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.