House members rejected bailout because voters back home hated it

[Yurt]

our voices can be heard....

House members rejected bailout because voters back home hated it

WASHINGTON — Almost until the early afternoon vote Monday on the financial rescue plan, voters bombarded congressional offices, protesting almost in unison: Don't bail out renegade financial executives and companies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080929/pl_mcclatchy/3058710;_ylt=AksDni.gHbn5EDnaBx.8_p0EtbAF

[retiredman]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-09-25-poll-results_N.htm

[Yurt]

:lol: a facking poll is more accurate that congress getting phone calls....are you callling the congress folks liars mfm?

[manu1959]

:lol: a facking poll is more accurate that congress getting phone calls....are you callling the congress folks liars mfm?

only the republicans....

[retiredman]

:lol: a facking poll is more accurate that congress getting phone calls....are you callling the congress folks liars mfm?

no more accurate...no less.

and of course they aren't lying...but the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive, don't you think? And I have been around politics long enough to KNOW that phone banking calls like that goes on all the time... on both sides of the aisle.

[Yurt]

only the republicans....

so true, maybe this guy should have listened to some poll instead of his constituents....


There's a real sense of frustration. People see their tax dollars spent bailing out financial institutions, and they themselves are not doing well," said Rep. Elijah Cummings , D- Md. , who represents a predominantly black Baltimore district. He voted no.

[manu1959]

so true, maybe this guy should have listened to some poll instead of his constituents....

the govt should not give these companies any money......i am shocked they gave the auto dealers money....

[Yurt]

no more accurate...no less.

and of course they aren't lying...but the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive, don't you think? And I have been around politics long enough to KNOW that phone banking calls like that goes on all the time... on both sides of the aisle.

do you have any proof of this? of course not. you're making this up as if the poll could not have been faked or the numbers scewed....get over yourself and your party loyalty....face it, many dems voted no because they heard directly from their constituents, that is what they said. anyone that puts more faith in a random poll over direct phone calls and who knows what else, emails, etc...is a fool

kerry should president if polls are right LOOOOL

[retiredman]

do you have any proof of this? of course not. you're making this up as if the poll could not have been faked or the numbers scewed....get over yourself and your party loyalty....face it, many dems voted no because they heard directly from their constituents, that is what they said. anyone that puts more faith in a random poll over direct phone calls and who knows what else, emails, etc...is a fool
do I have proof that political parties routinely arrange phone banks to call congressional members from the other party? Yeah... I have participated in the practice...and joked about it with republican legislative staffers who had done the same thing.

I am sure they DID hear from constituents...I am saying that the constituents in many cases were political operatives calling more than once.

[Yurt]

do I have proof that political parties routinely arrange phone banks to call congressional members from the other party? Yeah... I have participated in the practice...and joked about it with republican legislative staffers who had done the same thing.

I am sure they DID hear from constituents...I am saying that the constituents in many cases were political operatives calling more than once.

you obviously haven't the first clue as to what proof or evidence is...evidence of a prior bad act is not evidence, without more, that the same act occurred again. just because you allegedly saw it happen somewhere, does not at all mean it happened here. i asked you for proof in this instance, you can't provide it so i will ignore you false claim.

i am sure you have the same 'proof' for you poll....because i know that polls have been faked in the past, so that must mean your poll is fake...

you are should leave the more intellectual discussions alone, stick to insults and your phony phone calls....was that honest mfm? yes or no?

[theHawk]

do I have proof that political parties routinely arrange phone banks to call congressional members from the other party? Yeah... I have participated in the practice...and joked about it with republican legislative staffers who had done the same thing.

I am sure they DID hear from constituents...I am saying that the constituents in many cases were political operatives calling more than once.


So just because you did a dishonest thing like that, everyone else is guilty of it too. :lame2:

[avatar4321]

So just because you did a dishonest thing like that, everyone else is guilty of it too. :lame2:

Of course that's the case. It's called projection. It's a common Democrat tactic.

[AFbombloader]

I called, 13 hour time difference and all. I guess that makes me a political operative.:poke:

AF:salute:

[retiredman]

I called, 13 hour time difference and all. I guess that makes me a political operative.:poke:

AF:salute:

did you call more than once?

[retiredman]

you obviously haven't the first clue as to what proof or evidence is...evidence of a prior bad act is not evidence, without more, that the same act occurred again. just because you allegedly saw it happen somewhere, does not at all mean it happened here. i asked you for proof in this instance, you can't provide it so i will ignore you false claim.

i am sure you have the same 'proof' for you poll....because i know that polls have been faked in the past, so that must mean your poll is fake...

you are should leave the more intellectual discussions alone, stick to insults and your phony phone calls....was that honest mfm? yes or no?

this isn't a courtroom counselor.:laugh2:

You've got a bunch of phone calls, I've got a poll. Polls have methodology that limits the margin of error. Merely counting up the numbers of phone calls received does not provide a similar level of error reduction. Are you suggesting that yours is right and mine is wrong?

[Classact]

On CSPAN this morning the Democratic congressman from CT said that members of his caucus were also receiving calls from their constituents... he said CT was 30-1 against and some members from TX had rates of 99-1 against.

If this is such a big problem why has no one asked why the House of Representatives closed shop until Thursday? Yes, I know today and tomorrow are Jewish holidays but they are not federal holidays so why not stay open and move the action forward.

As to the question as to why many Republicans didn't support it, I watched the debate live and many simply said they thought it was a slippery slope to communism. Others said they think the mark to market could cure or do much of the cure to the problem along with reduced capital gains taxes... others wanted to keep their jobs and held differing versions of the above...

[Yurt]

...... your phony phone calls....was that honest mfm? yes or no?


So just because you did a dishonest thing like that, everyone else is guilty of it too. :lame2:


Of course that's the case. It's called projection. It's a common Democrat tactic.

.....of course ignored

[stang56k]

Its nice that the politians listened to the people for once =P.

[retiredman]

this isn't a courtroom counselor.:laugh2:

You've got a bunch of phone calls, I've got a poll. Polls have methodology that limits the margin of error. Merely counting up the numbers of phone calls received does not provide a similar level of error reduction. Are you suggesting that yours is right and mine is wrong?


of course, ignored:laugh2:

[Yurt]

one would think you would want to show you were not being dishonest, i guess it doesn't really matter to you....

as to this not beign a courtroom, so what. the logic i presented is still valid. also, hawk mentioned it in a similar vein, just because you did something dishonest does not mean others are dishonest as well.

are you saying that just because you know of past incidents where people falsely called their reps...that....taht is evidence THIS time of the same? it is all over the news that reps are saying they received so many phone calls that they could not vote for it....if you don't want to believe that, i don't care, have faith in some random poll....

and don't forget to answer the question about your integrity....for the 3rd time...

[retiredman]

one would think you would want to show you were not being dishonest, i guess it doesn't really matter to you....

as to this not beign a courtroom, so what. the logic i presented is still valid. also, hawk mentioned it in a similar vein, just because you did something dishonest does not mean others are dishonest as well.

are you saying that just because you know of past incidents where people falsely called their reps...that....taht is evidence THIS time of the same? it is all over the news that reps are saying they received so many phone calls that they could not vote for it....if you don't want to believe that, i don't care, have faith in some random poll....

and don't forget to answer the question about your integrity....for the 3rd time...


like I said... a random poll has controls which limit the margin of error. There is NOTHING to stop people from calling their congressmen more than once. And as I said, having worked in politics previously in my life, I can tell you that such phone banking is a routine practice. I think you are being naive to think that it was not going on to some extent in this instance.

And I am NOT being dishonest in any way. I am not saying that the phone callers are all wrong and that America overwhelmingly supports the bailout....I AM saying that the perception that the nation is overwhelmingly against it drawn by you based upon calls to congressmen is erroneous.

[AFbombloader]

this isn't a courtroom counselor.:laugh2:

You've got a bunch of phone calls, I've got a poll. Polls have methodology that limits the margin of error. Merely counting up the numbers of phone calls received does not provide a similar level of error reduction. Are you suggesting that yours is right and mine is wrong?

No, I only called once.

Your logic bewilders me. If we should have learned anything in the past it should be that polls should be taken with a grain of salt. They can be slewed to say whatever the pollster desires. You know that is true. I will agree with you that there is absolutely no way to provide an error reduction for the phone calls. But when the phone bank gets shut down and there is a hot topic like immigration or this financial issue it is crazy to say that the calls are not concerning that topic. I don't think you said that, before you reply to that, I am just making a general point. Like with the immigration issue, the people did speak to the House. Was it a Republican calling machine? I don't believe so, the vast majority of people I know and have talked to are at a minimum leery of this bailout, more than a few are like me and think it iw a bad Idea and think we should not do it.

AF:salute:

[Yurt]

.....of course ignored .....3 times


do I have proof that political parties routinely arrange phone banks to call congressional members from the other party? Yeah... I have participated in the practice...and joked about it with republican legislative staffers who had done the same thing.

I am sure they DID hear from constituents...I am saying that the constituents in many cases were political operatives calling more than once.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yurt
...... your phony phone calls....was that honest mfm? yes or no?


Quote:
Originally Posted by theHawk
So just because you did a dishonest thing like that, everyone else is guilty of it too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by avatar4321
Of course that's the case. It's called projection. It's a common Democrat tactic.

[retiredman]

No, I only called once.

Your logic bewilders me. If we should have learned anything in the past it should be that polls should be taken with a grain of salt. They can be slewed to say whatever the pollster desires. You know that is true. I will agree with you that there is absolutely no way to provide an error reduction for the phone calls. But when the phone bank gets shut down and there is a hot topic like immigration or this financial issue it is crazy to say that the calls are not concerning that topic. I don't think you said that, before you reply to that, I am just making a general point. Like with the immigration issue, the people did speak to the House. Was it a Republican calling machine? I don't believe so, the vast majority of people I know and have talked to are at a minimum leery of this bailout, more than a few are like me and think it iw a bad Idea and think we should not do it.

AF:salute:

My logic bewilders you, yet you agree with the fact that there is no way to provide any sort of oversight on the phone calls? I am not saying that any poll is the holy grail, I AM saying that the practice of overloading congressional offices with orchestrated multiple calls is a long established one. Is it entirely ethical? no. Is it ILLEGAL? no. Have I done it in the past? yes. Will I do it in the future? not likely.... I did my time in the trenches...it is time for younger folks to man the phones. The poll says one thing and the phone calls say another. One of those processes has a way to calculate the margin of error. One does not.

[Yurt]

My logic bewilders you, yet you agree with the fact that there is no way to provide any sort of oversight on the phone calls? I am not saying that any poll is the holy grail, I AM saying that the practice of overloading congressional offices with orchestrated multiple calls is a long established one. Is it entirely ethical? no. Is it ILLEGAL? no. Have I done it in the past? yes. Will I do it in the future? not likely.... I did my time in the trenches...it is time for younger folks to man the phones. The poll says one thing and the phone calls say another. One of those processes has a way to calculate the margin of error. One does not.

:lol:

for the 4th time, was it honest? were you entirely honest in those phone calls? it is a real simple yes or no, but i understand your reluctance to discuss it.... not surprisingly you refuse to answer my post, despite that i answered yours....ho hum, par for the course, demand of others what you will not give yourself

[retiredman]

:lol:

for the 4th time, was it honest? were you entirely honest in those phone calls? it is a real simple yes or no, but i understand your reluctance to discuss it.... not surprisingly you refuse to answer my post, despite that i answered yours....ho hum, par for the course, demand of others what you will not give yourself

I answered your question. Was it HONEST? of course it was. I was not making statements to the congressional offices that I did not BELIEVE were true. I made multiple phone calls. Just as I am sure that many people made multiple phone calls on THIS issue. Is it DISHONEST? no. Is it designed to influence congressional voting? of course it is. Is calling ONCE dishonest? no. Is calling twice illegal? no. Can I NOT call and voice my opinion more than once? Of course I can. Did I answer you question, little whiny boy?

[AFbombloader]

My logic bewilders you, yet you agree with the fact that there is no way to provide any sort of oversight on the phone calls? I am not saying that any poll is the holy grail, I AM saying that the practice of overloading congressional offices with orchestrated multiple calls is a long established one. Is it entirely ethical? no. Is it ILLEGAL? no. Have I done it in the past? yes. Will I do it in the future? not likely.... I did my time in the trenches...it is time for younger folks to man the phones. The poll says one thing and the phone calls say another. One of those processes has a way to calculate the margin of error. One does not.

You logic that the poll, because it has a margin of error, is better than the phone banks being totally overwhelmed is where I see a disconnect. You have to admit that polls are totally biased to the person/group looking for the information. Ask a the questions one way to get the response you are looking for and then ask them again to get a different response to the same question. Do I know what questions were asked, who the likely voters were, where they lived? No, but these things all slant the poll to one side or the other. The phone banks were effectively shut down by people calling from all over the US. Whether it was individuals calling or "operatives" neither of us know. But the fact remains, the people spoke.

[Yurt]

so each time you identified yourself as the same person right....you never tried to act like it wasn't you....

and in calling multiple times, did you or did you not believe that this would cause the listeners to believe DIFFERENT people called....if not, then there is no reason to believe that all the phone calls the reps received were from DIFFERENT people....

but we know that you stated that it was NOT DIFFERENT people, rather someone (LIKE YOU) spamming the phone lines.... you were involved in causing the people on the other end of the line to be deceived into thinking DIFFERENT people were calling....you were involved in deception according to your own words

try being honest at least once in your life

[retiredman]

You logic that the poll, because it has a margin of error, is better than the phone banks being totally overwhelmed is where I see a disconnect. You have to admit that polls are totally biased to the person/group looking for the information. Ask a the questions one way to get the response you are looking for and then ask them again to get a different response to the same question. Do I know what questions were asked, who the likely voters were, where they lived? No, but these things all slant the poll to one side or the other. The phone banks were effectively shut down by people calling from all over the US. Whether it was individuals calling or "operatives" neither of us know. But the fact remains, the people spoke.

I have NEVER said the poll was "better"...I merely pointed out that the polls have a margin of error and phone banks call recording does not. Is one MORE right than the other?

[Yurt]

so each time you identified yourself as the same person right....you never tried to act like it wasn't you....

and in calling multiple times, did you or did you not believe that this would cause the listeners to believe DIFFERENT people called....if not, then there is no reason to believe that all the phone calls the reps received were from DIFFERENT people....

but we know that you stated that it was NOT DIFFERENT people, rather someone (LIKE YOU) spamming the phone lines.... you were involved in causing the people on the other end of the line to be deceived into thinking DIFFERENT people were calling....you were involved in deception according to your own words

try being honest at least once in your life

you just put a question mark next to the word deceptive when i said you were deceptive, are you denying your practice was deceptive?

[retiredman]

reread post #26

[Yurt]

i did, it completely failed to answer my question, hence why i asked the question again in more depth, obviously it is too much for you....i see that you do not have the integrity to answer my after four times, no surprise, so we will let your own words convict you of being deceptive...or dishonest, not truthful, etc...


no more accurate...no less.

and of course they aren't lying...but the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive, don't you think? And I have been around politics long enough to KNOW that phone banking calls like that goes on all the time... on both sides of the aisle.


do I have proof that political parties routinely arrange phone banks to call congressional members from the other party? Yeah... I have participated in the practice...and joked about it with republican legislative staffers who had done the same thing.

I am sure they DID hear from constituents...I am saying that the constituents in many cases were political operatives calling more than once.

[retiredman]

I am confused here yurt...are you trying to get me to say that when I participated in phone bank calling to republican congressional representatives back in the mid 90's I was being deceptive, or are you trying to say that people who called in to their congressmen from party phone banks yesterday were NOT being deceptive?

or are you going to "lawyer up" on me and claim that I have no "proof" that any american called his congressman mulitple times yesterday from party sponsored phone banks? which is it?

are you trying to debate the issue at hand, or are you merely trying to smear me personally?

[Yurt]

it is very simple:

you said the practice was deceptive and that you did that same practice...you then told me you were not dishonest and referred me to post 26...after i spelled it out in greater detail....

it is very clear, me thinks you are dragging your feet because you know that you committed deceptive practices and got called on it and now project outward that this is some "confusion" by a lawyer....LOL, you are desperate little person who claims to be smarter than "some" on here but can't answer a very simple question about honesty :laugh2:

even hawk said you were dishonest....but not a peep from you

[retiredman]

it is very simple:

you said the practice was deceptive and that you did that same practice...you then told me you were not dishonest and referred me to post 26...after i spelled it out in greater detail....

it is very clear, me thinks you are dragging your feet because you know that you committed deceptive practices and got called on it and now project outward that this is some "confusion" by a lawyer....LOL, you are desperate little person who claims to be smarter than "some" on here but can't answer a very simple question about honesty :laugh2:

even hawk said you were dishonest....but not a peep from you

again... are we in this discussion to indict me, or to discuss the validity of the USA Today poll versus the compilations from congressional phone calls?

I willingly admitted that I engaged in multiple phone calls to republican congressional offices in the mid 90's. I am not trying to hide anything. YOU are the one who is sticking your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge that such practices are well known, widespead and long utilized. YOU are the one who want to claim that the calls to congress are completely untainted whereas my poll is totally skewed. That is just plain silly, but, of course, you would never admit that.

Clearly, this is all about gotcha games with you and you have no real desire to discuss issues, but only to desperately try to paint ME in some bad light.

whiny little immature boy.

[Yurt]

no more accurate...no less.

and of course they aren't lying...but the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive, don't you think? And I have been around politics long enough to KNOW that phone banking calls like that goes on all the time... on both sides of the aisle.


I answered your question. Was it HONEST? of course it was. I was not making statements to the congressional offices that I did not BELIEVE were true. I made multiple phone calls. Just as I am sure that many people made multiple phone calls on THIS issue. Is it DISHONEST? no. Is it designed to influence congressional voting? of course it is. Is calling ONCE dishonest? no. Is calling twice illegal? no. Can I NOT call and voice my opinion more than once? Of course I can. Did I answer you question, little whiny boy?

why is it you can't admit you were dishonest in that practice? you make a big stink about your so-called integrity and now you get called on it and you claim it is a "gotcha" game....

you even claimed you "answered" my question...if you answered it once, why can't you make it absolutely clear that you were dishonest?

and i, among others, have proven you wrong that just because you were dishonest, doesn't mean in THIS case others were dishonest

[retiredman]

why is it you can't admit you were dishonest in that practice? you make a big stink about your so-called integrity and now you get called on it and you claim it is a "gotcha" game....

you even claimed you "answered" my question...if you answered it once, why can't you make it absolutely clear that you were dishonest?

and i, among others, have proven you wrong that just because you were dishonest, doesn't mean in THIS case others were dishonest

It is NOT dishonest and it is not illegal. Nowhere am I prevented from calling my elected representatives multiple times. That IS the answer to your question. It WAS the answer to your question the last time you asked it and I answered it.

Your suggestion that deceptive is synonymous with dishonest is fundamentally flawed.

Is a quarterback a LIAR when he runs the play option pass and decieves the defense that he is handing the ball off to the running back? Is he being DISHONEST? or is he merely playing within the rules and deceiving his opponent?

That is what political phone bank callers do: they play within the rules and deceive their opposition to get them to incorrectly gauge the level of public sentiment in a way that serves to advance their agenda.

And again... what is YOUR explanation for the disparity between the USA Today poll, with its error controls, and the phone numbers, which have no such error controls? Are you really suggesting that the poll is completely erroneous and the phone calls accurately guage the depth ahd breadth of public sentiment?

[Yurt]

It is NOT dishonest and it is not illegal. Nowhere am I prevented from calling my elected representatives multiple times. That IS the answer to your question. It WAS the answer to your question the last time you asked it and I answered it.

Your suggestion that deceptive is synonymous with dishonest is fundamentally flawed.

Is a quarterback a LIAR when he runs the play option pass and decieves the defense that he is handing the ball off to the running back? Is he being DISHONEST? or is he merely playing within the rules and deceiving his opponent?

That is what political phone bank callers do: they play within the rules and deceive their opposition to get them to incorrectly gauge the level of public sentiment in a way that serves to advance their agenda.

And again... what is YOUR explanation for the disparity between the USA Today poll, with its error controls, and the phone numbers, which have no such error controls? Are you really suggesting that the poll is completely erroneous and the phone calls accurately guage the depth ahd breadth of public sentiment?

faulty and incomplete analogy...

did you or did you not claim on the telephone a position that you did not hold...did you or did not tell them something that was not true...what exactly is deceptive about this practice preacher. and deceptive can be lying, you are flat out wrong that it cannot be as you suggest. shall i loan you a copy of my dictionary?

you purposefully called someone and told them something that was not true

and i did have more faith in the phone calls because i did not realize my fellow americans would lie to our representatives in order to get them to vote a certain way. that you did it is not surprising. sad, though.

[retiredman]

faulty and incomplete analogy...

did you or did you not claim on the telephone a position that you did not hold...did you or did not tell them something that was not true...what exactly is deceptive about this practice preacher. and deceptive can be lying, you are flat out wrong that it cannot be as you suggest. shall i loan you a copy of my dictionary?

you purposefully called someone and told them something that was not true

and i did have more faith in the phone calls because i did not realize my fellow americans would lie to our representatives in order to get them to vote a certain way. that you did it is not surprising. sad, though.

I did NOT claim a position that I did not hold. never. I did not tell them something that was not true. I merely called them repeatedly voicing my honestly held opinion in each instance. Like I said. I did not lie and that is a fact.

you, of course, misunderstand the practice, and yet act as if you DO understand it. Multiple calls are designed to make it appear as if more people are hold any given position than might otherwise actually be the case. Have you ever seen an ad on TV that urges you to call you congressman/senators and urge them to vote a certain way on a certain bill? All a phone bank does is make lots of those calls urging the legislator in question to vote the way that you want them to vote.

Like I said. not dishonest. not illegal.

do you understand NOW, sonny?

[Yurt]

I did NOT claim a position that I did not hold. never. I did not tell them something that was not true. I merely called them repeatedly voicing my honestly held opinion in each instance. Like I said. I did not lie and that is a fact.

you, of course, misunderstand the practice, and yet act as if you DO understand it. Multiple calls are designed to make it appear as if more people are hold any given position than might otherwise actually be the case. Have you ever seen an ad on TV that urges you to call you congressman/senators and urge them to vote a certain way on a certain bill? All a phone bank does is make lots of those calls urging the legislator in question to vote the way that you want them to vote.

Like I said. not dishonest. not illegal.

do you understand NOW, sonny?


but the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive

I have participated in the practice

you purposefully call the other party and misrepresent that it is you calling over and over....you know it is spamming, you know that the person on the other end of the line thinks it is multiple people thus you purposefully knew that your deception was giving false testimony to the actual number of people who supported or did not support something.

you called the other party claiming or letting them believe (deceit) that you were from that party, you called multiple time, as YOU said = deceptive.

you can't lie your way out of this, i'm through discussing it with you, it is clear you have no desire to be honest about it...your initial point in this whole matter....even asking me:


but the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive, don't you think?

your entire point was that i should NOT TRUST the phone calls as deceptive people called and that your poll is more accurate, why would that be if the phone calls were honest? fact is YOU claim they are not and people like you have called our reps and deceived them with deceptive phone calls. i don't care if both parties do it, it is NOT HONEST.

does someone beside mfm have an opinion on this? i can't believe that people consider such a practice honest, maybe i am missing somethign.

[retiredman]

you purposefully call the other party and misrepresent that it is you calling over and over....you know it is spamming, you know that the person on the other end of the line thinks it is multiple people thus you purposefully knew that your deception was giving false testimony to the actual number of people who supported or did not support something.

you called the other party claiming or letting them believe (deceit) that you were from that party, you called multiple time, as YOU said = deceptive.

you can't lie your way out of this, i'm through discussing it with you, it is clear you have no desire to be honest about it...your initial point in this whole matter....even asking me:



your entire point was that i should NOT TRUST the phone calls as deceptive people called and that your poll is more accurate, why would that be if the phone calls were honest? fact is YOU claim they are not and people like you have called our reps and deceived them with deceptive phone calls. i don't care if both parties do it, it is NOT HONEST.

does someone beside mfm have an opinion on this? i can't believe that people consider such a practice honest, maybe i am missing somethign.

I never let them think I was from any party. I was a constituent and I called them and expressed my concern over an issue. The fact that I called repeatedly is not illegal. It is not dishonest to do so. Clearly, most congressional offices make the assumption that people only call once, and in many cases, people aligned with a political party or an interest group call more than once in order to tilt those numbers that you place such value upon. I merely point out that assuming that ten thousand telephone calls equates to ten thousand constituents is a flawed assumption. Pollsters, on the other hand, do NOT call anyone more than once....which is why one methodology has a margin of error and the other does not.

Are you figuring this out yet, sonny?

[Yurt]

anyone besides mfm....?

[retiredman]

oh...and won't I be surprised when your gaggle of republican buddies on here runs to your aid yet again!:laugh2:

can't address the issue by yourself?

calling multiple times is not illegal, it is not dishonest. It DOES tend to make the numbers generated at the congressional office deceptive in that fewer individual constitutents actually called than the numbers would indicate. It is a practice that is well established, even though neophytes such as yourself are unaware of it. It DOES tend to inflate the numbers for the issue in question which is why polls are usually more reliable. Now... try to again twist that in your typical nitpicking lawyerly way and make that out as a LIE from me. That seems to be your raison d'etre on here lately, sonny.

[manu1959]

oh...and won't I be surprised when your gaggle of republican buddies on here runs to your aid yet again!:laugh2:

can't address the issue by yourself?

calling multiple times is not illegal, it is not dishonest. It DOES tend to make the numbers generated at the congressional office deceptive in that fewer individual constitutents actually called than the numbers would indicate. It is a practice that is well established, even though neophytes such as yourself are unaware of it. It DOES tend to inflate the numbers for the issue in question which is why polls are usually more reliable. Now... try to again twist that in your typical nitpicking lawyerly way and make that out as a LIE from me. That seems to be your raison d'etre on here lately, sonny.


yes becasue those polled never lie and only tell the truth.....get a grip dude

[Yurt]

i have discussed the issue with you, but you are irrational and dishonest....

i can't trust the phonecalls because of the deception....i can't trust the phonecalls because according to you i "honestly" can't trust that the phone calls "honestly" came from different people...

if i can't trust something, it is because it is untrustworthy, e.g., false....and in this case the very purpose is to deceive, to be dishonest about the phone calls being from different people, the stated intend is to cause others to believe multiple people are calling....that is dishonest

that is why i asked for others because you are dishonest...and i never asked for only other republicans...i said "anyone"...

[retiredman]

i have discussed the issue with you, but you are irrational and dishonest....

i can't trust the phonecalls because of the deception....i can't trust the phonecalls because according to you i "honestly" can't trust that the phone calls "honestly" came from different people...

if i can't trust something, it is because it is untrustworthy, e.g., false....and in this case the very purpose is to deceive, to be dishonest about the phone calls being from different people, the stated intend is to cause others to believe multiple people are calling....that is dishonest

that is why i asked for others because you are dishonest...and i never asked for only other republicans...i said "anyone"...

again... being deceptive is not synonymous with being dishonest. You just love to call me a liar, because you know I don't like it. Thanks again. I understand your motivation.

[Yurt]

can i trust the phone calls or not

are you claiming that all the phone calls are honest

[Yurt]

deceptive:

Synonyms:

crafty, cunning, deceitful, delusive, dishonest, fallacious, false, feigned, illusory, insidious, misleading, phony, slick, snide, sophistical, specious, candid, guileless, ingenuous, open, sincere

[retiredman]

can i trust the phone calls or not

are you claiming that all the phone calls are honest
honest? I would assume that they ARE all honest. I would assume that every phone caller expressed his or her honest opinion on the issue. Would I believe that the number of calls directly represented the number of constituents that had actually called? no I would not.

[Yurt]

deceptive:

Synonyms:

crafty, cunning, deceitful, delusive, dishonest, fallacious, false, feigned, illusory, insidious, misleading, phony, slick, snide, sophistical, specious, candid, guileless, ingenuous, open, sincere


honest? I would assume that they ARE all honest. I would assume that every phone caller expressed his or her honest opinion on the issue. Would I believe that the number of calls directly represented the number of constituents that had actually called? no I would not.

AGAIN: can i trust the phone calls accurately represent what the caller intended, e.g., that this many people are calling....

you are being deceptive, which IS a synonmous with dishonest, by claiming that the phone calls are honest, YET, we can't trust them...

you see why talking to you is pointless...you intentionally caused the reps to believe DIFFERENT people called, you intented that affect, you were deceptive and that is dishonest in this case

[Yurt]

anyone besides mfm....?



Entry Word: deceptive
Function: adjective
Text:
1 tending or having power to deceive

in his deceptive answer about the vehicle's history, the salesman said that the used car had never been hit by another car

S[B]ynonymsbeguiling, deceitful, deceiving, deluding, delusive, delusory, fallacious, false, misleading, specious
Related Wordsdevious, guileful, shady, shifty, sly, sneaking, sneaky, trick, tricky, underhand, underhanded; inaccurate, incorrect, wrong; bewildering, confounding, distracting, perplexing, puzzling; crooked, dishonest, double-dealing, faithless, fast, fraudulent, knavish, lying, mendacious,

:cool:

[manu1959]

back on topic........

sent to me in an e-mail and attributed to:

Dennis Kucinch, who writes:

Here is a very quick explanation of the $700 billion bailout within the context of the mechanics of our monetary and banking system:

The taxpayers loan money to the banks. But the taxpayers do not have the money. So we have to borrow it from the banks to give it back to the banks. But the banks do not have the money to loan to the government. So they create it into existence (through a mechanism called fractional reserve) and then loan it to us, at interest, so we can then give it back to them.

Confused?

This is the system. This is the standard mechanism used to expand the money supply on a daily basis not a special one designed only for the "$700 billion" transaction. People will explain this to you in many different ways, but this is what it comes down to.

The banks needed Congress' approval. Of course in this topsy turvy world, it is the banks which set the terms of the money they are borrowing from the taxpayers. And what do we get for this transaction? Long term debt enslavement of our country. We get to pay back to the banks trillions of dollars ($700 billion with compounded interest) and the banks give us their bad debt which they cull from everywhere in the world.

Who could turn down a deal like this? I did.

it is worth saying again...


The taxpayers loan money to the banks. But the taxpayers do not have the money. So we have to borrow it from the banks to give it back to the banks. But the banks do not have the money to loan to the government. So they create it into existence (through a mechanism called fractional reserve) and then loan it to us, at interest, so we can then give it back to them.

[Immanuel]

do you have any proof of this? of course not. you're making this up as if the poll could not have been faked or the numbers scewed....get over yourself and your party loyalty....face it, many dems voted no because they heard directly from their constituents, that is what they said. anyone that puts more faith in a random poll over direct phone calls and who knows what else, emails, etc...is a fool

kerry should president if polls are right LOOOOL


this isn't a courtroom counselor.:laugh2:

You've got a bunch of phone calls, I've got a poll. Polls have methodology that limits the margin of error. Merely counting up the numbers of phone calls received does not provide a similar level of error reduction. Are you suggesting that yours is right and mine is wrong?


anyone besides mfm....?

Well, since Yurt asked. :D

I don't think either the phone calls or the polls can be fully trusted.

Just counting phone calls for or against doesn't give an accurate indication of how America feels because you have the potential for some people calling many times and they don't even have to be from the district of the Congressman receiving the call. It is no different than an internet poll on CNN or Fox. Who limits the number of times someone votes in those polls?

As for the polls, as AFB (I think) said, they can be swayed by the way a question is answered.

Truthfully, I think the polls are closer to reality than the phone calls, because if a person is thinking, s/he can see the bias in a poll and answer in a manner that s/he truly believes. For instance if a poll that is promoting Barack Obama wants me to think he agrees with me an abortion question might be phrased in such a manner as, "Do you believe that a woman should have the right to make her own choices in life in all matters." under a subcategory of "Woman's Issues". Of course, I believe a woman has that right, but my belief is that the right to life takes precedence. Not thinking about it, I might put "yes" but if I realize where they are going with the question, I would answer no, not in everything.

Polls are more accurate than counting phone calls in my opinion, but even polls can be influenced by the pollsters biases.

Immie

[retiredman]

AGAIN: can i trust the phone calls accurately represent what the caller intended, e.g., that this many people are calling....

you are being deceptive, which IS a synonmous[sic] with dishonest, by claiming that the phone calls are honest, YET, we can't trust them...

you see why talking to you is pointless...you intentionally caused the reps to believe DIFFERENT people called, you intented that affect, you were deceptive and that is dishonest in this case

The caller has no intention regarding determining how many people called. YOur first sentence is pure gibberish. And..."deceptive" is NOT always the same thing as being "dishonest". Like I said before: is the quarterback who deceives the defense with his play action pass play being DISHONEST? No. I did not intend to deceive anyone. I merely called up and said that I was a constituent and then I voiced my opinion. I waited a minute or two and called again... and again... and again. If anyone on the other end of the line had ever asked me if I had called before, I would have been perfectly honest. NO one ever did. There is nothing dishonest about that. There is nothing illegal about that. Get over it. The practice DOES, however, make the numbers tallied by congressional offices suspect as to their accuracy. Like I hae said all along, there is no control processes for determining margin of error.

You really need to find some other hobby other than twisting my posts into something that you can call me a liar over. really. grow up. You act like a little spoiled brat.

[manu1959]

The caller has no intention regarding determining how many people called. YOur first sentence is pure gibberish. And..."deceptive" is NOT always the same thing as being "dishonest". Like I said before: is the quarterback who deceives the defense with his play action pass play being DISHONEST? No. I did not intend to deceive anyone. I merely called up and said that I was a constituent and then I voiced my opinion. I waited a minute or two and called again... and again... and again. If anyone on the other end of the line had ever asked me if I had called before, I would have been perfectly honest. NO one ever did. There is nothing dishonest about that. There is nothing illegal about that. Get over it. The practice DOES, however, make the numbers tallied by congressional offices suspect as to their accuracy. Like I hae said all along, there is no control processes for determining margin of error.

You really need to find some other hobby other than twisting my posts into something that you can call me a liar over. really. grow up. You act like a little spoiled brat.

says the paragon of such things..............

[retiredman]

says the paragon of such things..............


you got anything besides insults, big shooter? or do you just sit on the sidelines and toss inane one-liners?

Fact: yurt has been trying to call me a liar in just about every thread he and I have jointly posted in for about two months now, or so it would seem. FACT: calling a congressional office more than once to register your opinion on a crucial vote is neither dishonest nor illegal.

Do YOU wanna take issue with that fact? If so, please join in...if not, STFU.

[manu1959]

you got anything besides insults, big shooter? or do you just sit on the sidelines and toss inane one-liners?

Fact: yurt has been trying to call me a liar in just about every thread he and I have jointly posted in for about two months now, or so it would seem. FACT: calling a congressional office more than once to register your opinion on a crucial vote is neither dishonest nor illegal.

Do YOU wanna take issue with that fact? If so, please join in...if not, STFU.

just playing down to my audience ...... your opinions are not facts .... it is well known you lie ..... what else you got ....

[Yurt]

mr. innocent is getting boring again...as if he never calls me a liar....lol....the king liar of the board

you all can thank manfrommaine for causing reps to not trust phone calls from constituents, you can all thank him for sowing dishonesty/deception into our political practice....those people trusted that each caller was unique....i trusted those calls were unique....but i have learned now that someone who claims to preach the word of god intentionally deceives people solely for political gain...

sad

anyways...as manu said....back to the thread

i am glad the bill did not pass and i thank all the honest consituents out there for making your voice heard

[Yurt]

just playing down to my audience ...... your opinions are not facts .... it is well known you lie ..... what else you got ....

this from a guy who tells us that deceptive is not synonymous with dishonest

[manu1959]

this from a guy who tells us that deceptive is not synonymous with dishonest

does not suprise me in the least.....kerry voter....

[retiredman]

this from a guy who tells us that deceptive is not synonymous with dishonest
some people who are deceptive ARE dishonest, moron... some people are not. The tactic may very well cause deceptive totals for constituent counts, but there is nothing dishonest about calling more than once. that's a fact. Now, will you PLEASE find some other mission in life than trying to piss me off? PLEASE?

[manu1959]

some people who are deceptive ARE dishonest, moron... some people are not. The tactic may very well cause deceptive totals for constituent counts, but there is nothing dishonest about calling more than once. that's a fact. Now, will you PLEASE find some other mission in life than trying to piss me off? PLEASE?

so there are honest deceptive people......such as these folks i guess.....

there is nothing dishonest about calling more than once......

[retiredman]

so there are honest deceptive people......such as these folks i guess.....

there is nothing dishonest about calling more than once......

yeah... there is nothing dishonest about calling more than once. As I said, if anyone would have EVER asked if I had called more than once, I certainly would have told the truth.

What is dishonest about that?

[manu1959]

yeah... there is nothing dishonest about calling more than once. As I said, if anyone would have EVER asked if I had called more than once, I certainly would have told the truth.

What is dishonest about that?

it is dishonest to call more than once.....

[retiredman]

it is dishonest to call more than once.....

no. it is not.

it is dishonest to claim that you have never called more than once if asked.

[manu1959]

no. it is not.

it is dishonest to claim that you have never called more than once if asked.

so your are being honest if you call your rep more than once to lodge the same complaint more than once with the intent of your multiple complaints to get your way and give the appearance that you are two different people.....

[Immanuel]

yeah... there is nothing dishonest about calling more than once. As I said, if anyone would have EVER asked if I had called more than once, I certainly would have told the truth.

What is dishonest about that?

Hiding facts and letting people believe something that is not true, just because they didn't ask, is being dishonest.

Immie

[Yurt]

again... being deceptive is not synonymous with being dishonest. You just love to call me a liar, because you know I don't like it. Thanks again. I understand your motivation.


deceptive:

Synonyms:

crafty, cunning, deceitful, delusive, dishonest, fallacious, false, feigned, illusory, insidious, misleading, phony, slick, snide, sophistical, specious, candid, guileless, ingenuous, open, sincere


some people who are deceptive ARE dishonest, moron... some people are not. The tactic may very well cause deceptive totals for constituent counts, but there is nothing dishonest about calling more than once. that's a fact. Now, will you PLEASE find some other mission in life than trying to piss me off? PLEASE?

:lol:

now you change you tune and find deceptive is synonymous with dishonest....and you call me a moron...

you call this a mission...dude, you have no life if you think this could possibly be a mission...coming from the guy who would not stop bumping threads until i answer something when you think you are right....:laugh2:

more honest deception....

[retiredman]

:lol:

now you change you tune and find deceptive is synonymous with dishonest....and you call me a moron...

you call this a mission...dude, you have no life if you think this could possibly be a mission...coming from the guy who would not stop bumping threads until i answer something when you think you are right....:laugh2:

more honest deception....

like I said...for you to assume that all deception is dishonesty is moronic.

plain and simple. You ARE a moron....you have made THAT abundantly clear with this idiocy.

For you to say that what I did was "dishonest" is similar to the old "some Irishmen have red hair, therefore all redheads are Irishmen". The really scary thing is that you are too fucking stupid to even realize how moronic your dumbass argument is in the first place. You are the classic example of a moron who has a modicum of textbook training. For you to pass yourself off as an attorney at law and an officer of the court with a brain as atrophied as yours is truly laughable.


what else ya got, yurt?:laugh2:

[Yurt]

like I said...for you to assume that all deception is dishonesty is moronic.

plain and simple. You ARE a moron....you have made THAT abundantly clear with this idiocy.

For you to say that what I did was "dishonest" is similar to the old "some Irishmen have red hair, therefore all redheads are Irishmen". The really scary thing is that you are too fucking stupid to even realize how moronic your dumbass argument is in the first place. You are the classic example of a moron who has a modicum of textbook training. For you to pass yourself off as an attorney at law and an officer of the court with a brain as atrophied as yours is truly laughable.

what else ya got, yurt?:laugh2:

you're such a tool...i never said all deception is dishonest, you said it is not synonymous, that is a lie

and if i am a moron, then you are calling the other posters morons as well, sad, so sad that you can't debate with rational adults and instead resort to your kiddie schoolyard debates....

and you wonder why i called you a dickhead in the cage about you complimenting my parents on how "well" i turned out...you see, your own words convict you with the bold...you should stay off the board until you can heal your inner soul and child

[retiredman]

you're such a tool...i never said all deception is dishonest, you said it is not synonymous, that is a lie

and if i am a moron, then you are calling the other posters morons as well, sad, so sad that you can't debate with rational adults and instead resort to your kiddie schoolyard debates....

and you wonder why i called you a dickhead in the cage about you complimenting my parents on how "well" i turned out...you see, your own words convict you with the bold...you should stay off the board until you can heal your inner soul and child

you are trying to paint me as a liar and dishonest, are you not????

I did compliment your mother and your grandparents.... and I meant it. Pity that you cannot see honesty when it it thrust in your face.

[Yurt]

so your are being honest if you call your rep more than once to lodge the same complaint more than once with the intent of your multiple complaints to get your way and give the appearance that you are two different people.....


Hiding facts and letting people believe something that is not true, just because they didn't ask, is being dishonest.

Immie

good points

[retiredman]

good points

I gave no appearance of anything. I merely called my congressional representative and lodged my complaint more than once. YOu have YET to show how that action was, in ANY way, dishonest, yet, like the fucking spineless worm that you are, you refuse to retract your accusations that I LIED. worm.

[Yurt]

your dishonesty is obvious, you intended to fool people and make them believe that DIFFERENT people called... everybody sees it, but of course you don't....ho hum, prattle on then with your deceptive honesty....at least i know that deceptive and dishonest are synonyms :laugh2:

[retiredman]

your dishonesty is obvious, you intended to fool people and make them believe that DIFFERENT people called... everybody sees it, but of course you don't....ho hum, prattle on then with your deceptive honesty....at least i know that deceptive and dishonest are synonyms :laugh2:
I did no such thing. I called in repetitively. Such action is not dishonest. Like I have said before, and you refuse to answer: is a quarterback who runs the option play DISHONEST? Now be a MAN and answer that question, yes or no...or be a fucking whiny little pussy like you have been all day and ignore it. Your choice. I certainly won't bother waiting for an honest answer, that's for sure!

[red states rule]

this isn't a courtroom counselor.:laugh2:

You've got a bunch of phone calls, I've got a poll. Polls have methodology that limits the margin of error. Merely counting up the numbers of phone calls received does not provide a similar level of error reduction. Are you suggesting that yours is right and mine is wrong?

If it was a courtroom you would have been convicted along time ago of perjury, and contempt of court

[Yurt]

its like talking to a child whose mouth is covered in chocolate and asking him...did you eat the chocate johnny....no daddi, no....johnny....hmmmm

you called with the intent to deceive others into believing that DIFFERENT people called...that was your intent and you and others like you have now caused us to question the HONESTY of people calling their representatives...so because of you, we can now no longer trust phone calls...yeah, let's give a big :clap: to mfm and his ilk

and johnny.......go to your room :laugh2:

[Yurt]

If it was a courtroom you would have been convicted along time ago of perjury, and contempt of court

you're right, i'm wasting my time...i'll leave it to others....immie and manu both called him out, but notice he never replied to them...his hatred of me consumes and i fear he is obsessive

[red states rule]

its like talking to a child whose mouth is covered in chocolate and asking him...did you eat the chocate johnny....no daddi, no....johnny....hmmmm

you called with the intent to deceive others into believing that DIFFERENT people called...that was your intent and you and others like you have now caused us to question the HONESTY of people calling their representatives...so because of you, we can now no longer trust phone calls...yeah, let's give a big :clap: to mfm and his ilk

and johnny.......go to your room :laugh2:

He is a serial liar Yurt. Perhaps he can't help it. Perhaps he so use to lying he no longer gives it a second thought

[retiredman]

its like talking to a child whose mouth is covered in chocolate and asking him...did you eat the chocate johnny....no daddi, no....johnny....hmmmm

you called with the intent to deceive others into believing that DIFFERENT people called...that was your intent and you and others like you have now caused us to question the HONESTY of people calling their representatives...so because of you, we can now no longer trust phone calls...yeah, let's give a big :clap: to mfm and his ilk

and johnny.......go to your room :laugh2:

how the fuck do you DARE sit there and expound upon my INTENT, you little whiny shyster? I called my representative on multiple occasions in an effort ot impress upon them the significance of the issue. Don't EVEN call me a liar AGAIN, you slimy little shyter sheeny worm.

[red states rule]

you're right, i'm wasting my time...i'll leave it to others....immie and manu both called him out, but notice he never replied to them...his hatred of me consumes and i fear he is obsessive

Since he is running scared from me, I sit back and watch you destroy him without breaking a sweat

It is fun to watch Yurt

[red states rule]

how the fuck do you DARE sit there and expound upon my INTENT, you little whiny shyster? I called my representative on multiple occasions in an effort ot impress upon them the significance of the issue. Don't EVEN call me a liar AGAIN, you slimy little shyter sheeny worm.

Ah, l looks like a combination temper tantrum and sermon from the preacher man

Hey MFM, confession is food for the soul - admit now you are a liar and perhaps it will help you

[retiredman]

how the fuck do you DARE sit there and expound upon my INTENT, you little whiny shyster? I called my representative on multiple occasions in an effort ot impress upon them the significance of the issue. Don't EVEN call me a liar AGAIN, you slimy little shyter sheeny worm.

sine the little shyster won't answer, I'll go watch the redsox kick his angel's asses!:laugh2:

[Yurt]

Since he is running scared from me, I sit back and watch you destroy him without breaking a sweat

It is fun to watch Yurt

funny thing, i don't really try, he does 99% of the work himself...he is his own worst enemy

[red states rule]

sine the little shyster won't answer, I'll go watch the redsox kick his angel's asses!:laugh2:

Crawling away to lick your many wounds preacher man? :laugh2: What a lame excuse

[Yurt]

no more accurate...no less.

and of course they aren't lying...but the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive, don't you think? And I have been around politics long enough to KNOW that phone banking calls like that goes on all the time... on both sides of the aisle.

this is why we can no longer trust constituents calling their reps....and mfm engaged in this practice....his intent was clear, i did not lie.

[retiredman]

, i did not lie.


and neither did I. asshole

[Immanuel]

how the fuck do you DARE sit there and expound upon my INTENT, you little whiny shyster? I called my representative on multiple occasions in an effort ot impress upon them the significance of the issue. Don't EVEN call me a liar AGAIN, you slimy little shyter sheeny worm.

Okay, I have to ask one because I really have not paid much attention to this thread and two because there has been so much name calling that I have skipped quite a few posts and maybe you answered this questions in one of those posts that I skipped, but did you call in to your representative on multiple occasions in an effort to impress upon them the significance of a particular issue as in multiple times on the same issue knowing that they would consider you multiple callers or have you called your representative on multiple times on different issues and are simply yanking Yurt's chain?

Question #2... what the heck does shyter mean?

Immie

[red states rule]

this is why we can no longer trust constituents calling their reps....and mfm engaged in this practice....his intent was clear, i did not lie.

Would not surprise me if he walks thru cemeteries to get names for voter registartion forms

[Immanuel]

this is why we can no longer trust constituents calling their reps....and mfm engaged in this practice....his intent was clear, i did not lie.

I'm sorry, but we haven't been able to trust constituents calling their reps at least as long as the reps have been counting phone calls on issues.

Immie

[Yurt]

I'm sorry, but we haven't been able to trust constituents calling their reps at least as long as the reps have been counting phone calls on issues.

Immie

ok, fair enough, but do you think that the deceptive practice (mfm's own words) of calling multiple times to influence the vote, makes it more or less trustworthy?

i honestly did not know about this practice, i find it highly dishonorable, it is akin to voting numerous times at a poll booth where there is no one to check your id, no one to see if you vote multiple times and no way to know if someone voted once or a thousand times....

the effect and intent are the similar, IMHO

[retiredman]

Okay, I have to ask one because I really have not paid much attention to this thread and two because there has been so much name calling that I have skipped quite a few posts and maybe you answered this questions in one of those posts that I skipped, but did you call in to your representative on multiple occasions in an effort to impress upon them the significance of a particular issue as in multiple times on the same issue knowing that they would consider you multiple callers or have you called your representative on multiple times on different issues and are simply yanking Yurt's chain?

Question #2... what the heck does shyter mean?

Immie

1. as stated, I have worked in a room with several phones and several democratic volunteers calling congressmen and senators multiple times... and that was 15 years ago or so.... AND my colleagues in the republican legislative offices spoke with me about routinely doing the same thing.

2. shy·ster [shahy-ster] –noun Informal.
a lawyer who uses unprofessional or questionable methods.
a person who gets along by petty, sharp practices.

[Immanuel]

1. as stated, I have worked in a room with several phones and several democratic volunteers calling congressmen and senators multiple times... and that was 15 years ago or so.... AND my colleagues in the republican legislative offices spoke with me about routinely doing the same thing.

2. shy·ster [shahy-ster] –noun Informal.
a lawyer who uses unprofessional or questionable methods.
a person who gets along by petty, sharp practices.

Okay, #1, that is what I thought, but I wanted you to clarify it. Personally, I think that is a dishonest thing to do. You (as in the people who did these things) were misleading the Congressmen into thinking their was more support for (or against) a particular issue. That is dishonest.

To go along with that, I have no doubt that both parties participated in such actions 15 years ago, or that they do so now. Thinking otherwise seems to me to be naieve. Heck, I have even heard conservatives like Rush Limbaugh encourage his listeners to call and call often.

#2) I thought you meant "shyster" but wasn't sure. Wasn't playing spelling nazi, but just wasn't sure that shyster was the word or if there was something else.

Yurt, I think my reply to #1 answers your question in post #91.

Immie

[retiredman]

Okay, #1, that is what I thought, but I wanted you to clarify it. Personally, I think that is a dishonest thing to do. You (as in the people who did these things) were misleading the Congressmen into thinking their was more support for (or against) a particular issue. That is dishonest.

To go along with that, I have no doubt that both parties participated in such actions 15 years ago, or that they do so now. Thinking otherwise seems to me to be naieve. Heck, I have even heard conservatives like Rush Limbaugh encourage his listeners to call and call often.

#2) I thought you meant "shyster" but wasn't sure. Wasn't playing spelling nazi, but just wasn't sure that shyster was the word or if there was something else.

Yurt, I think my reply to #1 answers your question in post #91.

Immie

I am sorry you feel that I was and am dishonest. I disagree. Is the act of putting up more than one political sign dishonest? Is the act of having groups of people hanging flyers on doorknobs on multiple weekends dishonest? If a politician shakes your hand on more than one occasion, is that dishonest? The goal of politics is to exert influence on the process of governance.

But no doubt, the shyster will use your reply as more fuel for his obsessive efforts at calling me a liar at every occasion... he's kind of a prick like that. He's just a kid. I forgive him:laugh2:

[Immanuel]

I am sorry you feel that I was and am dishonest. I disagree. Is the act of putting up more than one political sign dishonest? Is the act of having groups of people hanging flyers on doorknobs on multiple weekends dishonest? If a politician shakes your hand on more than one occasion, is that dishonest? The goal of politics is to exert influence on the process of governance.

But no doubt, the shyster will use your reply as more fuel for his obsessive efforts at calling me a liar at every occasion... he's kind of a prick like that. He's just a kid. I forgive him:laugh2:

You don't have to be sorry. :D

I said it was dishonest and I can't understand why you would disagree with me on that. Anytime a person undertakes a "mission" to mislead another person into thinking something besides the truth it is dishonest. If you place telephone calls to a Congressman multiple times with the intention of him counting your voice of pleasure or displeasure to sway his vote many times, that is dishonest. It is apparent that this was you intention and if it was not, I would love to hear your reasoning behind why it wasn't and the steps you took to be open with the Congressman.

Placing flyers on a doorknob over many weekends is not dishonest. You are informing voters of the issues AND you are identifying yourself as whatever group you are representing. Shaking hands more than once is again not dishonest because he is identifying himself as the same person. Now, if he wears veil and pretends to be someone else, that would be dishonest.

Immie

[retiredman]

You don't have to be sorry. :D

I said it was dishonest and I can't understand why you would disagree with me on that. Anytime a person undertakes a "mission" to mislead another person into thinking something besides the truth it is dishonest. If you place telephone calls to a Congressman multiple times with the intention of him counting your voice of pleasure or displeasure to sway his vote many times, that is dishonest. It is apparent that this was you intention and if it was not, I would love to hear your reasoning behind why it wasn't and the steps you took to be open with the Congressman.

Placing flyers on a doorknob over many weekends is not dishonest. You are informing voters of the issues AND you are identifying yourself as whatever group you are representing. Shaking hands more than once is again not dishonest because he is identifying himself as the same person. Now, if he wears veil and pretends to be someone else, that would be dishonest.

Immie


I never pretended to be anyone else.

Was it dishonest for republicans in Pennsylvania to register as democrats for the express purpose of voting for Hillary in the primary so as to hamper the Obama campaign?

[red states rule]

I never pretended to be anyone else.

Was it dishonest for republicans in Pennsylvania to register as democrats for the express purpose of voting for Hillary in the primary so as to hamper the Obama campaign?

Before climbing on top of your high horse MFM, the election laws of the state of PA (which is run by Dems) allows voters to change parties anytime they wish

You are pissed because Republicans used a Democrat tactic that was used against McCain in MI by Dems and we did it nationwide

The Daily Kos pleaded with its members to change parties and vote Republican since their delegates were disqualified by the DNC

So why not get the facts right? It would be something new for you to try

[Immanuel]

I never pretended to be anyone else.

Was it dishonest for republicans in Pennsylvania to register as democrats for the express purpose of voting for Hillary in the primary so as to hamper the Obama campaign?

You never pretended to be anyone else, but you had the intention of misleading the Congressman into thinking that you were a caller making a single call to state your opinion when in fact you called several times and voiced your opinion each time in effect voting several times.

No, it is not dishonest to register for any political party. Last time I checked we had the legal right to change parties as many times as we want. There is nothing dishonest about changing your political party in order to cast a single vote for someone whom you would rather see win a primary and then changing back for the General Election. A person who does such a thing is casting his or her vote against Obama in the primaries and such a thing is completely legal.

What would be dishonest is Democratic voters in Chicago registering and voting for deceased citizens.

Immie

[Yurt]

I am sorry you feel that I was and am dishonest. I disagree. Is the act of putting up more than one political sign dishonest? Is the act of having groups of people hanging flyers on doorknobs on multiple weekends dishonest? If a politician shakes your hand on more than one occasion, is that dishonest? The goal of politics is to exert influence on the process of governance.

But no doubt, the shyster will use your reply as more fuel for his obsessive efforts at calling me a liar at every occasion... he's kind of a prick like that. He's just a kid. I forgive him:laugh2:

more gratuitous insults.....

boring

[retiredman]

You never pretended to be anyone else, but you had the intention of misleading the Congressman into thinking that you were a caller making a single call to state your opinion when in fact you called several times and voiced your opinion each time in effect voting several times.

No, it is not dishonest to register for any political party. Last time I checked we had the legal right to change parties as many times as we want. There is nothing dishonest about changing your political party in order to cast a single vote for someone whom you would rather see win a primary and then changing back for the General Election. A person who does such a thing is casting his or her vote against Obama in the primaries and such a thing is completely legal.

What would be dishonest is Democratic voters in Chicago registering and voting for deceased citizens.

Immie

so republicans registering as democrats solely for the purpose of trying to impinge upon the process that the democratic party uses to pick ITS nominee is not dishonest, but calling a congressman's office more than once to voice your concern about particular issue IS dishonest?

that is some wacky situational ethics you have working there, Immie:laugh2:

[red states rule]

so republicans registering as democrats solely for the purpose of trying to impinge upon the process that the democratic party uses to pick ITS nominee is not dishonest, but calling a congressman's office more than once to voice your concern about particular issue IS dishonest?

that is some wacky situational ethics you have working there, Immie:laugh2:

Quit your damn whining. You NEVER said a word about Dems doing the same thing during the MI primaries

You are pissed Republicans and Rush's Operation Chaos took it to the next level and improved on it

[Yurt]

so republicans registering as democrats solely for the purpose of trying to impinge upon the process that the democratic party uses to pick ITS nominee is not dishonest, but calling a congressman's office more than once to voice your concern about particular issue IS dishonest?

that is some wacky situational ethics you have working there, Immie:laugh2:

you of course twist the topic into something else because you can't debate the issue at hand...so if I say that the practice of registering is dishonest, then this will make you admit that your practice was dishonest?

yes or no

[Immanuel]

so republicans registering as democrats solely for the purpose of trying to impinge upon the process that the democratic party uses to pick ITS nominee is not dishonest, but calling a congressman's office more than once to voice your concern about particular issue IS dishonest?

that is some wacky situational ethics you have working there, Immie:laugh2:

Not near as whaky as your's my friend. :laugh2:

And no, it is not dishonest. It is working the political scene. You do not have to take an oath claiming that you espouse the principles of the party you are joining, do you? You don't even have to agree with anything the party stands for.

Would it be wrong for me to decide to join the Democratic Party and to work from within to change that party? Granted, I would never be welcomed, but still it would not be wrong. Nor would it be wrong for you to join the Republican party (again except for by a few, me included) you would never be welcomed, but it would not be deceitful for you to do so.

By your own words, you have worked dishonestly to sway the votes of Congressmen. "But everyone does it", is not an excuse.

Immie

[red states rule]

Not near as whaky as your's my friend. :laugh2:

And no, it is not dishonest. It is working the political scene. You do not have to take an oath claiming that you espouse the principles of the party you are joining, do you? You don't even have to agree with anything the party stands for.

Would it be wrong for me to decide to join the Democratic Party and to work from within to change that party? Granted, I would never be welcomed, but still it would not be wrong. Nor would it be wrong for you to join the Republican party (again except for by a few, me included) you would never be welcomed, but it would not be deceitful for you to do so.

By your own words, you have worked dishonestly to sway the votes of Congressmen. "But everyone does it", is not an excuse.

Immie


Now you will get a temper tanturm where MFM will say you attacked his integrity and perhaps his partiotism :laugh2:

[retiredman]

you of course twist the topic into something else because you can't debate the issue at hand...so if I say that the practice of registering is dishonest, then this will make you admit that your practice was dishonest?

yes or no


no. I did not lie to anyone. I was not dishonest about anything. I was exercising my rights as a citizen.

[red states rule]

no. I did not lie to anyone. I was not dishonest about anything. I was exercising my rights as a citizen.

http://utterinsanity.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/laughter.gif

[Yurt]

no. I did not lie to anyone. I was not dishonest about anything. I was exercising my rights as a citizen.

bullshit...where is the right to call your rep numerous times causing them to believe different people are calling....your INTENT and your KNOWLEDGE was that the people taking YOUR phone call would believe it to be DIFFERENT people, thus creating a PHONY political landscape that multiple people feel a certain way....

you said the practice was designed to deceive the reps into thinking multiple people called.............<----that is dishonest

you never answered btw whether it is ok to vote multiple times at a polling booth if no one checks id and your vote is simply a checked box....law notwithstanding....do you feel that is honest, to vote multiple times?

yes or no and why?

[red states rule]

bullshit...where is the right to call your rep numerous times causing them to believe different people are calling....your INTENT and your KNOWLEDGE was that the people taking YOUR phone call would believe it to be DIFFERENT people, thus creating a PHONY political landscape that multiple people feel a certain way....

you said the practice was designed to deceive the reps into thinking multiple people called.............<----that is dishonest

you never answered btw whether it is ok to vote multiple times at a polling booth if no one checks id and your vote is simply a checked box....law notwithstanding....do you feel that is honest, to vote multiple times?

yes or no and why?


MFM is what is known as the "seminar caller"

[retiredman]

bullshit...where is the right to call your rep numerous times causing them to believe different people are calling....your INTENT and your KNOWLEDGE was that the people taking YOUR phone call would believe it to be DIFFERENT people, thus creating a PHONY political landscape that multiple people feel a certain way....

you said the practice was designed to deceive the reps into thinking multiple people called.............<----that is dishonest

you never answered btw whether it is ok to vote multiple times at a polling booth if no one checks id and your vote is simply a checked box....law notwithstanding....do you feel that is honest, to vote multiple times?

yes or no and why?


are you suggesting that I do not have the right to call my representatives as often as I want?:laugh2:

It is ILLEGAL to vote multiple times, whether people are checking or not.

[Silver]

are you suggesting that I do not have the right to call my representatives as often as I want?:laugh2:

It is ILLEGAL to vote multiple times, whether people are checking or not.

Pssst...can that talk mfm, don't you want BHO to win....

he might not be able to do it with just minorities, GED's, drop-outs, idiots and homeless voters.....

like Mayor Daley used to say, " Vote early, and vote often".....

[Yurt]

are you suggesting that I do not have the right to call my representatives as often as I want?:laugh2:

It is ILLEGAL to vote multiple times, whether people are checking or not.

you are slippery one....no surprise...but the actual question is (3rd time):


you never answered btw whether it is ok to vote multiple times at a polling booth if no one checks id and your vote is simply a checked box....law notwithstanding....do you feel that is honest, to vote multiple times?

and i find it ironic that you have no problem screaming how voting multiple times is illegal, but calling multiple times, having virtually the SAME effect, is ok with you....

please show me where the "right" exists....especially to intentionally decieve your rep...i won't wait, because no doubt such a right does not exist

[retiredman]

you are slippery one....no surprise...but the actual question is (3rd time):



and i find it ironic that you have no problem screaming how voting multiple times is illegal, but calling multiple times, having virtually the SAME effect, is ok with you....

please show me where the "right" exists....especially to intentionally decieve your rep...i won't wait, because no doubt such a right does not exist

I think it is dishonest AND illegal to vote multiple times.

I have the right of free speech. Why would you think that calling my representative on the telephone would not be covered under that right?

Calling multiple times does NOT have virtually the SAME effect as voting multiple times. That is a flawed analogy. Calling is not illegal. vote fraud is. Calling does not have any effect other than expressing concern to a legislator which they are free to disregard if they chose. Voting has tangible effects that no one is free to disregard.

[Abbey Marie]

Good lord.

Synonym Collection v1.1
Main Entry: dishonest
Part of Speech: adjective
Synonyms: cheating, corrupt, corruptible, crooked, deceitful, deceptive, devious, dishonorable, disingenuous, duplicitous, false, fraudulent, ignominious, knavish, lying, machiavellian, mendacious, misleading, perfidious, roguish, shady, shifty, sinister, sinuate, sinuous, surreptitious, treacherous, tricky, underhanded, unscrupulous, untrustworthy, untruthful

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/dishonest

[red states rule]

Good lord.

Synonym Collection v1.1
Main Entry: dishonest
Part of Speech: adjective
Synonyms: cheating, corrupt, corruptible, crooked, deceitful, deceptive, devious, dishonorable, disingenuous, duplicitous, false, fraudulent, ignominious, knavish, lying, machiavellian, mendacious, misleading, perfidious, roguish, shady, shifty, sinister, sinuate, sinuous, surreptitious, treacherous, tricky, underhanded, unscrupulous, untrustworthy, untruthful

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/dishonest

Abbey, why are you posting MFM's resume? :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Good lord.

Synonym Collection v1.1
Main Entry: dishonest
Part of Speech: adjective
Synonyms: cheating, corrupt, corruptible, crooked, deceitful, deceptive, devious, dishonorable, disingenuous, duplicitous, false, fraudulent, ignominious, knavish, lying, machiavellian, mendacious, misleading, perfidious, roguish, shady, shifty, sinister, sinuate, sinuous, surreptitious, treacherous, tricky, underhanded, unscrupulous, untrustworthy, untruthful

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/dishonest


good lord.

answer me this question, abbey:

is a quarterback DISHONEST and LYING when he runs the option play? or is he merely being DECEPTIVE?

I'll wait

[red states rule]

good lord.

answer me this question, abbey:

is a quarterback DISHONEST and LYING when he runs the option play? or is he merely being DECEPTIVE?

I'll wait

http://right-mind.us/blogs/intolerista_island/V2020Hippies_small.jpg

[retiredman]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

and the lead keeps increasing. McCain gave up on Michigan today. The smell of republican fear is in the air!:lol:

[Kathianne]

AKA/ Pork:

http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1429&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS



Top 10 Tax Sweeteners in the Bailout Bill
Categories: Federal Budget, Headlines By TCS
Tags: bailout
Pub Date: Oct 02, 2008

The following are some of the top tax sweeteners in the Senate passed Bailout Bill. Not all the provisions are per se outrageous, but collectively are intended to help Congressional leadership get final passage of the 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.


1. Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children

Current law places an excise tax of 39 cents on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any shaft of a type used to produce certain types of arrows. This proposal would exempt from the excise tax any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means to enhance the spine of the shaft used in the manufacture of an arrow that measures 5/16 of an inch or less and is unsuited for use with a bow with a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more. The proposal is effective for shafts first sold after the date of enactment. The estimated cost of the proposal is $2 million over ten years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The Oregon senators were the initial sponsors of the provisions. According to Bloomberg News, the provision would be worth $200,000 to Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon.

2. Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility

Track owners want to be able write-off the cost of their facilities on their taxes over seven years - a depreciation timetable many of them have used for decades. But the IRS has wanted to stretch it to at least 15 years and has raised questions whether the increasingly popular tracks really belong in the same tax category as amusement parks.

Auto track owners are simply trying to get out of paying more taxes - which they'd have to do if they deducted less every year. These owners have gotten plenty of tax breaks over the years from states and localities eager to get speedways. The provision would be extended 2 years till the end of 2009 and would cost $100 million. The provision encompasses all facilities including grandstands, parking lots and concession stands.


3. Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands

Extends until December 31, 2009 a rebate against excise taxes charged on rum imported from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. A $13.50 per proof gallon excise tax is applied to distilled spirits imported to the U.S. Under this provision a $13.25 rebate is returned to PR and the VI, and is retroactive back to January 1, 2008. Permanent law sets the rebate at $10.50 per proof gallon, but the PR and VI provisions have generally been in place since the first Clinton Administration. The most recent extension of the $13.50 rebate expired January 1, 2008. Cost is $192 million....

[retiredman]

every good bill needs a little pork!

[Missileman]

good lord.

answer me this question, abbey:

is a quarterback DISHONEST and LYING when he runs the option play? or is he merely being DECEPTIVE?

I'll wait

Would you concur that the purpose of a deception is to make someone believe that something other than the truth is occurring? Would you also concur that the purpose of a lie is to make someone believe something other than the truth?

[Immanuel]

please show me where the "right" exists....especially to intentionally decieve your rep...i won't wait, because no doubt such a right does not exist

It doesn't matter whether it is a "right" (and I believe it is a "right") to make those phone calls or not. The fact is that the practice is deceptive. It is completely dishonest. Our government uses deception all the time when they undergo covert ops and for many other reasons. The police do so as well when they set up sting operations. Dateline NBC uses deception to lure pedophiles to young girl's homes and catch these bastards attempting to do God forsaken things to them. It's legal to do so. That doesn't make it right.

It is legal to abort a baby. Just because the government says it is legal to do so doesn't make it right.

It is legal for MFM to use deceptive practices to convince Congressmen to vote the way he wants him to vote just as it is legal for you or I to try the same tactics. Being legal doesn't make it right.

As a Christian, I have a hard time justifying deceptive practices even when they are done for the "right" (right as humans would put it) reasons. That is not to say that I would never, ever use them. Sometimes my human nature gets the better of me, but I still find it difficult to say that using deception is Godly. For instance, I'm all for Dateline's deceptive practice. As far as I am concerned they can lock those bastards up for life and I would not shed a single tear.


every good bill needs a little pork!

As long as it fits into the Democrats pork barrel, right? Geez, I wonder if the Republicans attempted to give money to a conservative organization like the ACLU. That would go over really well, with liberals, wouldn't it MFM?

Immie

[Yurt]

=Immanuel;304011]It doesn't matter whether it is a "right" (and I believe it is a "right") to make those phone calls or not. The fact is that the practice is deceptive. It is completely dishonest.

immie... you are right...it does NOT matter about the right...however...your friend MFM claimed it was his right...

i simply responded.



Our government uses deception all the time when they undergo covert ops and for many other reasons. The police do so as well when they set up sting operations. Dateline NBC uses deception to lure pedophiles to young girl's homes and catch these bastards attempting to do God forsaken things to them. It's legal to do so. That doesn't make it right.

seriously, go back and read the last few posts, we are talking about the same thing... mfm is essentially saying that because it is NOT ILLegal, that it is ok....my point is --- legal schmegal....is that honest. does that make sense?


the rest of your post....well...ok then, but you hit the heart the matter here...and we agree, that just because something is "legal" does not make it honest

[Yurt]

I think it is dishonest AND illegal to vote multiple times.

I have the right of free speech. Why would you think that calling my representative on the telephone would not be covered under that right?

Calling multiple times does NOT have virtually the SAME effect as voting multiple times. That is a flawed analogy. Calling is not illegal. vote fraud is. Calling does not have any effect other than expressing concern to a legislator which they are free to disregard if they chose. Voting has tangible effects that no one is free to disregard.

how is it a flawed analogy? if calling does not have any effect other than expressing your concern to a legislator why did you laugh about your phone banks or whatever you call it? be honest here mfm...

you told me i could not trust the reps telling us that the citizens were calling and telling their reps to NOT vote for the bill......because........you KNOW....that phone calls are deceptive

i asked you....how do you...proof...

you then answered with....

i engaged in that practice

it happens all the time

it is legal

republicans do it

yada yada

it is still a lie

[Abbey Marie]

good lord.

answer me this question, abbey:

is a quarterback DISHONEST and LYING when he runs the option play? or is he merely being DECEPTIVE?

I'll wait

Dear MFM,
I know that you think your constant repetiton of "I'll wait", is really clever. It wasn't really clever the first time, and trust me, it surely isn't now. You need new material.

Aaaaanyway, on to content: Your little football example is meaningless when the very definition of the two words you are trying to differentiate shows they are the same. I could counter your example with a post about deceptive trade practices, but why bother? It is just so obvious that the two words mean the same thing. I think you will rest easier once you admit that what you did was deceptive, dishonest, wrong, etc., etc.

[retiredman]

it is still a lie

bullshit. explain what I LIED about. I called MY congressional representative, and each time I did, I expressed my opinion about a particular piece of legislation. What about that is a LIE... Either successfully defend that slanderous allegation, or have the grace to retract it and apologize for ever making it in the first place. fucking coward.

[manu1959]

bullshit. explain what I LIED about. I called MY congressional representative, and each time I did, I expressed my opinion about a particular piece of legislation. What about that is a LIE... Either successfully defend that slanderous allegation, or have the grace to retract it and apologize for ever making it in the first place. fucking coward.

each time you called did you identify yourself and make them aware that you had called before and that you were calling multiple times....

[Yurt]

it is plain that mfm cannot answer a question...

if anyone wants, i can go back and bold/underline the parts mfm....either "misses" or refuses to answer.


and you are such a wuss, you never answer the real question.....is voting multiple times HONEST


i am not talking about the law

[Yurt]

bullshit. explain what I LIED about. I called MY congressional representative, and each time I did, I expressed my opinion about a particular piece of legislation. What about that is a LIE... Either successfully defend that slanderous allegation, or have the grace to retract it and apologize for ever making it in the first place. fucking coward.

.......


no more accurate...no less.

and of course they aren't lying...but the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive, don't you think? And I have been around politics long enough to KNOW that phone banking calls like that goes on all the time... on both sides of the aisle.


do I have proof that political parties routinely arrange phone banks to call congressional members from the other party? Yeah... I have participated in the practice...and joked about it with republican legislative staffers who had done the same thing.

I am sure they DID hear from constituents...I am saying that the constituents in many cases were political operatives calling more than once.

words.....just words......

[retiredman]

.......





words.....just words......

no dishonesty.

no lying.

why won't you acknowledge that?

[manu1959]

no dishonesty.

no lying.

why won't you acknowledge that?

your own words confirm you are dishonest....have engaged in dishonest acts and the fact you won't admit to it make you a liar.....

why won't you aknowledge that?.....:laugh2:

[Yurt]

no dishonesty.

no lying.

why won't you acknowledge that?

try actually answering the questions posed to you...or are you scared....

you have yet to honestly answer the vote question...i am not surprised...i think this is the 5th time....

maybe i should bold that, so i can reference now you avoid true debates

[retiredman]

your own words confirm you are dishonest....have engaged in dishonest acts and the fact you won't admit to it make you a liar.....

why won't you aknowledge that?

you are a lying sack of shit. why won't you acknowledge that?:laugh2:

[Yurt]

you are a lying sack of shit. why won't you acknowledge that?:laugh2:

you are worthless...

and a coward


but now my problem

[retiredman]

you are worthless...

and a coward


but now my problem

I am NOW your problem? Puhleeeeze explain!!!!!

[Yurt]

you never answered btw whether it is ok to vote multiple times at a polling booth if no one checks id and your vote is simply a checked box....law notwithstanding....do you feel that is honest, to vote multiple times?


no surprise someone from maine will not answer this

[retiredman]

Dear MFM,
I know that you think your constant repetiton of "I'll wait", is really clever. It wasn't really clever the first time, and trust me, it surely isn't now. You need new material.

Aaaaanyway, on to content: Your little football example is meaningless when the very definition of the two words you are trying to differentiate shows they are the same. I could counter your example with a post about deceptive trade practices, but why bother? It is just so obvious that the two words mean the same thing. I think you will rest easier once you admit that what you did was deceptive, dishonest, wrong, etc., etc.

you never did answer my quite simple question. Why not?

[manu1959]

you are a lying sack of shit. why won't you acknowledge that?:laugh2:

freudian projection........

[retiredman]

freudian projection........

nice dodge, but a dodge nonetheless!

try getting up earlier!:lol:

[manu1959]

nice dodge, but a dodge nonetheless!

try getting up earlier!:lol:

you really shouldn't call yourself out like this.....your own posts state call banking is dishonest.....you call bank...thus that makes you dishonest....the fact you will not admit that makes you a liar.....

nice dodge, but a dodge nonetheless!

try getting up earlier!:lol:

admit it....i am smarter than you...nicer....better looking....and drive a nicer car....

[retiredman]

you'll need to link me to where I called phone banking "dishonest".


I'll wait.

[manu1959]

you'll need to link me to where I called phone banking "dishonest".


I'll wait.

ahhhhhhhh you hinge your argument on the difference between deceptive and dishonest....

if you fucked your wife’s sister in the ass and your wife asked if you made love to her sister and you said no....were you being deceptive...dishonest or lying....

and abbey is correct your….ill wait shtick is getting olde....


oh...ill wait....

[Yurt]

you never answered btw whether it is ok to vote multiple times at a polling booth if no one checks id and your vote is simply a checked box....law notwithstanding....do you feel that is honest, to vote multiple times?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

i think up to 6 sheep

[Yurt]

wait, let me make that clear as you continue to dodge it


you never answered btw whether it is ok to vote multiple times at a polling booth if no one checks id and your vote is simply a checked box....law notwithstanding....do you feel that is honest, to vote multiple times?

number 6 preacher

[Yurt]

you'll need to link me to where I called phone banking "dishonest".


I'll wait.

is deceptive a synonym with dishonest?

you said in this thread it was not.

do you recant?

yes or no....

[Immanuel]

immie... you are right...it does NOT matter about the right...however...your friend MFM claimed it was his right...

i simply responded.




seriously, go back and read the last few posts, we are talking about the same thing... mfm is essentially saying that because it is NOT ILLegal, that it is ok....my point is --- legal schmegal....is that honest. does that make sense?


the rest of your post....well...ok then, but you hit the heart the matter here...and we agree, that just because something is "legal" does not make it honest

Just to clarify...

I was simply pointing out for all to see that although something may be a legal right that does not mean that it is right. I had used your post to focus attention on what we were discussing at the time and how my post fit into the discussion.

I was not insinuating that you were wrong in your point of view.


your own words confirm you are dishonest....have engaged in dishonest acts and the fact you won't admit to it make you a liar.....



I have to disagree with you here. I don't think that his refusal to admit this at this time makes him a liar. It makes him one of two things in my book... 1) just plain wrong (and we should all have the right to be wrong once in a while) or 2) a loser of this debate who simply will not give up. Nothing wrong with refusing to admit defeat, in my book.

I suppose from your side of the picture the third option would be that he knows he is wrong and is lying just to continue to lie, but somehow, I don't find that it makes sense to do that.

Immie

[jimnyc]

good lord.

answer me this question, abbey:

is a quarterback DISHONEST and LYING when he runs the option play? or is he merely being DECEPTIVE?

I'll wait


you never did answer my quite simple question. Why not?

I'll step in and take a shot at answering...

When a quarterback is running an option, and fakes the run up the gut only to hide the ball and toss a pass - yes, he's being dishonest, lying and deceptive. BUT HE'S SUPPOSED TO. It's his job, and it's a GAME. He is purposely trying to deceive, aka "lie", to the defense in order to secure a different outcome.

For most of us, politics is not a game. Deception and dishonesty are part of a strategy to win the GAME when speaking football. Deception and dishonesty in politics is just that - deception and dishonesty.

Calling representatives multiple times in hopes of skewing results or to give an appearance of more people calling is outright deceptive - and by definition it is lying. It's your right and it's perfectly legal, but let's not try and squirm around it and claim it's not being deceptive or dishonest.

[retiredman]

is deceptive a synonym with dishonest?

you said in this thread it was not.

do you recant?

yes or no....
one CAN use the word deceptive in such a way that it is synonymous with dishonest.... and one can use the word deceptive in ways where it is NOT synonymous with deishonest. For exaample, an artist who paints in the style of Trompe l'Oeil is visually deceptive, but he certain is not dishonest or a liar.

[red states rule]

bullshit. explain what I LIED about. I called MY congressional representative, and each time I did, I expressed my opinion about a particular piece of legislation. What about that is a LIE... Either successfully defend that slanderous allegation, or have the grace to retract it and apologize for ever making it in the first place. fucking coward.

http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/3/6/7/5/23315763-23315766-slarge.jpg

[Yurt]

one CAN use the word deceptive in such a way that it is synonymous with dishonest.... and one can use the word deceptive in ways where it is NOT synonymous with deishonest. For exaample, an artist who paints in the style of Trompe l'Oeil is visually deceptive, but he certain is not dishonest or a liar.

thats fine...but you said in this thread that deceptive "is not synonymous" with dishonest...you did not clarify then.

here is number approx. #7 attempt and your unwillingness to answer this is telling:


you never answered btw whether it is ok to vote multiple times at a polling booth if no one checks id and your vote is simply a checked box....law notwithstanding....do you feel that is honest, to vote multiple times?

again, i said law notwithstanding...do you feel it is honest to vote multiple times, given the above facts, yes or no.

[Yurt]

Immanuel;304302]Just to clarify...

I was simply pointing out for all to see that although something may be a legal right that does not mean that it is right. I had used your post to focus attention on what we were discussing at the time and how my post fit into the discussion.

I was not insinuating that you were wrong in your point of view.

gotcha

[Yurt]

you'll need to link me to where I called phone banking "dishonest".


I'll wait.

this really is the height of silliness at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst...this whole thing began when i said i couldn't believe you would trust a poll over people calling their reps...you responded quite clearly that the phone calls can be trusted no more and no less than polling because people deceive their reps by calling multiple times. this was the first time i had ever heard of people doing this, so i asked for proof, you said you have done it.


no more accurate...no less.

and of course they aren't lying(here you answered my question about the reps, i asked you if you are saying the reps lied, you said no BUT)...but the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive, don't you think (this is your proof that we cannot rely on the phone calls because people are dishonestly scewing the results to make it seem as if more people are calling than are actually calling)? And I have been around politics long enough to KNOW that phone banking calls like that goes on all the time... on both sides of the aisle.


YURT do you have any proof of this? of course not. you're making this up


MFM do I have proof that political parties routinely arrange phone banks to call congressional members from the other party? Yeah... I have participated in the practice.

[retiredman]

deceptive does not necessarily mean dishonest.

that's a fact.

Trompe L'Oeil is deceptive but not dishonest.

I admit to being deceptive, I do not think I was ever dishonest.

regarding your question about voting. How can one answer a question about a legal matter of governance without answering it in context of the law.

Voting is a legal matter. It is against the law to vote more than once. It is illegal.

For you to place the act of making a phone call to a congressman on the same level as your civic right/duty to VOTE is pure silliness.

[red states rule]

deceptive does not necessarily mean dishonest.

that's a fact.

Trompe L'Oeil is deceptive but not dishonest.

I admit to being deceptive, I do not think I was ever dishonest.

regarding your question about voting. How can one answer a question about a legal matter of governance without answering it in context of the law.

Voting is a legal matter. It is against the law to vote more than once. It is illegal.

For you to place the act of making a phone call to a congressman on the same level as your civic right/duty to VOTE is pure silliness.



Reminds me of another liar and his lame attempt to duck for cover

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

[Yurt]

deceptive does not necessarily mean dishonest.

that's a fact.

Trompe L'Oeil is deceptive but not dishonest.

I admit to being deceptive, I do not think I was ever dishonest.

regarding your question about voting. How can one answer a question about a legal matter of governance without answering it in context of the law.

Voting is a legal matter. It is against the law to vote more than once. It is illegal.

For you to place the act of making a phone call to a congressman on the same level as your civic right/duty to VOTE is pure silliness.

unbelievable...why is it you can't answer a simple question...wait, i already know the answer...because for you to answer the question would prove your dishonesty...my guess is you believe that my scenario about voting multiple times IS dishonest, that is why you refuse to answer it and thus your position would be comprimised. you don't want to debate honestly, you want to hide and not answer questions that would show the inherent wrongness in your stance.

both seek the same end, to influence the political landscape through voting. you call your congress/senate in order to influence their vote. and stop prattling about the legality of voting...you probably would not support the underground railroad because that was an illegal activity...

i would argue that you are committing fraud by calling multiple times under the guise of different people...

[retiredman]

If the premise of this thread is correct, and the house members initially voted against the bailout bill because their constituents didn't like it, does that mean that the constituents changed their minds because congress added a whole mess of pork?

[red states rule]

unbelievable...why is it you can't answer a simple question...wait, i already know the answer...because for you to answer the question would prove your dishonesty...my guess is you believe that my scenario about voting multiple times IS dishonest, that is why you refuse to answer it and thus your position would be comprimised. you don't want to debate honestly, you want to hide and not answer questions that would show the inherent wrongness in your stance.

both seek the same end, to influence the political landscape through voting. you call your congress/senate in order to influence their vote. and stop prattling about the legality of voting...you probably would not support the underground railroad because that was an illegal activity...

i would argue that you are committing fraud by calling multiple times under the guise of different people...


Yurt, like Bill Clinton MFMF is unable to give a straight answer to any question. He must tapdance, and play his word games to give him wiggle room so he can flip flop as needed

He is without honor or integrity

[retiredman]

unbelievable...why is it you can't answer a simple question...wait, i already know the answer...because for you to answer the question would prove your dishonesty...my guess is you believe that my scenario about voting multiple times IS dishonest, that is why you refuse to answer it and thus your position would be comprimised. you don't want to debate honestly, you want to hide and not answer questions that would show the inherent wrongness in your stance.

both seek the same end, to influence the political landscape through voting. you call your congress/senate in order to influence their vote. and stop prattling about the legality of voting...you probably would not support the underground railroad because that was an illegal activity...

i would argue that you are committing fraud by calling multiple times under the guise of different people...

I never claimed to be different people. no fraud. no dishonesty.

[Yurt]

If the premise of this thread is correct, and the house members initially voted against the bailout bill because their constituents didn't like it, does that mean that the constituents changed their minds because congress added a whole mess of pork?

i replied above this...

who said they did change their mind? maybe people like you spammed the reps by fraudulently calling multiple times knowing that they would believe different people called and that the majority want the bill passed...

another thing, you never truly responded to my posts...we can't trust phone calls because you said people deceptively called and made it seem like many different people were calling....if we can't trust the phone calls then how is that honest?

[Immanuel]

If the premise of this thread is correct, and the house members initially voted against the bailout bill because their constituents didn't like it, does that mean that the constituents changed their minds because congress added a whole mess of pork?

No, just means that enough Congressional palms were greased to allow them to make excuses to their constituients as to why they voted for it. That $6 million dollars for toy wooden arrows was important enough to someone to help him convince his Congressman to support it. Same with all the other pork.

By the way, has anyone figured out how that $6 million was necessary for the bailout?

Immie

[retiredman]

i replied above this...

who said they did change their mind? maybe people like you spammed the reps by fraudulently calling multiple times knowing that they would believe different people called and that the majority want the bill passed...

another thing, you never truly responded to my posts...we can't trust phone calls because you said people deceptively called and made it seem like many different people were calling....if we can't trust the phone calls then how is that honest?


how is Trompe L'Oeil HONEST?

The House just approved it.... what changed in the bill besides all the pork?:laugh2: Like I said: all anyone ever need to do to get the GOP house members onboard was make the bill more "tasty".

[Yurt]

I never claimed to be different people. no fraud. no dishonesty.

you dishonestly screwed the political system by deceiving the reps into believing that you were more than one person...it does not matter if you did not tell them that, you knew they believed that and based upon that, you continued letting them believe a lie in order to influence their vote.

however, it is clear you do not want to honestly discuss this and you refuse to answer simple questions about voting because you know it destroys your stance....

pathetic

[red states rule]

how is Trompe L'Oeil HONEST?

The House just approved it.... what changed in the bill besides all the pork?:laugh2: Like I said: all anyone ever need to do to get the GOP house members onboard was make the bill more "tasty".

When the bill lost 95 Dems voted against it - now only 63 Dems voted NO

When the bill losr 133 Republcians voted No - now only 108 voted NO

Seems more Dems went for the pork the Republicans

[retiredman]

you dishonestly screwed the political system by deceiving the reps into believing that you were more than one person...it does not matter if you did not tell them that, you knew they believed that and based upon that, you continued letting them believe a lie in order to influence their vote.

however, it is clear you do not want to honestly discuss this and you refuse to answer simple questions about voting because you know it destroys your stance....

pathetic


again...is Trompe L'Oeil dishonest, or merely deceptive?

[Yurt]

again...is Trompe L'Oeil dishonest, or merely deceptive?

you see...you demand others answer your questions but refuse to answer questions that you know destroy your stance....pathetic

and as you said, which i agreed, not all deception is dishonest. you let the reps believe a lie mfm, that is a fact and you made it clear to me that i could not rely on the "phone calls" because people falsify the reality of the number of different people that actually called.

you are dishonest and your refusal to honestly debate this is pathetic...now answer the voting question...if you don't, this debate is over as i refuse to discuss things with a person who will not honestly discuss the issues

[retiredman]

you see...you demand others answer your questions but refuse to answer questions that you know destroy your stance....pathetic

and as you said, which i agreed, not all deception is dishonest. you let the reps believe a lie mfm, that is a fact and you made it clear to me that i could not rely on the "phone calls" because people falsify the reality of the number of different people that actually called.

you are dishonest and your refusal to honestly debate this is pathetic...now answer the voting question...if you don't, this debate is over as i refuse to discuss things with a person who will not honestly discuss the issues
voting twice in a governmental election is illegal. One would have to commit fraud in order to accomplish it which would make it dishonest as well. Calling my representative more than once is not dishonest in the least, unless I am telling the person on the other end of the line that I disagree with a bill that I actually agreed with. I am prefectly within my rights as a citizen to voice my opinion to my representative as often as I like... there is nothing dishonest about doing so.

As you said, not all deception is dishonest. end of discussion.

I notice you can't quite bring yourself to talk about those GOP congressmen getting in line for the pork!:laugh2:

[Yurt]

I would imagine that the phone calls remained overwhelmingly against the bailout bill - thanks, no doubt to conservative phone banks

you just prove my point...you are claiming that the phone calls dishonestly are against the bailout due to conservative phone banks...

thank you preacher

[Yurt]

voting twice in a governmental election is illegal. One would have to commit fraud in order to accomplish it which would make it dishonest as well. Calling my representative more than once is not dishonest in the least, unless I am telling the person on the other end of the line that I disagree with a bill that I actually agreed with. I am prefectly within my rights as a citizen to voice my opinion to my representative as often as I like... there is nothing dishonest about doing so.

As you said, not all deception is dishonest. end of discussion.

I notice you can't quite bring yourself to talk about those GOP congressmen getting in line for the pork!:laugh2:

i did in that thread moron...

again, you prattle on about legality as if becuase something is illegal, it is dishonest....so you think the underground railroad was dishonest?

and there is nothing dishonest about voting more than once (using your logic) in my scenario...you are not asked to put your name on it, no one checks your id, all you are doing is marking a box...

do you honestly think if you called your rep and said, hey btw, all those phone calls were actually from me, not hundreds of different people he would say...no problem, you were not dishonest at all

you are the most dishonest person i have ever met.

[red states rule]

Amazing isn't it? Wall St wanted it and plummetted when it didn't happen, now that it's passed the Dow drops below the point it was at when it didn't pass.

So is the what it's like to be in a socialist country?

[retiredman]

you just prove my point...you are claiming that the phone calls dishonestly are against the bailout due to conservative phone banks...

thank you preacher


bullshit counselor. I never said that the phone calls were "dishonestly" against anything. There is nothing dishonest about calling your elected representatives as often as you want. period.

[Yurt]

i did in that thread moron...

again, you prattle on about legality as if becuase something is illegal, it is dishonest....so you think the underground railroad was dishonest?

and there is nothing dishonest about voting more than once (using your logic) in my scenario...you are not asked to put your name on it, no one checks your id, all you are doing is marking a box...

do you honestly think if you called your rep and said, hey btw, all those phone calls were actually from me, not hundreds of different people he would say...no problem, you were not dishonest at all

you are the most dishonest person i have ever met.

:dance:

i'm done as mfm refuses to honestly discuss the issues

[red states rule]

:dance:

i'm done as mfm refuses to honestly discuss the issues

Yurt, when has MFM ever honestly wanted to discuss the issues?

[Immanuel]

bullshit counselor. I never said that the phone calls were "dishonestly" against anything. There is nothing dishonest about calling your elected representatives as often as you want. period.

Nope, there is nothing dishonest about calling your representative as often as you want.

The dishonest part of the issue is calling them multiple times on the same issue and making them believe that this is the only time you have called so that they think you represent 50 (saying you call 50 times) different constitient's points of view when in fact you only represent 1. That is where it is dishonest.

And I must say that as a Chrisian, I am appalled that a pastor would defend any kind of dishonesty for or in politics!

Immie

[retiredman]

Nope, there is nothing dishonest about calling your representative as often as you want.

The dishonest part of the issue is calling them multiple times on the same issue and making them believe that this is the only time you have called so that they think you represent 50 (saying you call 50 times) different constitient's points of view when in fact you only represent 1. That is where it is dishonest.

Immie
I made no effort to "make them believe" anything. I merely called and identified myself as a constituent and voiced my opinion on the bill. nothing dishonest about that in any way.

[red states rule]

I made no effort to "make them believe" anything. I merely called and identified myself as a constituent and voiced my opinion on the bill. nothing dishonest about that in any way.

Like Biden's tale of his copter being forced down, you led them on to think something that was not correct

IOW, you lied to them

[Immanuel]

I made no effort to "make them believe" anything. I merely called and identified myself as a constituent and voiced my opinion on the bill. nothing dishonest about that in any way.

Sorry... but BS!

You allowed them to believe that you were X number of constituients voicing their opinions. There is such a thing as being dishonest by simply NOT telling the full truth and in this case you are guilty.

God will forgive you. We are all sinners. But, for a pastor (even one who is only temporarily filling the spot) to defend it is appalling to me. Heck, it would even be appalling if you were only a professing Christain and were not filling the roles of a pastor. I don't condemn you for your actions. God knows I've been guilty of being deceitful myself, but I cannot conceive of myself attempting to do so today. I would sooner admit my guilt and REPENT of my sins than to go on lying to myself that I did not sin.

Maybe it is justified by the fact that it was for the Democratic Party. Maybe you believe Jesus was a partisan Democrat, like yourself, I don't know, but I cannot condone a pastor saying "sin is no big deal" and dishonesty is a sin.

Immie

[jimnyc]

i'm done as mfm refuses to honestly discuss the issues

I saw he called out Abbey and asked his question to her a second time. I responded to him since she wasn't on line. He ignored my response, which he obviously couldn't have missed as it was right above his, the last post at the time he posted.

I guess he didn't want his question answered after all. :laugh2:

It's a shame that people out there play games with politics which can influence the lives of others. Even more of a shame when they can't admit or don't realize what they are doing is completely dishonest.

[retiredman]

I saw he called out Abbey and asked his question to her a second time. I responded to him since she wasn't on line. He ignored my response, which he obviously couldn't have missed as it was right above his, the last post at the time he posted.

I guess he didn't want his question answered after all. :laugh2:

It's a shame that people out there play games with politics which can influence the lives of others. Even more of a shame when they can't admit or don't realize what they are doing is completely dishonest.

Since I had asked Abbey the question, I was waiting for her reply. Your reply reflects a bit of naivete in my opinion. Politics in America has ALWAYS had an element of gamesmanship to it.

[Yurt]

I saw he called out Abbey and asked his question to her a second time. I responded to him since she wasn't on line. He ignored my response, which he obviously couldn't have missed as it was right above his, the last post at the time he posted.

I guess he didn't want his question answered after all. :laugh2:

It's a shame that people out there play games with politics which can influence the lives of others. Even more of a shame when they can't admit or don't realize what they are doing is completely dishonest.

so true...it destroys the credibility of our political system, it weakens our form of government that allows people to have a voice, to be heard by their reps and make an honest difference, instead it has been hijacked by dishonest party hacks...as if just because something is not illegal, that makes it ok.

personally, i think there should be a law against such action, you are fraudulently manipulating our political process.

[retiredman]

there should be a law against calling your representatives more than once????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

That's hilarious!

YOur faux outrage is really funny yurt....

the fact of the matter is: both sides have been playing these games for decades. For one side to stop playing unilaterally would be idiotic.

[jimnyc]

Since I had asked Abbey the question, I was waiting for her reply. Your reply reflects a bit of naivete in my opinion. Politics in America has ALWAYS had an element of gamesmanship to it.

The only thing naive is someone GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY to mislead and deceive politicians and then believing it's not being dishonest.

And politics might have always had a bit of "gamesmanship" to it, but that neither makes it right, nor does it make the practice you engaged in any less deceitful. This is why people are growing tired of the political scene, as many like to play games instead of doing what is best for our country.

When you called the reps multiple times, were you doing what was best for your country by being honest and forthcoming with those you called, or were you doing so to put your party at an advantage, even if slight?

[jimnyc]

there should be a law against calling your representatives more than once????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

That's hilarious!

YOur faux outrage is really funny yurt....

the fact of the matter is: both sides have been playing these games for decades. For one side to stop playing unilaterally would be idiotic.

Yes, there should be a law against people purposely deceiving our system for their own gain.

[retiredman]

Yes, there should be a law against people purposely deceiving our system for their own gain.


so you think there should be a federal LAW that prohibits citizens from calling their congressional delegations more than once on any given issue? Really?

What if, right after I hung up, I remembered another point I wanted to make, and I called back, you'd send me to JAIL?:laugh2:

[retiredman]

The only thing naive is someone GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY to mislead and deceive politicians and then believing it's not being dishonest.

And politics might have always had a bit of "gamesmanship" to it, but that neither makes it right, nor does it make the practice you engaged in any less deceitful. This is why people are growing tired of the political scene, as many like to play games instead of doing what is best for our country.

When you called the reps multiple times, were you doing what was best for your country by being honest and forthcoming with those you called, or were you doing so to put your party at an advantage, even if slight?

you seem to think that the people who are playing these games - on BOTH SIDES - are not doing it because they think they are advancing a cause that is best for our country. You are mistaken.

[jimnyc]

so you think there should be a federal LAW that prohibits citizens from calling their congressional delegations more than once on any given issue? Really?

What if, right after I hung up, I remembered another point I wanted to make, and I called back, you'd send me to JAIL?:laugh2:

Did I say that or are you purposely changing my words? There should be a law against those that want to PLAY A GAME by calling their representatives multiple times in order to give a different appearance. That's totally different than calling back because you forgot something.

[red states rule]

you seem to think that the people who are playing these games - on BOTH SIDES - are not doing it because they think they are advancing a cause that is best for our country. You are mistaken.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_PE5RlOqDJzM/SE3lHYs0fzI/AAAAAAAAANM/JbsKDr4pKBs/s200/integrity+of+elected+officials+(frc.org).jpg

[jimnyc]

you seem to think that the people who are playing these games - on BOTH SIDES - are not doing it because they think they are advancing a cause that is best for our country. You are mistaken.

When you did so, did you call reps from both parties for your initiatives, or did you solely call one party?

And believing you are doing good doesn't make it any less deceptive. You can change your writing all you like, claim others do it all the time & swear up and down that it's a legit way of getting things done - but it is being deceptive aka dishonest to the very definition.

What if your church took calls on a referendum for a new pastor. They didn't want anyone to feel akward, so they allowed people to call in anonymously to be heard. You later find out some called 10-20 times apiece because they didn't like the current pastor. They admit they wanted a change for the church and wanted the appearance to be that more people wanted the current pastor gone. Are they being dishonest to those at the church that they called?

[Yurt]

there should be a law against calling your representatives more than once????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

That's hilarious!

YOur faux outrage is really funny yurt....

the fact of the matter is: both sides have been playing these games for decades. For one side to stop playing unilaterally would be idiotic.

of course i never said that....no surprise that you would incorrectly interpret my words...i said there should be a law against dishonest folk like you deceiving our politicians and destroying the credibility of our political system. and it is not faux outrage, you can see that you are the only person on this board supporting this behavior. no other liberal has come to your defense and i highly doubt that there are many out there who would defend such practices to the idiotic length you are.

and it is irrelevent that "both" sides do it...i have never advocated, nor has anyone in this thread for that matter, that one side be allowed and not the other. i don't if republicans or democrats conduct that deceiving behavior, it should be against the law as it undermines our government. you consider yourself a patriot, yet you purposefully deceive our representatives and purposefully undermine the system.

[Yurt]

so you think there should be a federal LAW that prohibits citizens from calling their congressional delegations more than once on any given issue? Really?

What if, right after I hung up, I remembered another point I wanted to make, and I called back, you'd send me to JAIL?:laugh2:

this post shows more of your depravity....you insult me and bitch about how i allegedly parse words and confuse the issues in a "lawerly" way....yet you have taken people's stances and completely twisted them into something they never said, not even remotely, in order to further your deceit. pathetic.

[Abbey Marie]

Since I had asked Abbey the question, I was waiting for her reply. Your reply reflects a bit of naivete in my opinion. Politics in America has ALWAYS had an element of gamesmanship to it.

I already answered you, and right away I might add. Just because I didn't address the question the way you wanted me to, does not mean I did not answer. The fact is, your example of football plays was too silly to deserve a direct answer. But I thought it was nice of Jim to take the time to explain it to you, and he did it quite well. In case you are still not satisfied, just read Jim's answer- I wholeheartedly endorse it, and I am sure could not have said it better myself.

Oh, and my posting a thesaurus entry showing that the words dishonest and deceptive are synonyms would have closed the argument for any logical, reasonable people out there.

[Abbey Marie]

When you did so, did you call reps from both parties for your initiatives, or did you solely call one party?

And believing you are doing good doesn't make it any less deceptive. You can change your writing all you like, claim others do it all the time & swear up and down that it's a legit way of getting things done - but it is being deceptive aka dishonest to the very definition.

What if your church took calls on a referendum for a new pastor. They didn't want anyone to feel akward, so they allowed people to call in anonymously to be heard. You later find out some called 10-20 times apiece because they didn't like the current pastor. They admit they wanted a change for the church and wanted the appearance to be that more people wanted the current pastor gone. Are they being dishonest to those at the church that they called?

Exactly. And a much better example than calling football plays, Jim.

[retiredman]

of course i never said that....no surprise that you would incorrectly interpret my words...i said there should be a law against dishonest folk like you deceiving our politicians and destroying the credibility of our political system. and it is not faux outrage, you can see that you are the only person on this board supporting this behavior. no other liberal has come to your defense and i highly doubt that there are many out there who would defend such practices to the idiotic length you are.

and it is irrelevent that "both" sides do it...i have never advocated, nor has anyone in this thread for that matter, that one side be allowed and not the other. i don't if republicans or democrats conduct that deceiving behavior, it should be against the law as it undermines our government. you consider yourself a patriot, yet you purposefully deceive our representatives and purposefully undermine the system.


blah blah blah.... you would stifle freedom of speech? How would you DO that? How can you say that calling your representative more than once is ILLEGAL???? get real, counselor.

[red states rule]

blah blah blah.... you would stifle freedom of speech? How would you DO that? How can you say that calling your representative more than once is ILLEGAL???? get real, counselor.

http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii261/Da_Grimm_One/DAP.jpg

[retiredman]

When you did so, did you call reps from both parties for your initiatives, or did you solely call one party?

And believing you are doing good doesn't make it any less deceptive. You can change your writing all you like, claim others do it all the time & swear up and down that it's a legit way of getting things done - but it is being deceptive aka dishonest to the very definition.

What if your church took calls on a referendum for a new pastor. They didn't want anyone to feel akward, so they allowed people to call in anonymously to be heard. You later find out some called 10-20 times apiece because they didn't like the current pastor. They admit they wanted a change for the church and wanted the appearance to be that more people wanted the current pastor gone. Are they being dishonest to those at the church that they called?

I don't know about you, but I only have ONE congressman represnting me and two senators. When I participated in this heinous activity that you all are so outraged at, I called my one congressman and my two senators and gave them the exact same message. If I were to have called another house member that did NOT represent my district, and tried to suggest taht I was a constituent, THAT would have been dishonest.

[retiredman]

I already answered you, and right away I might add. Just because I didn't address the question the way you wanted me to, does not mean I did not answer. The fact is, your example of football plays was too silly to deserve a direct answer. But I thought it was nice of Jim to take the time to explain it to you, and he did it quite well. In case you are still not satisfied, just read Jim's answer- I wholeheartedly endorse it, and I am sure could not have said it better myself.

Oh, and my posting a thesaurus entry showing that the words dishonest and deceptive are synonyms would have closed the argument for any logical, reasonable people out there.

yet even your cronies like yurt admit that things can be deceptive without being dishonest. you seem to blithely disregard that.

[red states rule]

yet even your cronies like yurt admit that things can be deceptive without being dishonest. you seem to blithely disregard that.

You prove one can can be both deceptive and dishonest

Case closed

[Yurt]

blah blah blah.... you would stifle freedom of speech? How would you DO that? How can you say that calling your representative more than once is ILLEGAL???? get real, counselor.


yet even your cronies like yurt admit that things can be deceptive without being dishonest. you seem to blithely disregard that.

i tried to keep this nice, but you "preacher" have no desire to do so....you relish the insults....you are no preacher

do you feel it is ok to say fire in a crowded theatre?

and cronies...you wuss....and LIAR ....for you even agreed that things can be deceptive and be dishonest....

[jimnyc]

I don't know about you, but I only have ONE congressman represnting me and two senators. When I participated in this heinous activity that you all are so outraged at, I called my one congressman and my two senators and gave them the exact same message. If I were to have called another house member that did NOT represent my district, and tried to suggest taht I was a constituent, THAT would have been dishonest.

And as to my other question?

I'LL WAIT

[Yurt]

And as to my other question?

I'LL WAIT

yelling fire is a right....

FIRE

that is free speech and not illegal, i am sure he will appreciate someone yelling fire in his ""church"" when there is no fire.....i am sure he will say, oh, that is ok, that is your right to free speech....

[retiredman]

When you did so, did you call reps from both parties for your initiatives, or did you solely call one party?

And believing you are doing good doesn't make it any less deceptive. You can change your writing all you like, claim others do it all the time & swear up and down that it's a legit way of getting things done - but it is being deceptive aka dishonest to the very definition.

What if your church took calls on a referendum for a new pastor. They didn't want anyone to feel akward, so they allowed people to call in anonymously to be heard. You later find out some called 10-20 times apiece because they didn't like the current pastor. They admit they wanted a change for the church and wanted the appearance to be that more people wanted the current pastor gone. Are they being dishonest to those at the church that they called?


quite simply: there is a separation between church and state for a reason.

If calling one's congressman were some quasi-official way to effect change, in lieu of the ballot box, you might have some small modicum of a point here, but it is not and you do not. In a representative democracy, our leaders are sent to vote their own consciences and not to rely on referenda of their constituency to figure out how to vote on each and every issue.

[Immanuel]

quite simply: there is a separation between church and state for a reason.

If calling one's congressman were some quasi-official way to effect change, in lieu of the ballot box, you might have some small modicum of a point here, but it is not and you do not. In a representative democracy, our leaders are sent to vote their own consciences and not to rely on referenda of their constituency to figure out how to vote on each and every issue.

The only problem with that statement is that representatives vote their consciences which are very easily swayed by two things... money or votes. If you convince them that the majority of the votes they will be looking for next election are vehemently opposed to a particular issue they will vote against it because their conscience tells them if they don't vote against it, they won't be voting for or against anything else sometime real soon. Doing it the way you have described in this thread is not honest.

Immie

[jimnyc]

quite simply: there is a separation between church and state for a reason.

If calling one's congressman were some quasi-official way to effect change, in lieu of the ballot box, you might have some small modicum of a point here, but it is not and you do not. In a representative democracy, our leaders are sent to vote their own consciences and not to rely on referenda of their constituency to figure out how to vote on each and every issue.

In other words, you can't answer my question directly. As per your usual, you obfuscate and try to weasel your way around a question. I've never seen someone dance so much for so many pages instead of just admitting what is an obvious FACT to everyone else. Funny how you want to use a GAME as an analogy but toss out any other LEGIT analogies which TRULY utilize a persons honesty.

The SADDEST part of this entire multi-page discussion is that you likely believe you are not deceitful/dishonest/liar.

[red states rule]

The SADDEST part of this entire multi-page discussion is that you likely believe you are not deceitful/dishonest/liar.

People with zero honor and zero integrity believe that Jim

[retiredman]

In other words, you can't answer my question directly. As per your usual, you obfuscate and try to weasel your way around a question. I've never seen someone dance so much for so many pages instead of just admitting what is an obvious FACT to everyone else. Funny how you want to use a GAME as an analogy but toss out any other LEGIT analogies which TRULY utilize a persons honesty.

The SADDEST part of this entire multi-page discussion is that you likely believe you are not deceitful/dishonest/liar.


I dis answer your question jim. I do not think it is a valid analogy. I will plainly acknowledge that the practice is deceptive. I do not think that it is dishonest, however. That's just a fact.

[red states rule]

I dis answer your question jim. I do not think it is a valid analogy. I will plainly acknowledge that the practice is deceptive. I do not think that it is dishonest, however. That's just a fact.

That is like William Jefferson saying the money in his freezer is deceptive but not dishonest

Never tell anyone again about your character, integrity, or honesty MFM> You have none, and therefore nothing to talk about

[Kathianne]

I dis answer your question jim. I do not think it is a valid analogy. I will plainly acknowledge that the practice is deceptive. I do not think that it is dishonest, however. That's just a fact.

It's a 'fact' that you do not 'think' a deceptive practice is dishonest.

You feel the same about using the same size containers of foodstuffs, while shrinking the contents? Many people do not read or remember the weight of some goods, they don't recognize that they are paying more, for less. Is this deception equally 'honest.' Yeah, I think so.

[jimnyc]

I dis answer your question jim. I do not think it is a valid analogy. I will plainly acknowledge that the practice is deceptive. I do not think that it is dishonest, however. That's just a fact.

You didn't address my specific question at all. And the analogy was a whole lot better than comparing to a friggin game!!! And correct me if I'm wrong, Abbey responded to you and then you once again wanted an answer to your analogy, but now that the tables are turned you revert to obfuscation.

The only fact is that you THINK it's not dishonest. There are a whole lot of criminals in this world that feel what they did wasn't dishonest.

Calling people and purposely omitting facts and giving them different appearances of totals in order to sway their decision is deceptive and dishonest. Now THAT'S a fact.

[Yurt]

I don't know about you, but I only have ONE congressman represnting me and two senators. When I participated in this heinous activity that you all are so outraged at, I called my one congressman and my two senators and gave them the exact same message. If I were to have called another house member that did NOT represent my district, and tried to suggest taht I was a constituent, THAT would have been dishonest.

why would that have been dishonest...it is the same thing you did, you called multiple times and you knew they believed you were not the same person...what difference does it make calling another member that does not represent you when you obviously do not have to identify who you are....you clearly SUGGESTED to your own rep that you were different people.


quite simply: there is a separation between church and state for a reason.

If calling one's congressman were some quasi-official way to effect change, in lieu of the ballot box, you might have some small modicum of a point here, but it is not and you do not. In a representative democracy, our leaders are sent to vote their own consciences and not to rely on referenda of their constituency to figure out how to vote on each and every issue.

this post is an outright lie...if it does not make a difference, why would dishonest people like you have phone banks calling reps to INFLUENCE their vote. you've dug a hole so deep here mfm that the more you say the more bull comes out.

just admit you dishonestly let your rep believe you were multiple people....i'm sure if we told you rep what you did, he would say, ah, thats ok and that is not dishonest, i don't mind being deceived that way

[retiredman]

why would that have been dishonest...it is the same thing you did, you called multiple times and you knew they believed you were not the same person...what difference does it make calling another member that does not represent you when you obviously do not have to identify who you are....you clearly SUGGESTED to your own rep that you were different people.

If I were to call YOUR elected representative, for example, and claim that I was their constituent, that would be a LIE. Is that distinction REALLY lost on you? And I have NO FUCKING IDEA what they believed. I believe that the staffers at congressional offices have all participated in phone banks and are well aware that the practice goes on. I NEVER SUGGESTED anything to my own representatives. I merely called them up and told them, quite truthfully, that I was a constituent and I wished to voice my opinion on a pending piece of legislation. PERIOD. NO LIES...NO SUGGESTIONS that I was someone other than who I was. NOTHING dishonest.


this post is an outright lie...if it does not make a difference, why would dishonest people like you have phone banks calling reps to INFLUENCE their vote. you've dug a hole so deep here mfm that the more you say the more bull comes out.

just admit you dishonestly let your rep believe you were multiple people....i'm sure if we told you rep what you did, he would say, ah, thats ok and that is not dishonest, i don't mind being deceived that way

PLEASE quit calling me a liar. I am NOT lying to you or anyone else. I didn't LET my representative believe I was anything other than a constituent voicing my opinion. As I said in another thread, congressional staffers are all well aware of this practice and assume that it is going on, so no one is being fooled by anyone else. As I also said, we do not require that our elected representatives poll their constituents and then vote accordingly on each and every issue. We send them to exercise their own independent judgment. All we, as private citizens, can ever do is call and let them know how we feel about certain votes if we have a strong interest in them. We KNOW that the other side is calling and voicing THEIR concerns - and calling multiple times... so we do likewise, out of necessity in many cases... and the congressional offices are all well aware that this practice is going on, because, no doubt, most of them have participated in similar actions in their careers as staffers.

[retiredman]

You didn't address my specific question at all. And the analogy was a whole lot better than comparing to a friggin game!!! And correct me if I'm wrong, Abbey responded to you and then you once again wanted an answer to your analogy, but now that the tables are turned you revert to obfuscation.

The only fact is that you THINK it's not dishonest. There are a whole lot of criminals in this world that feel what they did wasn't dishonest.

Calling people and purposely omitting facts and giving them different appearances of totals in order to sway their decision is deceptive and dishonest. Now THAT'S a fact.

I did address your question, and I really think we have beat this horse to death. I am completely secure in my belief that I did nothing dishonest. I never said anything that was not exactly the truth... and I am certainly well aware that congressional staffers know that such a practice is commonplace and are not fooled by anything.

[Yurt]

fact: we can't trust the phone calls are actually coming from multiple constituents

fact: because people like mfm deceptively call their reps multiple times and therefore falsify the actual number of constituents calling

fact: due to this deception, phone calls should be ignored or at best suspect, that is exactly why mfm said we should not trust the phone calls

fact: just because "everyone" does something, does not make it right

fact: people like mfm purposefully engage in the deceitful practice with the full & sole intent of influencing the reps thinking and of course the VOTE

fact: this denigrates the integrity of our form of government and has the practical effect of one person voting multiple times

[retiredman]

you, like your little buddy RSR, routinely mistake opinions for facts.

Which party, by the way, do you think was running the phone banks that jacked up the calls mentioned in THIS thread?:laugh2:

[retiredman]

if you'll notice, by the way, most congressional offices do NOT say, "X number of constituents have called", but rather, "we have received X number of calls from constituents". Why do you think they DO that? Because people call more than once...because it is really important to them... and calling more than once is their right...and calling more than once, and exercising your rights is NOT dishonest and it is NOT, nor should it EVER BE Illegal!

[Yurt]

you, like your little buddy RSR, routinely mistake opinions for facts.

Which party, by the way, do you think was running the phone banks that jacked up the calls mentioned in THIS thread?:laugh2:

thanks preacher for the gratituitous insults

it is no surprise that you can't actually explain how the facts i presented are not facts, that all you have are insults...

again, i don't care which party was/is doing it, but you know that, as i have said probably half a dozen times in this thread, the practice is dishonest and you can't find a single person on this board that supports your stance. if my facts are just opinions, bring it on little man.

[retiredman]

thanks preacher for the gratituitous insults

it is no surprise that you can't actually explain how the facts i presented are not facts, that all you have are insults...

again, i don't care which party was/is doing it, but you know that, as i have said probably half a dozen times in this thread, the practice is dishonest and you can't find a single person on this board that supports your stance. if my facts are just opinions, bring it on little man.
it is not an insult. It is truth. you spew your opinions and call them facts...

and I don't really care if ANYONE on here supports any position I take. The facts are as I stated them. I have every right to call as many times as I want to to register my opinion with my congressman or senator. Chosing to exercise that right is not dishonest and it is not illegal.

[Yurt]

if you'll notice, by the way, most congressional offices do NOT say, "X number of constituents have called", but rather, "we have received X number of calls from constituents". Why do you think they DO that? Because people call more than once...because it is really important to them... and calling more than once is their right...and calling more than once, and exercising your rights is NOT dishonest and it is NOT, nor should it EVER BE Illegal!

you're delusional and need help....your INTENT (fact) is to influence the vote and we can't trust the phone calls (fact) because you said those people calling multiple times are deceptive (fact).

you know full well that they cannot rely on the phone calls because of liars like you who denigrate (fact) our political system. i believed the phone calls and when you basically laughed at me and said, no way, you can't trust those calls over the polls because political operatives are calling multiple times (fact)....your proof --> you have participated in such act, that act makes the phone calls UNTRUSTWORTHY according to you.

[Yurt]

it is not an insult. It is truth. you spew your opinions and call them facts...

and I don't really care if ANYONE on here supports any position I take. The facts are as I stated them. I have every right to call as many times as I want to to register my opinion with my congressman or senator. Chosing to exercise that right is not dishonest and it is not illegal.

then take on my facts, one by one...you will lose

if i now want to call my rep and tell him my thoughts i now know that my phone call may be completely ignored as it could be coming from phone banks, from liars like yourself who are calling repeatedly, knowing full well that the people fielding the phone calls BELIEVE you are not the same person and you do this with the full intent of manipulating the VOTE.

go on now, take down my facts, one by one.....

[retiredman]

fact: we can't trust the phone calls are actually coming from multiple constituents
not fact. why do you think that you have any right to trust that the calls all came from discrete individuals?

fact: because people like mfm deceptively call their reps multiple times and therefore falsify the actual number of constituents calling
false... the numbers only are referred to as to how many calls were received. Nothing has ever stopped people who were really concerned from calling more than once

fact: due to this deception, phone calls should be ignored or at best suspect, that is exactly why mfm said we should not trust the phone calls
not fact. I merely said that the percentages of phonecalls should not be taken at face value because people tend to call more than once, and that if one side has more people calling more than once than the other, it would skew the percentages

fact: just because "everyone" does something, does not make it right
it also does not make it wrong, or dishonest, or illegal

fact: people like mfm purposefully engage in the deceitful practice with the full & sole intent of influencing the reps thinking and of course the VOTE
when ANYONE calls their representatives on an issue, they are seeking to influence their vote

fact: this denigrates the integrity of our form of government and has the practical effect of one person voting multiple times
false. This is not a pure democracy. We only get to vote ONCE...and the person we vote into office gets to vote on everything else on our behalf. As constituents, we are free to speak our minds as loudly and repetitively as we care to on ANY issue.

[red states rule]

false. This is not a pure democracy. We only get to vote ONCE...and the person we vote into office gets to vote on everything else on our behalf. As constituents, we are free to speak our minds as loudly and repetitively as we care to on ANY issue.

As usual Yurt, you cleaned his clock. He is doing his usual lying, spinning, and grasping at straws

What a parasitic loser

[Yurt]

you screwed up the quote function genius....




fact: we can't trust the phone calls are actually coming from multiple constituents
not fact. why do you think that you have any right to trust that the calls all came from discrete individuals?

according to you that is a fact...in the beginning of this thread i laughed at you for trusting the polls over the phone calls....you said no, i can not trust the phone calls, no more, no less than the polls because the phone bank people are deceptive....don't ya think...you added. that is a fact according to you. the "right" has NOTHING to do with trusting the phone calls, but i am not surprised you continue to twist the trust issue preacher.





fact: because people like mfm deceptively call their reps multiple times and therefore falsify the actual number of constituents calling
false... the numbers only are referred to as to how many calls were received. Nothing has ever stopped people who were really concerned from calling more than once

see above and don't forget your words, you said the reps are not lying because i questioned you and said, why can't i trust the phone calls....are you saying the reps are not lying, your words:


and of course they aren't lying...but the people who call them multiple times are being deceptive, don't you think?

the reps are NOT lying, but the people who call them are being deceptive, don't you think....admit that you knew that the deception was dishonest, else why would you say the reps aren't lying, it is the people deceiving the reps who cause the phone calls not to be trust.


fact: due to this deception, phone calls should be ignored or at best suspect, that is exactly why mfm said we should not trust the phone calls
not fact. I merely said that the percentages of phonecalls should not be taken at face value because people tend to call more than once, and that if one side has more people calling more than once than the other, it would skew the percentages

liar....you said i could not trust the phone calls because of phone banks and people like you who screw the system....


fact: just because "everyone" does something, does not make it right
it also does not make it wrong, or dishonest, or illegal

what no answer to this preacher? are you recanting this line of thought?


fact: people like mfm purposefully engage in the deceitful practice with the full & sole intent of influencing the reps thinking and of course the VOTE
when ANYONE calls their representatives on an issue, they are seeking to influence their vote

of course, you admit that i am right, that your practice is designed to influece the vote, it is the same as voting more than once, you are know full well that calling multiple times makes the rep think that multiple people feel this way, instead of thinking oh, it is mfm callilng for the thousandth time....you know for a fact that if they knew it was you calling over and over, your phone call would have less influence....


fact: this denigrates the integrity of our form of government and has the practical effect of one person voting multiple times



false. This is not a pure democracy. We only get to vote ONCE...and the person we vote into office gets to vote on everything else on our behalf. As constituents, we are free to speak our minds as loudly and repetitively as we care to on ANY issue.

see above

honestly, my facts still stand, your weak attempt to excuse your dishonest behavior and unpatriotic behavior is sad. you are fucking with our democracy by participating in these phone banks...and according to you becuase of these phone banks..........these deceptive people......can't trust the phone calls..............DON'T YOU THINK

[retiredman]

according to you that is a fact...in the beginning of this thread i laughed at you for trusting the polls over the phone calls....you said no, i can not trust the phone calls, no more, no less than the polls because the phone bank people are deceptive....don't ya think...you added. that is a fact according to you. the "right" has NOTHING to do with trusting the phone calls, but i am not surprised you continue to twist the trust issue preacher.

I stand by my statement. YOu have no right to expect that the number of phone calls equates to the number of individual constituents who called.


see above and don't forget your words, you said the reps are not lying because i questioned you and said, why can't i trust the phone calls....are you saying the reps are not lying, your words:

the reps are NOT lying, but the people who call them are being deceptive, don't you think....admit that you knew that the deception was dishonest, else why would you say the reps aren't lying, it is the people deceiving the reps who cause the phone calls not to be trust.
will you fucking QUIT demanding that I "admit" to silly things that YOU believe and I don't? I have told you time and time again, I do not believe that deception in this case equates to dishonesty

liar....you said i could not trust the phone calls because of phone banks and people like you who screw the system....

Again...quit calling me a liar. I mean it. I said you could not trust the number of phone calls to be an accurate representation of anything other than how many phonecalls the reps had recieved. YOU wanted to suggest that the number of phone calls for the bill versus the number of phone calls against the bill was somehow indicative of the percentage of the population who felt that way... and I suggested, and still suggest, that polls, with their controls, are much more valid measures


What no answer to this preacher? are you recanting this line of thought?

of course, you admit that i am right, that your practice is designed to influece the vote, it is the same as voting more than once, you are know full well that calling multiple times makes the rep think that multiple people feel this way, instead of thinking oh, it is mfm callilng for the thousandth time....you know for a fact that if they knew it was you calling over and over, your phone call would have less influence....

again...everytime a constituent calls his or her elected representative, they are attempting to "influence" their votes...that is how a representative democracy works. Constituents call their representatives, they write them letters, they stop them on the streets when they see them and speak their minds, they attend town hall meetings with the representatives, and they have the right to do any and all of those things as often as they care to. period.

see above

honestly, my facts still stand, your weak attempt to excuse your dishonest behavior and unpatriotic behavior is sad. you are fucking with our democracy by participating in these phone banks...and according to you becuase of these phone banks..........these deceptive people......can't trust the phone calls..............DON'T YOU THINK

your facts are flawed and I showed you how. If you care not to listen, that is certainly none of my problem. I am participating in our democracy by calling my elected representatives. If you don't care to participate, or if you only care to participate to the extent of calling every once in a while, that is your decision and it ain't my problem. What the representative knows with his phone call numbers is only this: he knows that he received X number of phone calls FOR a certain measure and Y number of phone calls AGAINST that measure. He knows that every one of those phone calls represents a moment in time when a constituent cared enough about that particular issue to pick up the phone and call him. Period. It is only ignorant morons like YOU who seem to feel that citizens should be convicted for exercising their rights to free speech by callling their representatives more than once...it is only fools like you who erroneously thought that numbers of calls for versus calls against was any sort of scientific measure of the balance of opinion in the population. It never has been and it never has been intended to be and it never has been viewed as such by any elected politician - unless they were as numb as you are.

[retiredman]

now run along home. your civics lesson is over with. we're all done here.

[red states rule]

now run along home. your civics lesson is over with. we're all done here.

So you are running away from another poster eh? :laugh2:

OK, crawl off and lick your wounds coward

[jimnyc]

now run along home. your civics lesson is over with. we're all done here.

Maybe someone should start another thread for you and teach you some ethics.

[retiredman]

Maybe someone should start another thread for you and teach you some ethics.
again...just for your benefit:
"What the representative knows with his phone call numbers is only this: he knows that he received X number of phone calls FOR a certain measure and Y number of phone calls AGAINST that measure. He knows that every one of those phone calls represents a moment in time when a constituent cared enough about that particular issue to pick up the phone and call him. Period."

why would you EVER think anything else?

[red states rule]

Maybe someone should start another thread for you and teach you some ethics.

Jim, wouldn't that be like trying to teach Bill Clinton the finer points of fidelity?

[Missileman]

Maybe someone should start another thread for you and teach you some ethics.

If he can't demonstrate ethical behavior after serving in the military or find ethics within his religion, I'd say there's little hope he'll ever learn any.

[red states rule]

If he can't demonstrate ethical behavior after serving in the military or find ethics within his religion, I'd say there's little hope he'll ever learn any.

Assuming he is telling the truth about his service and religion

[jimnyc]

Thanks for making others understand why I thought you needed an ethics class. I have no doubt that you don't think you lied, were deceitful or dishonest. It's called denial. No skin off my back if you want to continue thinking what you did was on the up and up and not deceitful/dishonest/lying.

Hopefully someday my scenario about your church and allowing a referendum, anonymously, will come to fruition. And if one person and his buddies call 200x and give the appearance that many are disgusted with you, don't get angry with them, they're only being honest. So what if the vote would have been 120 to keep you and 5 to toss you, and the final result is 215 to toss you and 120 to keep you. It's only a game and they would have won, in an honest fashion of course.

[jimnyc]

If he can't demonstrate ethical behavior after serving in the military or find ethics within his religion, I'd say there's little hope he'll ever learn any.

The fact that ANYONE could go on for this many pages and declare thir actions were NOT deceitful or dishonest boggles my mind. I've done a bunch of things in my life that were dishonest, but at least I'm man enough to admit to it and try and refrain from repeating my mistakes.

[red states rule]

Thanks for making others understand why I thought you needed an ethics class. I have no doubt that you don't think you lied, were deceitful or dishonest. It's called denial. No skin off my back if you want to continue thinking what you did was on the up and up and not deceitful/dishonest/lying.

Hopefully someday my scenario about your church and allowing a referendum, anonymously, will come to fruition. And if one person and his buddies call 200x and give the appearance that many are disgusted with you, don't get angry with them, they're only being honest. So what if the vote would have been 120 to keep you and 5 to toss you, and the final result is 215 to toss you and 120 to keep you. It's only a game and they would have won, in an honest fashion of course.

Game - Set - Match

[jimnyc]

Game - Set - Match

This "game" was forfeited MANY pages back when he admitted to being deceitful.

[retiredman]

Thanks for making others understand why I thought you needed an ethics class. I have no doubt that you don't think you lied, were deceitful or dishonest. It's called denial. No skin off my back if you want to continue thinking what you did was on the up and up and not deceitful/dishonest/lying.

Hopefully someday my scenario about your church and allowing a referendum, anonymously, will come to fruition. And if one person and his buddies call 200x and give the appearance that many are disgusted with you, don't get angry with them, they're only being honest. So what if the vote would have been 120 to keep you and 5 to toss you, and the final result is 215 to toss you and 120 to keep you. It's only a game and they would have won, in an honest fashion of course.

like I said.... the only thing that the representatvie knows is that each phone call represents a moment in time when a constituent cared enough about the issue to call him about it. If you don't care about the issue at all, don't bother calling. If you care a little bit...maybe think about calling or call once. If you really care about the issue, call more than once...write letters, do whatever else you can do to move the issue in the direction you think is best for this country. This is NOT a referendum. This is constituents calling their elected representatives. YOur silly church analogy is totally irrelevant. If you honestly think that any member of congress changes his vote on any major issue based upon the percentages of phone calls for and against, you're naive in the extreme. All the large number of phone calls indicate is a large amount of constituent interest. He needs to do work at home in his district to make sure his base and the middle understands his vote.

[jimnyc]

Save your long winded rants. You won't change my mind. You admitted to partaking in the practice and that is all I need to know. Whether (D) or (R) doing the calling, it's deceitful, dishonest and lying by omission.

[retiredman]

This "game" was forfeited MANY pages back when he admitted to being deceitful.


I did not admit to being deceitful. I admitted to being deceptive. get your facts straight jim and don't misquote your members.

[red states rule]

If you honestly think that any member of congress changes his vote on any major issue based upon the percentages of phone calls for and against, you're naive in the extreme. All the large number of phone calls indicate is a large amount of constituent interest. He needs to do work at home in his district to make sure his base and the middle understands his vote.

Tell that to members of Congress who ran away from the McCain - Kennedy amnesty bill

[jimnyc]

YOur silly church analogy is totally irrelevant.

Almost as retarded as someone comparing our political system to a fucking football game! :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Save your long winded rants. You won't change my mind. You admitted to partaking in the practice and that is all I need to know. Whether (D) or (R) doing the calling, it's deceitful, dishonest and lying by omission.


bullshit. it is a moment in time when a constituent took the time to call his or her elected representative. that is all the elected representative should EVER take away from those numbers. And every time I called, that is EXACTLY what I was doing...I was a constituent who was taking the time to call the representative and express my opinion on an issue. If that issue was so important to me that I took a week off from work and called the representative every five minutes every waking hour, so be it.... that is what the representative takes from that. period.

[jimnyc]

I did not admit to being deceitful. I admitted to being deceptive. get your facts straight jim and don't misquote your members.

I didn't quote you, I gave my opinion. And don't tell me what to post, I'll post whatever the fuck I feel like. Got it?

You ARE deceitful. You ARE dishonest. You ARE a liar for partaking in this practice.

[jimnyc]

bullshit. it is a moment in time when a constituent took the time to call his or her elected representative. that is all the elected representative should EVER take away from those numbers. And every time I called, that is EXACTLY what I was doing...I was a constituent who was taking the time to call the representative and express my opinion on an issue. If that issue was so important to me that I took a week off from work and called the representative every five minutes every waking hour, so be it.... that is what the representative takes from that. period.

You are a liar. PERIOD.

[retiredman]

Almost as retarded as someone comparing our political system to a fucking football game! :laugh2:

and again, if you don't think there is gamesmanship in politics, you really are naive!:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

and again, if you don't think there is gamesmanship in politics, you really are naive!:laugh2:

Fine, I'll settle for being labeled naive. Sure as hell beats being a liar!

[retiredman]

Fine, I'll settle for being labeled naive. Sure as hell beats being a liar!

I wouldn't know. I am neither, despite your slanderous statements to the contrary.

[retiredman]

You are a liar. PERIOD.


no. I am not.

[jimnyc]

I wouldn't know. I am neither, despite your slanderous statements to the contrary.

Slander? LOL Try asking Yurt why it's impossible for me to have slandered you.

Your own posts revealed your lying ways, don't get angry with me.

[jimnyc]

no. I am not.

Sure, we ALL believe you. :coffee:

[retiredman]

Sure, we ALL believe you. :coffee:

Jim. I really don't care is you ALL believe me or not. I know I am not a liar. I know that I have lived my adult life trying very hard to speak truth at every opportunity. I actually DO care somewhat about YOUR opinion, but it seems that you misread a statement of concern from me last month and the goodwill between us seemed to dissapate. I am truly sorry about that, and wish you could reconsider your mistake. But I really do not care about the opinions of most people here. Most people here are hardcore partisan republicans and their hatred for all things democratic and liberal is easily seen. IT is the main reason why I post here and not on liberal boards. If I wanted a place where everybody was my friend and agreed with everything I said, I'd go to my local brew pub down the street.

[retiredman]

Slander? LOL Try asking Yurt why it's impossible for me to have slandered you.

Your own posts revealed your lying ways, don't get angry with me.

wrong. my posts do not reveal lies, because I do not tell lies.

[red states rule]

If I wanted a place where everybody was my friend and agreed with everything I said, I'd go to my local brew pub down the street.

I understand why the crowd at your local pub like you - they are drunk as a skunk

How fitting they would like you :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

I am truly sorry about that, and wish you could reconsider your mistake.

My mistake?

Sorry, but I tried many times to stay above the fray with you. You ultimately get pissy with me, I return in kind (but only better), and then you try cooling things off by shooting me a PM. Things return to normal and then you ultimately repeat the same thing again.

EVERYONE on this board will agree that you get nasty with EVERYONE and ANYONE who dares disagree with you, but then get all uptight when they shove it back down your throat.

I also know for a fact that you took this similar route with a few others. Did you ever think just maybe it's YOUR attitude and the way that you "speak" to people that results in these issues?

[jimnyc]

wrong. my posts do not reveal lies, because I do not tell lies.

You claimed I slandered you when that is outright impossible! :laugh2: