A link for the conspiracy theorists

  • News
  • Thread starter solutions in a box
  • Start date
  • #1
The death of the Florida Deprtment of Transpotation Director; Suicide or...........was the guy really on to something?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_C._Lemme [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
from the link said:
money-laundering through Florida's toll road system, and related election tampering
Huh? How is money-laundering through the turnpike system related to election tampering? :confused: :confused:
 
  • #3
edward
85
166
russ_watters said:
Huh? How is money-laundering through the turnpike system related to election tampering? :confused: :confused:

Hint. click the Clint Curtis link. Even more is under other links on the Clint Curtis link. The only one that I would think might be credible is the St.Petersburg Times link.

I thought this was dead in the water long ago.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
edward
85
166
solutions in a box said:
The death of the Florida Deprtment of Transpotation Director; Suicide or...........was the guy really on to something?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_C._Lemme [Broken]

Be careful there SIAB this may be your last post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
edward said:
Hint. click the Clint Curtis link. Even more is under other links on the Clint Curtis link. The only one that I would think might be credible is the St.Petersburg Times link.

I thought this was dead in the water long ago.

The bloggers have breathed new life into the Lemme investigation, and his death. Lemme was investigating leads which indicated that the Florida turnpike funds were being used as a method of laundering Bush campaign contributions. Contributors such as China and Saudi Arabia were involved.

The Curtis link is an account of his designing a program that would allow a hacker to change as many as 100,000 votes on the touch screen machines. Lemme and Curtis had discussed the possibility that the entire situation was controlled by the Bush campaign.
The Curtis allogations brought about a congressional investigation.

The links sum up the situation much better than I can, or should need to.

If people really don't want to know the truth, or are to busy/lazy to read the links there is not much I can do about that.

http://archive.sptimes.ru/archive/times/1060/opinion/o_15411.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
Meh. As conspiracy theory goes, that stuff's pretty weak.
 
  • #7
edward
85
166
russ_watters said:
Meh. As conspiracy theory goes, that stuff's pretty weak.

So was Watergate in the early stages.
 
  • #8
The 2000 election, particularly in regard to discrepancies in Florida, is already known to be controversial without the added conspiracy. Election reform is greatly needed in general. Hopefully we can get a 'paper trail' for electronic voting, and stop the gerrymandering, and fundamentalist pandering, etc., etc. There are so many ways to tamper with elections, as well as contributions, it is ridiculous.
 
  • #9
Burnsys
60
0
it is well known and documented about security vulnerabilities in diebold voting software.. it's databases are Access files! yes Microsoft ACCESS files. anyone can enter the database and change the results at will, also all the source codes of the software where found in an open ftp server of diebold
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
Meh. As conspiracy theory goes, that stuff's pretty weak.
For someone who thinks that Tom DeLay is a senator, I would have to conclude that your knowledge of current political events is "pretty weak."
:wink:
 
  • #11
Smurf
369
3
Skyhunter said:
For someone who thinks that Tom DeLay is a senator, I would have to conclude that your knowledge of current political events is "pretty weak."
:wink:
carefull, he's a mod.
 
  • #12
2CentsWorth
14
0
Just saw a bumper sticker: Don't blame me. My vote wasn't counted.

There are a lot of Americans who do not believe that Bush was elected on the up-and-up. His campaign tactics represent a new level of nasty. It wouldn't surprise me if there was even more sinister things going on.
 
  • #13
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
17
2CentsWorth said:
Just saw a bumper sticker: Don't blame me. My vote wasn't counted.

There are a lot of Americans who do not believe that Bush was elected on the up-and-up. His campaign tactics represent a new level of nasty. It wouldn't surprise me if there was even more sinister things going on.

A lot of americans believe the moonlandings were faked. :rolleyes:

We all already know that the Democrats were heavily involved in voter fraud in the 2004 election. It is disgusting that they are allowed to get away with it however. The Kerry campaign seriously underminded the election process of the United States.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200508\NAT20050802b.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
2CentsWorth
14
0
Pengwuino said:
A lot of americans believe the moonlandings were faked. :rolleyes:

We all already know that the Democrats were heavily involved in voter fraud in the 2004 election. It is disgusting that they are allowed to get away with it however. The Kerry campaign seriously underminded the election process of the United States.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200508\NAT20050802b.html [Broken]
Catholic News Service? Oh wait, CybercastNews...real mainstream.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
17
Catholic? What kind of news services am i getting my crap from.

Wait what are you talking about?

Well it was a 2nd hand link. I knew of the report first so i looked for a news report about ti and thats what came up. Oh well :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Manchot
469
4
This is a website that, on its front page, accuses Ted Kennedy of "flip-flopping" because of a statement that he made in 1967 regarding Thurgood Marshall. I'd hardly consider it to be unbiased.
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
Meh. As conspiracy theory goes, that stuff's pretty weak.

The Bush administartion has sent marine reserves to fight in the Iraqi desert in "amphibious" vehicles, hmm that sounds implausible too. It even sounds like it could be a weak conspriracy theory proprosed by some whacko liberal antiwar blogger.

nothing is as it seems
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
17
solutions in a box said:
The Bush administartion has sent marine reserves to fight in the Iraqi desert in "amphibious" vehicles, hmm that sounds implausible too. It even sounds like it could be a weak conspriracy theory proprosed by some whacko liberal antiwar blogger.

Implausible? There is water in iraq... and many amphibious vehicles in the marine arsenal are dual-use (water and land). You must have seen landings from WW2 by the marines... they even had them back then.
 
  • #19
pattylou
301
0
2CentsWorth said:
There are a lot of Americans who do not believe that Bush was elected on the up-and-up.
I'd be curious to see a poll on this - how do you set one up here?
 
  • #20
TheStatutoryApe
203
4
pattylou said:
I'd be curious to see a poll on this - how do you set one up here?
When you set up the thread there should be an option some where on the screen. Make sure to include more than a yes or no response though, at least that's what I prefer when I see one being the fence sitter type that I am. :tongue:
 
  • #21
edward
85
166
Pengwuino said:
Implausible? There is water in iraq... and many amphibious vehicles in the marine arsenal are dual-use (water and land). You must have seen landings from WW2 by the marines... they even had them back then.

I think SIAB was referring to the deaths of 14 marines yesterday. They were all in an amphibious vehicle. The Amphibs being used by marine reserves in Iraq are old, slow and lightly armored. Most Amphibs are lightly armored because they obviously have to float. They are also slow compared to most other modes of transportation available in Iraq. The vehicles were never meant to be used extensively in the desert. They were designed as you say to be used as a landing craft that could move up onto the shore and then several miles inland.

When the amphibs are on land they are sitting ducks for anything other than small arms fire. The vehicle blown up yesterday was patrolling desert terrain...not a good idea. It is the old "we had to go to war with the army we had......................" all over again.
 
  • #22
Pengwuino said:
Implausible? There is water in iraq... and many amphibious vehicles in the marine arsenal are dual-use (water and land). You must have seen landings from WW2 by the marines... they even had them back then.

OMG now I have a kid telling me what a landing craft is. I have been there and done that Pengwino. The AAV's used by by the Marine reserves are a joke in the desert. The regular Marines in Iraq have the Abrams M1 A1.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
edward said:
When the amphibs are on land they are sitting ducks for anything other than small arms fire. The vehicle blown up yesterday was patrolling desert terrain...not a good idea. It is the old "we had to go to war with the army we had......................" all over again.

You are pretty much on the money.
The reserves got stuck with the old Vietnam era leftovers.
Modern landing craft are hydrofoils.

Your reference to Rummyworld was on the money also.
 
  • #24
Smurf said:
carefull, he's a mod.
I believe in questioning authority.

He is probably very knowledgeable in his field, however he has demonstrated an extreme lack of knowledge when commenting on current politics. I have a problem when his opinions are based on pure seat of the pants ideology.

His off the cuff comments reveal that he has already formed an opinion before knowing the facts. or even bothering to look at the other argument at all. I believe the word for that is prejudice.

It isn't a conspiracy theory at all, in fact the Brad Blog site is going to great lengths not to over hype the story until they can get answers to troubling questions. I doubt that Russ_Watters bothered to do more than read the first link before jumping to the conclusion that it was weak.

He also defended Tom DeLays questionable tactic of adding 1.5 billion to the energy bill without even knowing who Tom DeLay is.

As a mod his comments would tend to carry more weight, I just think he should live up to the title of super-mentor and educate himself on a subject before posting a comment. It looks bad when the teacher demonstrates gross ignorance.

I am sure that an intelligent, articulate, well informed "super-mentor" could provide some evidence to support such a general statement and I challenge him to do so!
 
  • #25
Smurf
369
3
Skyhunter said:
I believe in questioning authority.
Pfft, So do I, probably more than anyone else on this board, but at least I respect it too.

He is probably very knowledgeable in his field, however he has demonstrated an extreme lack of knowledge when commenting on current politics. I have a problem when his opinions are based on pure seat of the pants ideology.

His off the cuff comments reveal that he has already formed an opinion before knowing the facts. or even bothering to look at the other argument at all. I believe the word for that is prejudice.
This has already been discussed in length in several threads not too long ago. I might even post a link for you if I find one.
He also defended Tom DeLays questionable tactic of adding 1.5 billion to the energy bill without even knowing who Tom DeLay is.
Having not read the thread you're refering to, I don't see anything wrong with that; I don't support the notwithstanding clause, who's idea was that? I don't friggin know.
As a mod his comments would tend to carry more weight, I just think he should live up to the title of super-mentor and educate himself on a subject before posting a comment. It looks bad when the teacher demonstrates gross ignorance.

I am sure that an intelligent, articulate, well informed "super-mentor" could provide some evidence to support such a general statement and I challenge him to do so!
A couple things bug be about that:
1. He's a moderator of Engineering, why does that obligate him to do anything in Politics forum that you and I arn't obligated to do?
2. He's a Mod, his job is to issue warnings, ban people, blah blah blah and generally keep the peace, not teach you. You can't expect all the mods to watch everything they say in case they, god-forbid, make a mistake(or if you do at least grill evo a bit! :tongue: )
 
  • #26
Smurf said:
Pfft, So do I, probably more than anyone else on this board, but at least I respect it too.

Respect is something you earn.

Smurf said:
Having not read the thread you're refering to, I don't see anything wrong with that;

It is the "Huge Energy Bill" thread in this forum. Here is the quote I am referring to.

Russ_Watters said:
That a Senator would send money toward his home state is unsurprising and certainly not unique to Republicans, so you cannot use that as a stick with which to beat Republicans. But step back and have a look at what you are opposing: R&D. Personally, I think the US government has a vested interest in funding energy R&D.

Tom DeLay is the House Majority leader not a Senator. He has a long history of questionable ethics.

Google says... Results 1 - 10 of about 464,000 for Tom DeLay ethics. (0.18 seconds

The R&D is for deep drilling and was slipped in at the last minute after officially closing the bill for amendments. So instead of the full house having a say this was added by the leadership only. Russ made these comments without any knowledge of the subject. That is what I take issue with.

You are the one who set him apart by cautioning me about his status. And now you argue that he is the same. Can't have it both ways.

Everyone makes mistakes, and should expect to be called on them. My point is that because he is a mod he should hold himself to a high standard.

Would you respect a police officer who doesn't obey the law?
 
  • #27
Smurf
369
3
Skyhunter said:
Respect is something you earn.
See that badge? See that post count? See that Engineering forum? Just because he hasn't proven it directly to you doesn't mean he hasn't earned it. I think you're being rash in your judgement of him. Either that, or you treat everyone like that untill they prove that they deserve your respect, I can't say I agree with that standing either.
Tom DeLay is the House Majority leader not a Senator. He has a long history of questionable ethics.

Google says... Results 1 - 10 of about 464,000 for Tom DeLay ethics. (0.18 seconds

The R&D is for deep drilling and was slipped in at the last minute after officially closing the bill for amendments. So instead of the full house having a say this was added by the leadership only. Russ made these comments without any knowledge of the subject. That is what I take issue with.

You are the one who set him apart by cautioning me about his status. And now you argue that he is the same. Can't have it both ways.

Everyone makes mistakes, and should expect to be called on them. My point is that because he is a mod he should hold himself to a high standard.

Would you respect a police officer who doesn't obey the law?
Then tell him that. What are you arguing it to me for? I really care all that much about American laws ( :eek: )
 
  • #28
Smurf said:
See that badge? See that post count? See that Engineering forum? Just because he hasn't proven it directly to you doesn't mean he hasn't earned it. I think you're being rash in your judgement of him. Either that, or you treat everyone like that untill they prove that they deserve your respect, I can't say I agree with that standing either.

There is nothing for him to prove. His comments were offensive and ill informed. And I called him on it.
 
  • #29
Smurf
369
3
Skyhunter said:
There is nothing for him to prove. His comments were offensive and ill informed. And I called him on it.
Okay, so to go back to my original position:

Carefull, he's a mod.
 
  • #30
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
Just drop it, guys. I appreciate the backup, Smurf, but it isn't necessary. Skyhunter - you're being childish. I made a mistake. People do that. But dwelling on the point makes you seem like you're trying to attack me and that is not acceptable here.
 
  • #31
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
solutions in a box said:
OMG now I have a kid telling me what a landing craft is. I have been there and done that Pengwino. The AAV's used by by the Marine reserves are a joke in the desert. The regular Marines in Iraq have the Abrams M1 A1.
Tanks are ill-suited to a force that is supposed to be highly mobile and for that reason the Marine Corps uses relatively few of them - and even borrows them from the Army (Gulf I) from time to time if they get a temporary/specific need.

The Marine Corps mostly uses lightly armored vehicles such as the http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515626a8525628100676e0c/b54eb957c0d3b17a852562830058111b?OpenDocument [Broken], which is amphibious, but more suited to be used on land than on water. They are not "landing-craft" (craft who'se primary purpose is to land and dispatch troops) - the main purpose of their amphibious nature is to get that final 100yds from the amphibious assault ship to the beach, after which they are fairly typical and fully functional APCs.

The http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515626a8525628100676e0c/adeb1da833ced848852562b30060c5ab?OpenDocument [Broken] is the Marine Corps' equivalent to the Bradley - the basic difference being the amphibious capabilities. And the same as above applies - they are not strictly landing craft.

You are correct that a "landing craft" has essentially one purpose only - to land and dispatch troops and that the LCAC is the best vehicle for that job. There are times when an LCAC is unnecessary, however, ie, when the amphibious assault ship can get close enough to land to dispatch the amphibious vehicles without the need for the long-distance/high-speed transport of the LCAC.

Just so we're clear, you were implying that the Marine Corps is using craft designed for landing troops and not suited for fighting once on land. This is not the case.

This is not the same as Clinton's failure to provide APCs to our troops in Somalia.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Smurf
369
3
russ_watters said:
This is not the same as Clinton's failure to provide APCs to our troops in Somalia.
You just couldn't resist could you. :rofl:
 
  • #33
russ_watters said:
Tanks are ill-suited to a force that is supposed to be highly mobile and for that reason the Marine Corps uses relatively few of them.

The AAV's that the Marine reserves are using have a top speed of 30 MPH in the best of conditions. In the loose sands of western iraq that top speed is closer to 20 mph. I wouldn't call that highly mobile.


Just so we're clear, you were implying that the Marine Corps is using craft designed for landing troops and not suited for fighting once on land. This is not the case.

Penguino first used the term landing craft. I only replied to his little lecture on what amphibious vehicles are.

I was implying that the Marine reserves are forced to use slow lightly armored tracked amphibious vehicles that were definitey not designed for highly mobile desert patrols.

This is not the same as Clinton's failure to provide APC's in Somalia.

You are right, this is much worse. So is the hillbilly armored Humvee situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
edward
85
166
The reserves always get stuck with the oldest equipment.

quote:
"The vehicle fleets, in particular, are being stressed “at a very high rate,” he said. The Reserves are in the process of replacing their aging A1 Humvees with the A2 variant, but the process isn’t expected to be complete until 2009. The existing 5-ton truck fleet also is being upgraded with the medium tactical vehicle replacement.

In addition, he said, “we’re really wearing out our amphibious assault vehicles.” AAVs are tracked vehicles that can travel from amphibious assault ships, through rough seas to shore and then go deep inland with up to 21 combat-ready Marines each. The AAVs, however, are now three decades old and require a lot of maintenance."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/jan/marine_reservists.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
russ_watters said:
Just drop it, guys. I appreciate the backup, Smurf, but it isn't necessary. Skyhunter - you're being childish. I made a mistake. People do that. But dwelling on the point makes you seem like you're trying to attack me and that is not acceptable here.
I was not trying to attack you. I was just trying to illicite a response.

If you don't wish to discuss it consider it dropped.
 

Suggested for: A link for the conspiracy theorists

Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
5K
Replies
52
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
Top