Posted on 03/25/2012 9:47:28 PM PDT by expat1000
I just gotta pray about it. I know I can’t vote for Romney. Newt has always struck me as populist and idealistic. Ron Paul is nuts. Santorum up to this last week seemed the best choice. But lately he’s reacted to stuff way too quickly before all the info is out, and that is extremely bothersome. I feel if he can let a guy like Zimmerman get tossed under the bus he could do that to me, if he thinks it’s the politically correct thing for him to do at that moment. Making decisions without knowing the context and all the facts is dangerous, especially when you think you do know the facts but don’t. Put that up to the presidential level and it’s that much more troublesome.
Ulsterman:
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/03/24/insider-warned-us-obamas-racial-division-plan-now-underway/
Insider Warned Us – Obama’s Racial Division Plan Now Underway…
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist (except for the Davos bunch) but I could easily believe this - at least about the media.
Face-palming right now! I HATED voting for McCain in 2008. Why oh why do we have to choose between Romney or Santorum this round?
They both are clearly not conservative AT ALL.
Santorum just demonstrated he’s the worst kind of wuss/go along race-baiter and we all know what Romney is as Mr. Romney/Obamacare.
I’ll hang with Newt, and hope for a brokered convention. This is so unreal, really bad unreal.
It’s like being in a nightmare and you cannot wake up.
Maybe you're the one that is "supposedly" on our side, spouting nonsense like that and refusing to face facts.
Obama isn't a good debater - mediocre at best. And he is POTUS. What does that tell you?
OK, let me spell it out because it's clear you don't get it. He at least knows his limitations - sticks to his teleprompted talking points and gets his message across to the people he wants to reach. He doesn't have to be great - barely adequate will do.
Now a good debater, like Gingrich, could easily pick him apart and probably make him look ridiculous. But Rick - the Rick that on that tape, that can't string a few sentences together coherently - he'll be a complete disaster.
Strike three rick!
Maybe someone else further on in the thread has already said this (I haven’t read through to the end, yet): You have to understand that CNN’s “enhancing” of the audio for “clarity” can alter what you think you hear. “punks” is more a sort of “soft-explosive start”, lower frequency word. The alleged slur starts off sharper (more transient / more high frequency energy) and is higher in pitch anyway. “oo” vs. “uh”. So, what does CNN’s audio guy do? He selectively punches up certain portions of the upper midrange. And, you have to keep in mind that over a cell phone (I assume) and the phone system, considerable alteration of the frequency spectrum (and other things) has already happened. The human brain actually does an incredible job of reconstructing lost information when listening to standard telephone or cell phone audio, but how often when the phone audio is a little bad, or the person on the other end is stressed or just talks a little differently than you are familiar with, do you end up guessing what they’ve said or have to ask them to repeat it?
But even at that, BEFORE I got to the part where the CNN audio guy says he punched up the “clarity” range, I listened to the initially altered CNN version (with their repeats) about 30 times with high quality headphones: It sounds more like “punks” to me. The initial sound of a hard “c” just isn’t really there. And if I back down 2 kHz and 4 kHz a bit, or listen to the undoctored audio, it is even less there.
CNN then goes on to do further alteration, and that gets into even trickier psychoacoustics.* It’s very easy when doing such alterations to make changes in the direction of “what you think you hear” (or, I suppose, want to hear). I’ve done this myself, years past, trying to eq. rock recordings to make out the lyrics better. Occaisionally, I fooled myself.
To me, exactly which of the two words was used is not really the issue. Zimmerman WAS clearly stressed and upset: If he had said “that S.O.B.!” (in full words, with emphasis on the last) I would not assume he hated or even disliked most women. But, he might or might not murder one. All the evidence must be considered. Rick Santorum seems to have forgotten that.
*As an aside, in the old days of cassette tapes, “everyone knew” that a $100 cassette recorder could only degrade the audio of a high quality source, when recording that source. Yet, any good salesman knew how to cheat on the settings of such a recorder such that almost any but a very perceptive and well trained ear thought the playback from that cheap cassette deck was better than the original. As I said, psychoacoustics can be very deceiving stuff...
Santorum is an idiot for making these comments. Zimmerman already has a bounty on his head and every day we are learning more and more about how he may truly be innocent as the police initially believed. Yet Rick makes an Obama-like idiot out of himself for blasting the guy personally. Good job Rick maybe you can clean up his corpse (or his families).
Rick, ya blew it!!! Even Romney had the good sense to hold off commenting until the facts were known. I guess it will be Newt on May 8th.
I agree! A wise man would wait before commenting about something with the explosive potential this incident has. No one would fault someone who replied, “Thanks for asking. I’m holding off making any comments until I know the facts about what happened. My thoughts and prayers are with both families.” THAT would be a reply I could respect, but joining in with the race hustlers like he did kinda spoiled it for me. I won’t be voting for him in the primary.
Yes, your statement would be the best way to answer the question.
I agree. Someone, probably rush, was saying today: where are the leaders trying to defuse, trying to CALM the public and wait for judgment and facts here? Nowhere.
It’s too bad. I like RS but it is plainly obvious that he is unfit for the office of President. You don’t make stupid, uninformed comments without knowing all the facts of the case.
Well Rick, it was nice knowing ya.
If this is true that this audio guy falsified the recording to make it sound more like “coons” then he should rightfully be discredited. And if it’s not sure that Zimmerman said such a thing, then there is no evidence at all that he did anything wrong even morally.
I’d like to know how credible the recording experts really are. Could they really be that devious and dishonest?
I've listened to the unaltered version, and of the two sounds, or so called words, the second is completely unintelligible. Alone, it can't even be distinguished that it is a word. Only from inference that the first sound is a word, do people make this connection.
Of the first sound, it does bear a resemblance to the word "f*cking," but it simply isn't clear enough and it could just as well be a guttural sound from the stress of running, and it's quite common to make sounds that resemble words but are completely meaningless.
Did he say something? I don't know and neither does anyone else. In fact, most people don't even hear it on the recording unless you point it out to them, and then you have to crank the volume up real loud. If that's what one has to do to even begin to think that this guy is a racist, then God help us all.
This whole line of reasoning that many in this country have chosen to follow, is shameful, and it's a disgrace to this nation.
>> You’re hearing what you want to hear,
Objectivity, evidence, and due process is obviously not a priority during campaign season.
He called Staff Sergeant Bales a "MADMAN" before the facts came out so why would anyone be surprised at his rush to judgement on Zimmerman?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.