N3CVJ/Twist
Part III
The problem is that when running across
people, with respect to morality and
consideration, it seems that the glass is slowly
dropping below 50%, and it's hard to see the
positive side.
That IS a problem of yours, no doubt. I still find the majority of
people to be good hearted. Must be southern thing (shrug),,if I'm wrong,
I'm sure a yankee will correct me to say it is you that are wrong and
that people, even in the north, are generally good people.
That all depends on which circles you run in.
Well, you are focusing on the urchins, not the
good.
I find most hams in my area to be good
people.
But you are focusing on the urchins, lending to the notion that you
indeed have a preference to dwell on the bad instead of the
good,,,IE.the "half empty" glass.
Only if I am surrounded by "the bad" to the
point where looking for the positive becomes a
ridiculous exercise in insanity.
=A0=A0I find my neighbors to be good people. I can't
say the same for the "seedier" towns, or the
trash that populates the most popular CB
channel.
Interesting. Do you feel there are more hammies or cbers in this
country?
Not at all. Where would you get that idea?
It was a multiple choice question. I tried qualifying such with "or".
My mistake. I took it as a claim that there are
more hams than Cbers.
But there does seem to be more hams in my
radio than there are local CBers. But that's an
unfair comparison, due to the fact that many
ham bands have long distance capability, and
the sphere of my VHF coverage is much wider
than the typical range for CB.
Don't be so paranoid,,,I compared nothing,,,,again, it was a multiple
choice question.
-
I can talk back to my old area with no problem
on 2 meters. Yet I can hear no one over about
a S3 on CB, from a similar distance.
The cb hops in Tampa Bay, all the time, practically.
Your topographical parameters make for an
overall greater direct distance. In my area,
there are numerous "hills" which bend and
block signals, resulting in lopsided range,
especially when operating mobile.
There are more total Cbers in this country
than hams (at least it used to be that way
years ago), but the range of CB is relatively
small and results in "pockets" of users, not all
of which can be heard beyond their local
range.
_
Do you even know what a socialist is?
I do.
Do you
still think (like you once posted) that a liberal
and a libertarian are the same thing?
A liberal and a libertarian are very much similar and the same.
No, they are not. Liberals believe in big
government oversight to handle the plethora
of social programs that they feel we need to
have shoved down our throats (At our tax
expense). In fact extreme liberalism is what
leads to socialism.
No,,,that may be the currently attached definition by the terrified
right, but I suggest you look up the definition of each...use any
dictionary you prefer and come on back with a cut and paste.
That is THE current understanding of what
passes for modern liberalism in today's
political climate.
Only in the right's political climate. In fact , the right is so
clueless as to the pulse of the public, they are going to be scratching
their azzes come November, saying honestly "What happened?"
It's not a "right wing conspiracy". Liberals are
the champions of the poor,
Because the right has nothing but disdain for the poor. Someone has to
come to their aid.
disenfranchised, the un and underemployed,
minorities, and anyone else who feels that
they're getting the "shaft" WRT the "American
Dream". Liberals downplay the importance of
personal responsibility,
Wrong, this is more rhetoric and poison from
the right. Have you noticed the Bush admin has a name for ALL who oppose
or question their motives? They have neat little terms for all those
they pigeonhole.
instead believing that
people are all victims of circumstances, and
that "corporations" are the root of all evil. They
believe that government should play the part
of "the great equalizer". THAT is the seed of
socialism.
I invoke the entire concept of "social" security.
The seed of socialism is much more in tone with the Bush admin than ANY
liberal.
_
A libertarian believes in the smallest amount of government that can
exist and still be effective.
Extreme libertarian views lead to anarchy.
Like the establishment of a free society? Like the Boston Tea Party?
Like suffrage? Like equal rights? On it goes...
Like no rules and everyone's rights trampling
on everyone else's.
Where did you see anarchy arrive in the US via a libertarian view? Could
this be more of th e concept you dispalyed that we ought do away with
something because it carries the potential for abuse?
Conservatives believe in somewhat limited
government, and personal responsibility.
Conservatives believe in strong law
enforcement for those who cannot abide by
the rules of society. Extreme conservatism
leads to fascism.
-
They BOTH advocate the maximum liberties permitted under the law which
is the exact manner of which I referred the two.
Wrong! You need to do some more
reading........
Again,,,,I do not need a partisan party to redefine the term. History
and the founding forefathers, in addition to Merriam Webster are those I
choose to believe.
You, the one lecturing me that all rules should
be "evergreen" and subject to revision as
society and culture changes, are now sticking
by a definition which is obsolete?
Where did I EVER say the la should be subject to revision? If I felt
that way, I would work actively to change the dx rule, but I do not I
selectively disregard the rule. I find it much more easier and less
trouble. The dx rule isn't worth challenging.
_
That the right has been so effective in making terms mean something
completely opposite of what it truly is (a liberal, of all examples) is
frightening.
Nothing frightening about it. It's reality.
When a political party believes it can take a defining word and change
it's meaning after 228 years, that is not reality, far from it.
Liberals have been a key force in the
undermining of traditional values for the last
30+ years. There are practices and activities
which are almost common today that no one
would even think of doing in the 1950's.
Same with the oppression of our rights.
You might think this is good. But I don't look at
increased promiscuity, along with gratuitous
sex and porn, the abandonment of traditional
family roles etc, as a "good" thing.
Those were your first choices, not mine.
_
When the US government begins using the
term as an insult, those who follow such
bull**** must be educated to all they have been falsely indoctrinated.
You have been misled and lied to by Bush.....on many occassion.
I have been a strong conservative long before
Bush came along.
As I was a staunch republican until Ronnie's second term when they began
declaring war (economic, drugs, tariffs) on our own citizens.
It's refreshing to see a decisive leader who is
guided by principle rather than one who
changes his position depending on the
political winds at the time.
It sure is, but too bad we don't have that choice this time around.
_
In fact, it is you and Frank
who were shown not to know what a liberal is. Washington was a liberal.
Our forefathers were liberals. This country was founded and built by
liberlas.
Today's liberal is someone who wants
freedom for everyone, as long as it's
according to their standards.
Wrong, wrong, way wrong. This is what the right has attempted to
redefine.
No that's the truth. Take the recent political
events as an example. The left feels that it's
perfectly fine and an expression of a person's
1st amendment for Michael Moore to create a
"propagandamentary" trashing and distorting
Bush's leadership. But now that the shoe is on
the other foot and a group of veterans is
disputing Kerry's Vietnam claims, the left
screams bloody murder and has attempted
legal intimidation to attempt to block the
release of the (#1 on the Amazon.com best
seller list) Swift boat book Unfit for Command,
as well as the associated TV ads. So what
happened to the Left's cherished respect for
the 1st amendment? The answer is clear to
those who are not blinded by partisan myopia.
The left are hypocrites of the first degree.
A typical example is how the democrats had
no problem with letting Michael Moore trash
the president, but now scream foul when an
independent group is now taking aim on Kerry.
Moore can be sued if anything in his movie was untrue. No lawsuits after
all this time. Conclusion,,,,,,,hmmmmm.
Many of F-911's conjectures have been
isproven by the 911 commission report (I trust
you've read it?).
Sure I have. One question to you..have you seen the movie, or are you
commenting on what you have been told, read, and hear?
Kerry can do the same to the Swift Boat
veterans. Yet he, instead of taking aim at the
veterans themselves, has attempted to block
distribution of their book and ads. Conclusion?
Hmmm.........
Conclusion is Kerry appears to be taking legal actions at untruths. Bush
can't do the same because what Moore said he did is true. Don;t you
believe for one microsecond that if Bush could have Moore's azz on a
platter, he would. to think otherwise is naive, as Bush has been shown
to be hotheaded, non-composed, non-articulate, a liar, and spiteful and
retaliatory, and holds great disdain for Americans who express their
Aemerican birthrights,,,the right to express displeasure with the
president.
Today's liberal is two faced, duplicitous, and
hypocritical. Today's liberal wants the working
man to pay for the habitually lazy. Higher
taxes for richer people.
Nope,,just their fair percentage of their income.
What's "fair" is purely subjective. I don't
believe that anyone deserves special
consideration.
See below,
The tax rate should be flat.
In fact, when faced
with actual percentages paid from their income, the top two percent of
the wealthiest
have the least taken out of their income
(percentage wise) when compared to the
bluecollar worker, even though in sheer
dollars, they pay more.
The top 10% of wage earners pay over 60% of
the total income tax revenue.
And STILL it is NOT the same percetnage of their income as the blue
collar and middle class workers,,it is MUCH less.
=A0
=A0The irony of this revelation alone should be enough to serve as a
wake-up call to the nation as the gap continues to widen between the
levels of society, but nope,,we have smokescreens by those like you who
are more concerned with redefining terms to encompass all who dare
oppose the current Bush regime are its enemy.
_
Those who work hard and earn a place in the
higher echelons of income should not be
penalized for their success by being burdened
by the baggage of those who lack the ambition
to achieve similar success.
It's not a penalty to ask them to pay the same percentage of their
income as the working class.
From those according to their means, to those
according to their needs. Sound familiar? Try
reading Karl Marx for the answer.
See above for solution.
_
You have succumbed to partisanship rhetoric of the right, where all who
dare question or oppose the Bush admin, are labeled a liberal.
Liberals and their socialistic ideals have been
"bad" for this country long before Bush came
into power.
No,,they have never been bad,,,,,that is why the great ones were elected
over and over for the course of ther lives. And the term "liberal" was
never more misrepresented than when Bush came into office, but then
again, Bush misrepresents everything.
_
The term has become, albeit incorrectly, an intentionally misplaced
catch-all to encompass anyone who opposes the current admin.
The answer is easy if you look at a few key
acts.
I agree,,,and the answer is November when Bush gets booted back to
Texas.
1. Socialism is a concept of a social structure
which dictates that government shall take from
those according to their means, to those
according to their needs. This is well
documented.
2. Which political party in this country looks to
take more taxes from those who achieve, to
give back to those who don't?
"MORE" is a relevant and subjective term when distribution is accounted
for.
3. A free market economy and true freedom
involves less government involvement in
personal lives allowing people to make greater
choices.
Yet, Bush has taken away more choices and imposed more governmental
intrusions (laws passed) than any other president.
4. Which party is seeking to increase
government involvement in people's lives,
By laws taking away rights disguised as protection from terrorists...
by
proposing government mandated education
programs, healthcare oversight,
Healthcare oversight is all Bush. So are drug prices.
preventing
social security investment in private accounts,
Whooaa,,,messing with SS by this admin is going too far,,,they already
screwed up the dru prices and health care to the point of no return, in
fact, everything they touch turns to sh*t.
limiting gun ownership rights (Who needs the
2nd amendment?),
Or the fourth?
and of course increasing
taxes to pay for it all?
That was Bush. Bush raised taxes for the state of Texas to build his new
stadium for his ball team, and then after he got what he wanted, turned
around and claimed hewas against raising taxes. You want a list of Bush
flips? He has Kerry outnumbered 10 to 1 on flip flops.
_
I've opposed bleeding heart liberals since the
time I was aware enough to realize that they
were undermining the traditional values that
this country was founded on.
Bush is the one undermining the values,,such as our rights...not the
liberals. You can cite NO liberal that has EVER seeked to take away
portions of our constitution.
Every liberal who favors gun control is
trampling on the 2nd amendment.
I am always accused of being a liberal, yet I am a card carrying member
of the NRA. And why is the second amendment so much more important than
the fourth? You disregard the assaults on the fourth by Bush and
Ashcroft.
Liberals are the ones who would defend the
"right" of someone to distribute kiddie porn,
rather than acknowledge that this is a social
disease.
Social disease? whooooo.that's a liberal term, isn't it? But of course,
we all know you made a boo-boo when using the term, 'cause the right
locks up those with social diseases.
As it should be. There are just some activities
that should not be allowed. Freedom is not
absolute.
Yea? As it should be? No,,,you don't lock one up for alcoholism or
gambling. Now you're professing something akin to the Nazis..locking up
what you feel are undesirables.
Please provide any exchanges that I have
authored where I defended the concepts of
socialism. I believe in limited government.
Wrong, you favor government imposition and can't even see it.
Not at all. I believe is responsibility an
accountability.
Accountability does not extend to you being one that another must
account to, although you ahve attempted such on many occasion.
I'm not electing myself Pope here. I'm just
aying that people need to be held accountable
(to someone or thing) for their actions.
You a re free to do what you will, (within the
framework of a civilized society) but you are
solely responsible for the effects of your
actions (or inactions).
Exactly,,,,,*I* am responsible for my actions, not you,
So how can you be held accountable to hold
to your responsibility if there is no one there to
make the determination?
For what actions? Having the government watching citizens all the time
in case they step out of line is akin to making something illegal
because it has the potential for abuse......and I'm not surprised you
take such a position.
Claim's of "taking responsibility" are
meaningless unless there is a mechanism to
enforce it.
There is..it's called the FCC, remember? You took issue with them when
they enforced the rules you said we must follow.
I gotta do some work on the boat. Be back later.
|