.
Of course I could ask you for a cite, but that's not the Futilian way, eh?
Bob
plee...@bellsouth.net says...
-:> Everything I've ever learned about communication says that the presenter
-:> and receiver equally share responsibility for being clearly understood.
-:
-:Then you need to go back and learn some more.
-:Ignorance can be cured.
and thus you win "The Laugh of the Day Award"
-:
-:
-:
Lee Bell
Thanks, Bob, it's been a while.
Scott
> news:BrOdnSvWtrSPIz_U...@centurytel.net...
>> And you jump back into the 99% area in the blink of an eye.
>
> Of course I could ask you for a cite, but that's not the Futilian
> way, eh?
If continence causes neurosis
And intercourse causes thrombosis
I'd rather expire
Fulfilling desire
Than live in a state of psychosis.
Jer
Sure it can. What's stopping you?
Jer
Oftentimes they're not. It depends on what you knew and when you knew
it, and it has to be provable with corroborating testimony. If that's
not possible, say whatever you want.
Jer
> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:D56dndMCrac05zzU...@posted.internetamerica...
>> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>
>
>>> So if you believe the moon is made of cheese, it is?
>>
>>
>> If I believe the moon is made of cheese, it *is* made of cheese AFAIC.
>
> I think this statement speaks for itself.
>
>> If that isn't factual, then it's my fault for accepting something to
>> be factual when it wasn't.
>
> You're obfuscating.
>
> It's either a fact, or it isn't.
>
> What fault you may or may not choose to accept is irrelevant.
>
> Your belief or opinion thereof has absolutely no bearing, except to
> quantify how much you choose to delude yourself.
>
When it comes to opinions or beliefs, the same can easily be said of
yourself, or anyone. So what? It doesn't mean anything to anyone
except the holder of the opinion or belief. Neither you nor I are under
any obligation to agree or disagree, we just do. What I'm trying to
help you understand here is how incredibly stupid your position is to
anyone but you. Nobody cares what we believe or our opinions are,
everybody already has one of their own. I'm not delusional to expect
anyone should adopt my belief or opinion, and neither should you. I
suppose it's okay if they do, but at least I don't expect them to.
Everybody is on their own, as they should be. I now expect you to come
back in here and make some more stupid remarks under the guise of trying
to help poor little me figure shit out, but you're wasting your time.
It's been great playing with you today, but tomorrow, go have some real
fun and find someone that thinks you're a cool dude.
Dennis (Icarus)
Well, finally, it looks as though you may well be beginning to see that
speakers can be held accountable for what they say.
What do you think about the accusatkion of "predatory lending"? Ok because
buyer should beware?
Bush cregarding WMDs in Iraq? Hey, it's not th fault of the presenter... :-)
Dennis
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
>> news:D56dndMCrac05zzU...@posted.internetamerica...
>>> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> So if you believe the moon is made of cheese, it is?
>>>
>>>
>>> If I believe the moon is made of cheese, it *is* made of cheese AFAIC.
>>
>> I think this statement speaks for itself.
>>
>>> If that isn't factual, then it's my fault for accepting something to be
>>> factual when it wasn't.
>>
>> You're obfuscating.
>>
>> It's either a fact, or it isn't.
>>
>> What fault you may or may not choose to accept is irrelevant.
>>
>> Your belief or opinion thereof has absolutely no bearing, except to
>> quantify how much you choose to delude yourself.
>>
>
> When it comes to opinions or beliefs, the same can easily be said of
> yourself, or anyone.
No, actually.
I go to great lengths that some here seem to consider extraordinary to
confirm my opinions as fact.
In the extremely rare hapenstance (over an eleven year period) that
someone proves me wrong, I ammend my opinion to reflect such, usually
accompanied by an apology.
The reason I'm rarely wrong is simple.
It's not because I'm particularly brilliant, it's because of the simple
country boy expedient of keeping my mouth shut about the many things I'm
ignorant of.
On the rare occaisions that I offer an opinion in lieu of available fact,
I'm specific about it.
What you have clearly, repeatedly, espoused is that -anything- you believe
to be fact, -is-, and, things that -are- factual, that you don't believe to
be, -aren't-.
Your position is disassociative to -any- definition of reality, as is much
of your posting history.
Better yet, you're even (truly spinelessly) tossing some bullshit spin
that what you do or don't believe, no matter how insane, is the fault of
others.
That's a simply amazing brand of cowardice.
But we've seen it from you before.
> So what? It doesn't mean anything to anyone except the holder of the
> opinion or belief. Neither you nor I are under any obligation to agree or
> disagree, we just do. What I'm trying to help you understand here is how
> incredibly stupid your position is to anyone but you. Nobody cares what
> we believe or our opinions are, everybody already has one of their own.
You care, or you wouldn't take the time to argue here.
At great length.
> I'm not delusional to expect anyone should adopt my belief or opinion, and
> neither should you. I suppose it's okay if they do, but at least I don't
> expect them to. Everybody is on their own, as they should be.
Not when they're wrong.
> I now expect you to come back in here and make some more stupid remarks
> under the guise of trying to help poor little me figure shit out, but
> you're wasting your time.
My motives in that venue were already posted.
I've been hammering Kennybenny like an anvil for maybe 8 years- think he's
changed any?
And while I'm certainly wasting time with you, as anyone would be, this
isn't a private e-mail.
> It's been great playing with you today, but tomorrow, go have some real
> fun and find someone that thinks you're a cool dude.
-Everyone- thinks I'm cool, pretty much because I am.
Most people like me for it, because I just am what I am.
Some people, like you, hate me for it, out of angst and envy.
You're not the first, won't be the last, and are -very- far from the
cleverest.
Jer
Okay, Cool Poppy, whatever you say. Thank you for your opinions.
Jer
Of course, buyer beware.
> Bush cregarding WMDs in Iraq? Hey, it's not th fault of the presenter...
> :-)
>
I think he and his minions intentionally shaped the truth to suit their
perception of national necessity as they understood it. Worse, it
didn't matter to them how anyone else understood it. Executive
privilege only comes packaged with so much mileage. They blew it.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
> Okay, Cool Poppy, whatever you say. Thank you for your opinions.
Always glad to give you the benefit of my opinion.
"I make up my opinions from facts and reasoning, and not to suit any
body but myself. If people don't like my opinions, it makes little
difference as I don't solicit their opinions or votes."
William Tecumseh Sherman, 1820 - 1891