Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Gov. Romney says "Hams are not needed" with agitation.....  (Read 47799 times)
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #105 on: February 16, 2012, 03:56:20 PM »

Your assuming I would vote for Ron Paul because of my dislike for Romney. Truth is I don't like either but yet I know one must prevail. As it gets closer to the finals hours will each candidate have to prove which one will be most qualified.

Right now....Romney keeps putting his foot in his mouth and thats not good for a president.
Well now he has dog lovers, mad at him?
Logged
ONAIR
Member

Posts: 1737




Ignore
« Reply #106 on: February 17, 2012, 12:43:56 AM »

I don't think Ham's will a problem,when he find out we work for free. Shocked
   Free??   This equipment cost me a small fortune!  It is actually costing us money to work for them!!  Sad

I have to disagree with the "working for them" statement.

Those who "volunteer" do so as an obligation and committed duty to assisting their country and community in time of need in what ever big ,or small situation arises. If it were "work" you'd be compensated by way of salary.

Let's not forget that Ham's represent and are an "Ambassador of Good Will" community ready and willing to volunteer our time and radio gear for any situation. That's what it's all about and we should be proud that we are skilled and knowledgeable enough to make a difference for everybody. We can do it better than anybody!

73!


  Good point.  We do it all for free, and just for the satisfaction of helping others in need.  Just a simple thank you is enough for us, and even if we don't get that, we are still out there ready to jump in the very next time the need arises.
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6034




Ignore
« Reply #107 on: February 21, 2012, 12:12:06 PM »

Yeah, we do it for free--but the kicker in that for quite a lot of us is the moneys we would have to pay out if we wanted to continue 'serving the public for free.'  Gotta pay for background checks, gotta pay for identifications, gotta pay for particular things that responders are required to have, and so on.  That is among the reasons I left emcomm.  Too much being asked for while the satisfaction and the pleasure of serving was taken away.  
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 10:46:52 AM by K1CJS » Logged
KA2UUP
Member

Posts: 388




Ignore
« Reply #108 on: February 21, 2012, 12:47:02 PM »

Old news, just old news!!!!!  I say again, if I am going to be so narrow minded as to not give my vote to a candidate because he does not think that ham radio operators are needed, then we are royally scroooooooooood! Wink

We better think long and hard who we want to see inaugurated on 20 January 2013 at 1205 PM.  At the present time, anything looks better than what we have in DC, Congress included!
Logged
K0HEA
Member

Posts: 10




Ignore
« Reply #109 on: February 22, 2012, 10:20:07 AM »

Romney is one of those idiots that want to squash the internet, ham radio, and anything else that isn't Fox, TBS, ViaComm... anything that might interfere with a 'state' broadcast system...

I have never voted (R) in my life, so I guess he doen't have to worry about losing my vote.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5750




Ignore
« Reply #110 on: February 22, 2012, 10:34:22 AM »

Romney is one of those idiots that want to squash the internet, ham radio, and anything else that isn't Fox, TBS, ViaComm... anything that might interfere with a 'state' broadcast system...

With Romney it is ALL about a quick profit REGARDLESS of long term impact or fall out from it. Anything to make a quick buck.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
AK7V
Member

Posts: 250




Ignore
« Reply #111 on: February 22, 2012, 05:18:23 PM »

Mr. Romney also may have meant we dont to have to use ham radio. That could also mean that he wants a communication system that can withstand anything.
That's seems to be what he meant - our daily emergency communications shouldn't have to turn to amateur radio just because of a power failure. We can't be 100% sure if he meant he'd never use amateur radio even if the situation got so bad that the fail-safe system fails, unless we look closer at if he spoke about it at other occasions. However, the official word from the campaign, is that he recognizes the role of amateur radio, but was speaking about hardening the emergency response infrastructure, so it appears you can vote for Romney with good conciseness if the only issue is amateur radio.


Thank you!  LA9XSA wins the comprehension award. He's not dissing ham radio -- he's arguing against someone who might say that we don't need a good emcom infrastructure because we already have ham radio ops.

Regardless of what any president says about ham radio, we'll be here - communicating - whether or not the other infrastructure is working. 
Logged
N2RRA
Member

Posts: 645


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #112 on: February 23, 2012, 05:18:08 PM »

Mr. Romney also may have meant we dont to have to use ham radio. That could also mean that he wants a communication system that can withstand anything.
That's seems to be what he meant - our daily emergency communications shouldn't have to turn to amateur radio just because of a power failure. We can't be 100% sure if he meant he'd never use amateur radio even if the situation got so bad that the fail-safe system fails, unless we look closer at if he spoke about it at other occasions. However, the official word from the campaign, is that he recognizes the role of amateur radio, but was speaking about hardening the emergency response infrastructure, so it appears you can vote for Romney with good conciseness if the only issue is amateur radio.


Thank you!  LA9XSA wins the comprehension award. He's not dissing ham radio -- he's arguing against someone who might say that we don't need a good emcom infrastructure because we already have ham radio ops.

Regardless of what any president says about ham radio, we'll be here - communicating - whether or not the other infrastructure is working. 

LMAO! Maybe you missed your own point on comprehension.

Remember!

It's wiser to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Logged
ONAIR
Member

Posts: 1737




Ignore
« Reply #113 on: February 24, 2012, 10:52:38 AM »

Did anyone hear the rumor that Santorum might be a CBer?
Logged
AK7V
Member

Posts: 250




Ignore
« Reply #114 on: February 24, 2012, 01:17:11 PM »

Mr. Romney also may have meant we dont to have to use ham radio. That could also mean that he wants a communication system that can withstand anything.
That's seems to be what he meant - our daily emergency communications shouldn't have to turn to amateur radio just because of a power failure. We can't be 100% sure if he meant he'd never use amateur radio even if the situation got so bad that the fail-safe system fails, unless we look closer at if he spoke about it at other occasions. However, the official word from the campaign, is that he recognizes the role of amateur radio, but was speaking about hardening the emergency response infrastructure, so it appears you can vote for Romney with good conciseness if the only issue is amateur radio.


Thank you!  LA9XSA wins the comprehension award. He's not dissing ham radio -- he's arguing against someone who might say that we don't need a good emcom infrastructure because we already have ham radio ops.

Regardless of what any president says about ham radio, we'll be here - communicating - whether or not the other infrastructure is working. 

LMAO! Maybe you missed your own point on comprehension.

Remember!

It's wiser to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.



I should have known, even making an a-political comment would rile someone up in a thread that has turned political.
Logged
N2RRA
Member

Posts: 645


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #115 on: February 24, 2012, 02:31:42 PM »

Mr. Romney also may have meant we dont to have to use ham radio. That could also mean that he wants a communication system that can withstand anything.
That's seems to be what he meant - our daily emergency communications shouldn't have to turn to amateur radio just because of a power failure. We can't be 100% sure if he meant he'd never use amateur radio even if the situation got so bad that the fail-safe system fails, unless we look closer at if he spoke about it at other occasions. However, the official word from the campaign, is that he recognizes the role of amateur radio, but was speaking about hardening the emergency response infrastructure, so it appears you can vote for Romney with good conciseness if the only issue is amateur radio.


Thank you!  LA9XSA wins the comprehension award. He's not dissing ham radio -- he's arguing against someone who might say that we don't need a good emcom infrastructure because we already have ham radio ops.

Regardless of what any president says about ham radio, we'll be here - communicating - whether or not the other infrastructure is working. 

LMAO! Maybe you missed your own point on comprehension.

Remember!

It's wiser to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.



I should have known, even making an a-political comment would rile someone up in a thread that has turned political.

LMAO....again!

Funny how some people wanna be critics but can't take critismn themselves when thrown back at them. Even more when they try to twist things and convince others. No wonder this world is screwed up.
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6034




Ignore
« Reply #116 on: February 25, 2012, 08:41:30 AM »

RRA, I suggest you look at some of your own posts on this thread and then look at the last statement you just made.  You don't, by any chance, have a mirror in your shack, do you?
Logged
N2RRA
Member

Posts: 645


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #117 on: February 25, 2012, 10:30:09 AM »

RRA, I suggest you look at some of your own posts on this thread and then look at the last statement you just made.  You don't, by any chance, have a mirror in your shack, do you?

Your not one too talk because the ones I've read from you in the last year surely shouldn't be lending advice or making comments.
Logged
KE7FD
Member

Posts: 169


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #118 on: March 19, 2012, 12:53:09 PM »

OK, let's put his comments into perspective and set aside trite CB'er remarks (there have been lots of CB'ers who have stepped up to emergency calls just as many hams albeit a smaller %: I have no figures to support that I'll admit up front).  I was told by a well read and well informed public servant recently that ham radio was on its way out because of the Internet.  To this remark I kindly and diplomatically informed this person that in fact there were now more hams than at any other time in the past and even sited some sources to confirm this.  This surprised them and they graciously appreciated the information.  Wherever people not of our ranks express this impression, understand that it is rooted both in assumptions like the example I gave thinking the Internet and cell phones cures all ills AND that other avenues of communication trumps radio.  I have some familiarity with  Mr. Romney's background and will tell you this much:  his opinion IS rooted in the perception laid out before him by those 1.) experiences as governor and, 2.) other non-government positions he has held which portrayed "Ma Bell", the Internet, satellite phones and any common carrier as all that are needed in an emergency.  In other words, he sees emergencies through the eyes of other people, not his own.  Sometimes, oftentimes, that IS all you need.  But as any of use know, there's a reason why even those folks with cans of "Insta-Flat-Inflater" also have spare tires and even auto club memberships in the event they get a flat tire. The success of any leader, be it a U.S. president, a CEO, Boy Scout leader, what have you, will hinge not only one their own knowledge and experience but on those people they surround themselves with.  I would rather have a leader who has the ability to adapt than one who thinks he knows everything then drags everyone down with him.  If Mr. Romney has the ability to learn from those around him then adapts to accurate information, great.  That goes for anyone running for public office.  If he rejects what all of us already knows be it from first hand experience with encomm or awareness of countless written accounts of those who have had first hand experiences, he does not deserve your vote now or later in the year. Not for the sake of radio but because he demonstrates bad decision making skills in areas that are key.  Running a smooth Olympics is one thing, but orchestrating the affairs of a nation is another.  The latter is a team effort but the President takes responsibility for what he and his cabinet decide to do.

CB'ers notwithstanding.

IMHO,
Glen - KE7FD
Logged
N0MKC
Member

Posts: 68




Ignore
« Reply #119 on: March 19, 2012, 03:02:34 PM »

<snip>The success of any leader, be it a U.S. president, a CEO, Boy Scout leader, what have you, will hinge not only one their own knowledge and experience but on those people they surround themselves with.  I would rather have a leader who has the ability to adapt than one who thinks he knows everything then drags everyone down with him.  If Mr. Romney has the ability to learn from those around him then adapts to accurate information, great.  That goes for anyone running for public office.  If he rejects what all of us already knows be it from first hand experience with encomm or awareness of countless written accounts of those who have had first hand experiences, he does not deserve your vote now or later in the year. Not for the sake of radio but because he demonstrates bad decision making skills in areas that are key.  Running a smooth Olympics is one thing, but orchestrating the affairs of a nation is another.  The latter is a team effort but the President takes responsibility for what he and his cabinet decide to do.

Bravo!  That goes right to the  core of the issue - it's not just the leader, but those people he surrounds himself with and how he wants them to do their jobs...  Many enterprises have gone down the tubes because the man in charge had a staff of "yes-men", whose primary focus was in telling the boss what he WANTED to hear instead of what he NEEDED to hear.

This principle has been recorded as far back as Machaivelli - "The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him."
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!