| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
August 23rd 04, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#3
August 24th 04, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:10:51 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:21:10 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: Oh, I know what Philthy is about...been there many times. Some see hammies like yourself as the malcontents for feeling you have some sort inalienable right to demand cbers jump through the same hoops you must jump through regarding hammie radio. You are entitled to see things from the other side of the glass, as it were. But there is a big difference. Us "snobby" hams are not interfering with other hams while pursuing our fringe activities, and insisting that our "right" to pursue it, overrides everyone else rights to enjoy their piece of the hobby. Neither do I, but you continue to try and pigeonhole me as such for merely posting of freeband activity and dx, yet, nothing in my posts has ever had a remote relation to what you falsely promote. You like to accuse me of making things personal, but in this case (as in many) you mistake my general summation for a direct critique of your personal habits. I'm sure your operation is fairly low impact, but there are others who are not so cognizant of their impact on others (or worse, they don't care). Yes, there are hams who do, but I do not associate with them. What "hoops" are there to just acting in a civilly responsible manner? Read again: "same hoops you must jump through regarding hammie radio". That you responded with hammie radio as an example in acting civilly responsible is not the best example you could have chosen,,in fact, it's a poor one Again, like on CB, this is largely geographically dependant. Despite your belief of it being geographically dependendent (it's not,,,,there are good and bad everywhere in both services)it doesn't validate your contrived gaffe. So now you deny that geography and demographics play a major part in determining the percentage of Good/Bad operators in a particular location? That's a direct contrast to your comments about the people who "infest" Philthy. But I will say, that I've personally witnessed far more rule abuses on CB than on ham radio. Again, your personal views and beliefs have been demonstrated to be in the minority,,,,, They have not been "demonstrated" to be anything of the sort. Because YOU claim them to be does not make them so. I can hear more rule violations after listening to 5 minutes on CB channel 6 than I can hear in a week's worth of ham radio. That's the plain truth, and for you to deny or spin it is clearly a bias on your part. Then what is preventing from you from getting on that channel and speaking your mind to those people as you do on here concerning your radical and minority beliefs. Nothing. I've done it already. But what good will it do? I've asked that of you concerning here and your answer was always along the lines of "you have got to start somewhere" and "someone has got to take a stand". It appears you shy aways from live real-time confrontation you claimed would take place in the same manner in which you conduct yourself on usenet. I don't "shy away" but at some point you have to realize that it's an unwinnable situation, At the risk of being called a cad and yelling "na na nee nee boo boo,toldjaso"....you'e been told that for years by myself and others. What point was the epiphany you experienced?? The point where I realized that you can't make an idiot into a normal person. It's counterproductive to try. It's better to seek out little oasis' of sanity in the cesspool, than trying to clean it up. you realize that you can put a 3 piece suit on a pig, and he's still a pig. Even if I convince the idiots that their echo boxes and distorted class "C" amplifiers sound like crap, they're still idiots. All it does it cause further arguments. In all fairness and I'm not being cruel or mean or malicious, but coming from one who holds talking dx is technically a felony, and that roger beeps are illegal on cb, that doesn't mean much. Roger beeps were at one time classified as an "amusement" device, and as such was prohibited in 95.413 (6). I doubt roger beeps were ever classified as such and as a result, illegal on cb, but even if that were so,,,many things "used" to be a certain way,,,,,it's no longer. It's a brave, new world*. _ While it is true that I cannot find a rule which specifically addresses these devices, I can neither find any information which specifically allows them, along the same lines as selective call tones are specifically outlined in 95.412 (b). Since there isn't a definitive rule in place, you can make the case that they are, in fact, legal (or at the very least not worthy of consideration). But it seems funny that this feature has not appeared on most mainstream legal radios. I do believe some of the newer legal radios most certainly have them. I have been informed of some. But I remain skeptical of their type acceptance, and whether the FCC will allow it to continue. But time will tell. Echo boxes are a totally different issue. They fall clearly into the classification of "amusement or entertainment" devices and as such are specifically prohibited by 95.413. I disagree, but let's assume you right on this item. I would challenge the validity of this on several counts,,,the most obvious being the fact that sound and broadcast engineers use echo (not repeat, but slight reverb echo) on FM broadcasts for many commercials and ads for a specific reason,,,,it gets noticed and is often more recognizeable and often louder. As such, one could make the argument, it is an audio "enhancer", not entertainment device, and with the myriad of broadcast sound engineers backing my case, I would feel extremely confident handling my own situation, if this were it. As you now are most astutely aware, what you consi enhancement and what I consider enhancement is now very much subjective. Again, ask Phil Kane what must take place now (once this case is challenged). The FCC would have to rule (FIRST, and before any further prosecution) what constitutes "amusement devices" and specifically address the echo issue, just as they recently ruled what constitutes broadcast obscenity. Ok, I like the way you've presented this. You make a good argument that a certain amount of reverb enhances audio quality and adds "depth". I totally agree with you on this point. If the current batch of "echo toys" were sold as devices which ONLY added enough reverb to accomplish the effect you've described, then I would agree that the device was an "enhancement" device in much the same way as an audio compressor. But that would eliminate "repeater" type echos. But you and I both know that is not the intent of the users of the majority of these devices. Mot have them set way beyond the point of "audio enhancement" and well into the point of audio distortion. They run them for the "cool" effects, and not as a range extender. Intent is the key point here. There is also a burden of proof issue as well. The FCC can make a broad determination as to any device which is "added" to a CB radio. It is up to the makers of the device to demonstrate that the device does not cause or promote illegal operation. **You can't make an idiot into a normal person, so why try? Birds of a feather stick together. - Which is why you have defended Dogie and attempted to present an incredibly spaced out and fantasized case for Keith framing him, even though the FCC busted him for jamming. I never accused Keith of framing Doug. I wish you would look back on your links and realize that. I postulated that it was possible that he might have been framed, but I never accused any one person of doing it. * I stand corrected, Thank you. My respect for you just went up a few notches. You "postulated" that the FCC, who you profess we should blindly follow, may not have the facts of the case before telling the public one is guilty. I question your logic and intellect to blindly follow an agency who crafts law, yet you claim same agency could be incompetent in upholding said law. Do you not see the sheer hypocrisy of such talk? I can see how you might feel that way based on your perspective. But that's not reflective of reality. I never claim to "blindly" follow anyone. But there is a process to follow to have rules changed. It is not proper to just "ignore" rules that we don't personally agree with. One thing I DO believe in strongly is the concept that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Do you assume that someone is automatically guilty of a crime the instant he is arrested? The fact that Doug was cited (same as an arrest in this case) does not mean that all the evidence was in and a final determination was made (at least at the time I made my comments). Surely you have to acknowledge that Doug's behavior has managed to earn him quite a few enemies. What's to stop any one of them from "masquerading" as him in order to cause trouble and "frame" him as a form of payback? It's a distinct possibility. I admit that I am not privy to what evidence the FCC has or doesn't have in this case, and I could be way off base. My only hope is that a group of decent people will decide to start another channel that I would be happy to participate in. I'm already working on a CB reunion for some of the old crew that I've contacted. This might spawn a "retro net" where we fire up that vintage gear for some old fashioned CB fun. Now that might bring back some of the fun with cb that has eluded you for some time. *Heck, we have get togethers all the time here. On any given day one can tune in and hook up with countless fishermen all over the bay area,,many of them sitting in their cars chewing the fat while fishing. Those are some of the things I sorely miss. *After all, that would make you proactive instead of reactive like you have always been here, and I am certain we can count on you to offer your beliefs to those on the air using those noise toys that have you bleeding from the ears and nose, because we all know you believe in saying the same things here as you would face to face. Try it with the noise toys and on the radio with these people,,tell them they are the equivalent of the WWF. Report back. Been there, done that. How do you rationalize the detrimental effects of distorted audio, such as that produced by an echo mike, to someone who has that "kid on Christmas" look on his face at the discovery of his latest toy (that he probably spend half his fast food p aycheck for)? He doesn't care that it makes his audio hard to understand. He just thinks it's "cool". Must be something in the water around here..... - Nothing to rationalize. This is cb, not audiophile FM 101 High Fidelity Broadcasting. What you can't get, because you been in with the snobs that have a hard-on for cb too long, is that many, many folks don't look at cb like you do and compare it to hammie radio. The only thing many folks are interested in is making contact, not quality. Like a stereo, some folks spend big bucks for symphonic reproduction, others do ok and opt for a clock radio. Different strokes, but here you are bashing those folks that may use a legal item as is their right, on cb, all because *you* disagree and dislike their choice. Tsk tsk. You don't have to be an audiophile. Correct,,but you apparently are, and are expressing difficulty grasping why others are not so concerned with these nuances. I will admit to being sensitive to audio quality. I can tell the sound of a Class "C" amplifier without even looking. Any device that changes the audio for the worse detracts from quality. I like to make my audio as close to a broadcast station as I can. I like what those guys on 80 meter AM have done with their setups. Some of those guys have audio that I am truly envious of. Some people are so distorted that they are actually hard to understand. Yet these same mentally challenged idiots think that they actually sound good! Excessive echo, class "C" amplifiers, too much mike gain, no limiters, excessive "swing" all contribute to overall poor audio quality. Many of these "mods" also contribute to adjacent channel interference and RFI. There is nothing even remotely redeemable about these actions. Echo is not legal. See above. Class "C" (or any other) amplifiers are not legal. Removing modulation limiters is not legal. Transmitter modifications are not legal. Generating RFI above the technical specifications is not legal. So I'm not bashing people for liking different things than I do. I'm bashing people for their displayed ignorance of good RF practice and for displaying an indifference to, or an outright contempt for, other people's right of access to the hobby. An echo mic is in no manner affecting any of your rights. You are still confusing the law with your preferences. Echo mics are legal. Email the FCC and ask them. I might do that. I cannot see how a device which is clearly intended to "amuse or entertain" could be considered legal, when the rules expressly prohibit them. But let me outline a few examples of how many of these "radio hotrods" do affect other people's right of access. 1. A radio which is running in excess of the legal power limit promotes a stronger signal. While this maybe be an advantage to the operator, he cannot control just how far his signal travels. Legally operating stations in the distance, now have a harder time communicating, because of the illegally produced signal. Those legal operators are having their right to access affected. 2. A radio which has had its modulation "clipped" the radio peaked, and uses a class "C" "modulator" amp to get that added "swing" is producing spurious audio harmonic content and splatter which makes their signal extend outside (sometimes very far) outside of the 10 Khz bandwidth of the CB channels. So when the operator transmits, he's not only dominating his own channel, be creates sufficient interference on others. Legally operating stations on those other channels, now have a harder time communicating, because of the illegally produced signal. Those legal operators are having their right to access affected. 3. A person operating a "peaked and clipped" CB into a class "C" amplifier generates spurious emission and higher harmonic content. People living in the vicinity of this illegal operator may have trouble using their entertainment devices (Broadcast radio, TV, computer) due to interference from those increased harmonics. Those people are having their right of access impeded. Would you listen to a radio with a torn speaker? Poor analogy, as your equipment apparently is not the problem...but your personal preference with another's broadcast. You always have the righyt to change the channel, as your "rights" are not being infringed upon. That depends. See my #2 above. Would it not bother you? See above. If it bothered me, I'd shut it off. But why should you have to? If you have a hobby or activity that normally brings you pleasure, and you are now faced with some undesirables which ruin your pleasure, why should you be always forced to be the one who has to yield to these people? If it were as simple as allocating certain channels for each activity and there were no such things as bleedover or interference, then your solution would be acceptable. But you know that that's not reality on CB. I tend to look at a glass that has 50% contents as half full also. Not with CB, society, the FCC, and personal privacy rights you don't Because, in those cases, the glass in much less than 50% full. No,,NOT in those cases, in YOUR personal experiences CB and society may be crumbling, but not to the rest of the world. What you experience is not the last word, far from it. Again you claim to know what the "majority" are thinking. You cannot possibly know what anyone else is thinking. Hehhe,,,,,,,correct,,,not in the manner youappear to be taking it,,not in an esp kind of way, but I indeed have the pulse of the public on a variety of issues. I *have* to. But no "pulse" or poll is completely reflective of reality. Polls are subject to political or social biases, and limited to the demographics of the participants. 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 preferecn 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. I 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. It's not a "right wing conspiracy". Liberals are the champions of the poor, the 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, 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. _ 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. _ 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 disproven by the 911 commission report (I trust you've read it?). 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......... 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. 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. The 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. From those according to their means, to those according to their needs. Sound familiar? Try reading Karl Marx for the answer. 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. 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 facts. 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? 3. A free market economy and true freedom involves less government involvement in personal lives allowing people to make greater choices. 4. Which party is seeking to increase government involvement in people's lives, by proposing government mandated education programs, healthcare oversight, preventing social security investment in private accounts, limiting gun ownership rights (Who needs the 2nd amendment?), and of course increasing taxes to pay for it all? 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. 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. 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 saying 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? Claim's of "taking responsibility" are meaningless unless there is a mechanism to enforce it. so anything that I do, such as MY right to anonymity, has nothing to do with you, yet that doesn't stop you from claiming it shouldn't be permitted as it somehow imposes on these "rights" you have yet to define and say how it affected your suffering. You should have the right to remain anonymous as long as it does not cause undue problems for the harmony of the forum. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#4
August 24th 04, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:10:51 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:21:10 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: You are entitled to see things from the other side of the glass, as it were. But there is a big difference. Us "snobby" hams are not interfering with other hams while pursuing our fringe activities, and insisting that our "right" to pursue it, overrides everyone else rights to enjoy their piece of the hobby. Neither do I, but you continue to try and pigeonhole me as such for merely posting of freeband activity and dx, yet, nothing in my posts has ever had a remote relation to what you falsely promote. You like to accuse me of making things personal, but in this case (as in many) you mistake my general summation for a direct critique of your personal habits. No mistake and you have made much more than "general summations" directed toward myself over the years. There was nothing general concerning your posts. I'm sure your operation is fairly low impact, but there are others who are not so cognizant of their impact on others (or worse, they don't care). Yep,,,there rare indeed. Many with licenses, many without. Yes, there are hams who do, but I do not associate with them. What "hoops" are there to just acting in a civilly responsible manner? Read again: "same hoops you must jump through regarding hammie radio". That you responded with hammie radio as an example in acting civilly responsible is not the best example you could have chosen,,in fact, it's a poor one Again, like on CB, this is largely geographically dependant. Despite your belief of it being geographically dependendent (it's not,,,,there are good and bad everywhere in both services)it doesn't validate your contrived gaffe. So now you deny that geography and demographics play a major part in determining the percentage of Good/Bad operators in a particular location? Absolutely not. Eliminate "particular location". A more accurate statement would be "Good and bad people exist everywhere and are not bound by geography." I don't for one minute subscribe to the fact that there are more bad people in one big city than in another big city of the same size. That's a direct contrast to your comments about the people who "infest" Philthy. Hehehe,,,I don't think I used the term "infest", but "nest" would be a word I would use to describe their sub-existing. I do think people from Philthy and NY tend to wear their heart on their sleeve a bit more than the rest of the country,,IE: very vocal. Now apply the malcontents from these cities and add a radio...it seems like a city of idiots,..no? But it doesn't make them any worse than the worst any other city has to offer, but as they are more vocal, add a device that furthers what is already a very vocal opinion, and it can sem worse than other cities. I'm not the one that holds cb as a reflection of society. But I will say, that I've personally witnessed far more rule abuses on CB than on ham radio. Again, your personal views and beliefs have been demonstrated to be in the minority,,,,, They have not been "demonstrated" to be anything of the sort. Because YOU claim them to be does not make them so. They have been demonstrated. Example #1: You feel anonymity should not be afforded internet participants. The mere fact that the laws (crafted by the moral majority) reflect just the opposite, illustrtates you are in the minority with your belief. Example #2: No one here erroneously considers talking dx a felony. Again, it is your right to engage in whimsical beliefs, but you are alone in such belief. That you have been informed such is not a felony merely served to confuse you, not being able to distinguish between civil and criminal court proceeedings. This is with the minority, as the majority are clued in and educated regarding the hobby of which they are engaged. It is not a good idea to participate in anything that has the potential for legal repercussions unless one is informed of the risks and understands the penalties involved and is willing to accept such parameters. But having a concise comprehension of the law is necessary. Clearly, you do not. I can hear more rule violations after listening to 5 minutes on CB channel 6 than I can hear in a week's worth of ham radio. That's the plain truth, and for you to deny or spin it is clearly a bias on your part. I have no problem with what you believe, as long as you don't attempt to pass it off as fact or representative of the majority, as you attempted with the much contrived statement that there are more rule violators on cb than hammie radio. Reminding you of how incorrect this statement actually is had you qualify your remarks to now say *you* can hear more rule violations on cb than on hammie radio. Again, way too many variables and factors involved for you to say "cb has more rule violators than hammie radio". _ Then what is preventing from you from getting on that channel and speaking your mind to those people as you do on here concerning your radical and minority beliefs. Nothing. I've done it already. But what good will it do? I've asked that of you concerning here and your answer was always along the lines of "you have got to start somewhere" and "someone has got to take a stand". It appears you shy aways from live real-time confrontation you claimed would take place in the same manner in which you conduct yourself on usenet. I don't "shy away" but at some point you have to realize that it's an unwinnable situation, At the risk of being called a cad and yelling "na na nee nee boo boo,toldjaso"....you'e been told that for years by myself and others. What point was the epiphany you experienced?? The point where I realized that you can't make an idiot into a normal person. It's counterproductive to try. It's better to seek out little oasis' of sanity in the cesspool, than trying to clean it up. Well, that didn't take but a few years now, did it? And that was the gist of what I and others have been trying to tell you for years. you realize that you can put a 3 piece suit on a pig, and he's still a pig. Yes. Look at the well dressed pigs running the country. Even if I convince the idiots that their echo boxes and distorted class "C" amplifiers sound like crap, they're still idiots. All it does it cause further arguments. In all fairness and I'm not being cruel or mean or malicious, but coming from one who holds talking dx is technically a felony, and that roger beeps are illegal on cb, that doesn't mean much. Roger beeps were at one time classified as an "amusement" device, and as such was prohibited in 95.413 (6). I doubt roger beeps were ever classified as such and as a result, illegal on cb, but even if that were so,,,many things "used" to be a certain way,,,,,it's no longer. It's a brave, new world*. _ While it is true that I cannot find a rule which specifically addresses these devices, I can neither find any information which specifically allows them, along the same lines as selective call tones are specifically outlined in 95.412 (b). Since there isn't a definitive rule in place, you can make the case that they are, in fact, legal (or at the very least not worthy of consideration). But it seems funny that this feature has not appeared on most mainstream legal radios. - I do believe some of the newer legal radios most certainly have them. I have been informed of some. But I remain skeptical of their type acceptance, and whether the FCC will allow it to continue. But time will tell. Echo boxes are a totally different issue. They fall clearly into the classification of "amusement or entertainment" devices and as such are specifically prohibited by 95.413. I disagree, but let's assume you right on this item. I would challenge the validity of this on several counts,,,the most obvious being the fact that sound and broadcast engineers use echo (not repeat, but slight reverb echo) on FM broadcasts for many commercials and ads for a specific reason,,,,it gets noticed and is often more recognizeable and often louder. As such, one could make the argument, it is an audio "enhancer", not entertainment device, and with the myriad of broadcast sound engineers backing my case, I would feel extremely confident handling my own situation, if this were it. As you now are most astutely aware, what you consider enhancement and what I consider enhancement is now very much subjective. Again, ask Phil Kane what must take place now (once this case is challenged). The FCC would have to rule (FIRST, and before any further prosecution) what constitutes "amusement devices" and specifically address the echo issue, just as they recently ruled what constitutes broadcast obscenity. - Ok, I like the way you've presented this. You make a good argument that a certain amount of reverb enhances audio quality and adds "depth". I totally agree with you on this point. If the current batch of "echo toys" were sold as devices which ONLY added enough reverb to accomplish the effect you've described, then I would agree that the device was an "enhancement" device in much the same way as an audio compressor. But that would eliminate "repeater" type echos. Interesting. Where would the line be drawn? At one complete repeat? Two? But you and I both know that is not the intent of the users of the majority of these devices. Maybe.....I have heard the folks messing with them and repeating over and over...but then again, like my fave AM audio, it has barely a tinge, almost the "double voiceover" effect, but no repeat. In fact, one can barely tell. Most have them set way beyond the point of "audio enhancement" and well into the point of audio distortion. They run them for the "cool" effects, and not as a range extender. Yea,,well truckers have the right to play and entertain themselves on those long trips, at least until they outlaw such items. Intent is the key point here. There is also a burden of proof issue as well. The FCC can make a broad determination as to any device which is "added" to a CB radio. It is up to the makers of the device to demonstrate that the device does not cause or promote illegal operation. - =A0You can't make an idiot into a normal person, so why try? Birds of a feather stick together. - Which is why you have defended Dogie and attempted to present an incredibly spaced out and fantasized case for Keith framing him, even though the FCC busted him for jamming. I never accused Keith of framing Doug. I wish you would look back on your links and realize that. I postulated that it was possible that he might have been framed, but I never accused any one person of doing it. =A0 I stand corrected, Thank you. My respect for you just went up a few notches. The fact remains, you hold the FCC as an entity whose rules should be blindly followed, but then question the same agency's integrity when they enforce those rules. This is getting long, again. Going to Part Deux. |
|
#5
August 24th 04, 10:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:24:21 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote in : snip Echo boxes are a totally different issue. They fall clearly into the classification of "amusement or entertainment" devices and as such are specifically prohibited by 95.413. I disagree, but let's assume you right on this item. I would challenge the validity of this on several counts,,,the most obvious being the fact that sound and broadcast engineers use echo (not repeat, but slight reverb echo) on FM broadcasts for many commercials and ads for a specific reason,,,,it gets noticed and is often more recognizeable and often louder. As such, one could make the argument, it is an audio "enhancer", not entertainment device, and with the myriad of broadcast sound engineers backing my case, I would feel extremely confident handling my own situation, if this were it. As you now are most astutely aware, what you consider enhancement and what I consider enhancement is now very much subjective. Again, ask Phil Kane what must take place now (once this case is challenged). The FCC would have to rule (FIRST, and before any further prosecution) what constitutes "amusement devices" and specifically address the echo issue, just as they recently ruled what constitutes broadcast obscenity. - Ok, I like the way you've presented this. You make a good argument that a certain amount of reverb enhances audio quality and adds "depth". I totally agree with you on this point. If the current batch of "echo toys" were sold as devices which ONLY added enough reverb to accomplish the effect you've described, then I would agree that the device was an "enhancement" device in much the same way as an audio compressor. But that would eliminate "repeater" type echos. Interesting. Where would the line be drawn? At one complete repeat? Two? This might help: http://www.trueaudio.com/at_echo.htm The fact remains, you hold the FCC as an entity whose rules should be blindly followed, but then question the same agency's integrity when they enforce those rules. Nobody is suggesting that laws should be blindly followed, but you have claimed that that laws should be openly violated -because- you question their integrity. That's not the way it works, Twist. Try reading the First Amendment. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
#6
August 24th 04, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Frank Gilliland wrote:
Nobody is suggesting that laws should be blindly followed, but you have claimed that that laws should be openly violated -because- you question their integrity. That's not the way it works, Twist. Try reading the First Amendment. Hi Frank and Twist, I have a truce with the AKC now..I really never thought it could happen. Peace to all radio operators. |
|
#7
August 25th 04, 07:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Frank Gilliland wrote:
Nobody is suggesting that laws should be blindly followed, Sure they did. Following a law merely because it exists is "blindly following". but you have claimed that that laws should be openly violated You're lying, Frank. Nowhere have I ever stated laws should be open violated. How come every time you disagree with someone, you have to lie about them? I mean, we already know you had a forced extraction in which you admit to lying all the time in this group, but you really ought examine what compels such behavior. You have issues, Frank. -because- you question their integrity. That's not the way it works, Twist. Try reading the First Amendment. Put down the whiskey, Frank, and get back on the wagon. When you share with this group that you quit drinking because of the problems it brought you, then subsequently post to this group and alert us you fell off the wagon again, your lies and posts are recognized for what they a manifestations of your personal demons and you dealing with them the only manner in which you know. The First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights prohibiting Congress from interfering with the freedom of religion, speech, assembly, or petition. That you find a relation to selectively violating dx law is testament to the damage you undoubtedly are aware alcohol has had upon yourself, in addition to the "problems" you have acknowledged creating (via alcohol). |
|
#8
August 24th 04, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Twist/N3CVJ
Part Deux You "postulated" that the FCC, who you profess we should blindly follow, may not have the facts of the case before telling the public one is guilty. I question your logic and intellect to blindly follow an agency who crafts law, yet you claim same agency could be incompetent in upholding said law. Do you not see the sheer hypocrisy of such talk? I can see how you might feel that way based on your perspective. But that's not reflective of reality. It was your reality. I never claim to "blindly" follow anyone. But there is a process to follow to have rules changed. It is not proper to just "ignore" rules that we don't personally agree with. And until those rules are changed, you can not possibly have any reason for fantasizing the FCC was wrong in busting Dogie. As you say, that is the process. But you still don't see you espouse the process of the FCC, but you question their end result, meaning you have doubt concerning their competence in handling their responsibility. You tout their rules, then when one gets busted by their rules, you undermined the entire concept. _ One thing I DO believe in strongly is the concept that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Do you assume that someone is automatically guilty of a crime the instant he is arrested? Just the opposite. Until proven in a court of law. Once again, *you* are the one misusing the term "crime" when applied to radio rules, as they are not criminal infractions. See how the misuse and entrance of the term "crime" and "criminal" becomes distorted? The fact that Doug was cited (same as an arrest in this case) does not mean that all the evidence was in and a final determination was made (at least at the time I made my comments). I disagree. I hold that when the FCC reports one on the Rain Report for an infraction, NOT as merely receiving a warning notice for some alleged rule infraction, the evidence is in and the final determination of guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, enough to satisfy any court of law. Surely you have to acknowledge that Doug's behavior has managed to earn him quite a few enemies. What's to stop any one of them from "masquerading" as him in order to cause trouble and "frame" him as a form of payback? It's a distinct possibility. I admit that I am not privy to what evidence the FCC has or doesn't have in this case, and I could be way off base. I do not believe for one second a bunch of folks are going to sign a sworn affidavit signed by a notary only to commit purgery in order to frame another. _ My only hope is that a group of decent people will decide to start another channel that I would be happy to participate in. I'm already working on a CB reunion for some of the old crew that I've contacted. This might spawn a "retro net" where we fire up that vintage gear for some old fashioned CB fun. Now that might bring back some of the fun with cb that has eluded you for some time. - =A0Heck, we have get togethers all the time here. On any given day one can tune in and hook up with countless fishermen all over the bay area,,many of them sitting in their cars chewing the fat while fishing. Those are some of the things I sorely miss. _ =A0After all, that would make you proactive instead of reactive like you have always been here, and I am certain we can count on you to offer your beliefs to those on the air using those noise toys that have you bleeding from the ears and nose, because we all know you believe in saying the same things here as you would face to face. Try it with the noise toys and on the radio with these people,,tell them they are the equivalent of the WWF. Report back. Been there, done that. How do you rationalize the detrimental effects of distorted audio, such as that produced by an echo mike, to someone who has that "kid on Christmas" look on his face at the discovery of his latest toy ( that he probably spend half his fast food p aycheck for)? He doesn't care that it makes his audio hard to understand. He just thinks it's "cool". Must be something in the water around here..... - Nothing to rationalize. This is cb, not audiophile FM 101 High Fidelity Broadcasting. What you can't get, because you been in with the snobs that have a hard-on for cb too long, is that many, many folks don't look at cb like you do and compare it to hammie radio. The only thing many folks are interested in is making contact, not quality. Like a stereo, some folks spend big bucks for symphonic reproduction, others do ok and opt for a clock radio. Different strokes, but here you are bashing those folks that may use a legal item as is their right, on cb, all because *you* disagree and dislike their choice. Tsk tsk. You don't have to be an audiophile. Correct,,but you apparently are, and are expressing difficulty grasping why others are not so concerned with these nuances. I will admit to being sensitive to audio quality. I can tell the sound of a Class "C" amplifier without even looking. Any device that changes the audio for the worse detracts from quality. I like to make my audio as close to a broadcast station as I can. I like what those guys on 80 meter AM have done with their setups. Some of those guys have audio that I am truly envious of. Hehe,,that commercial FM sound... Some people are so distorted that they are actually hard to understand. Yet these same mentally challenged idiots think that they actually sound good! Excessive echo, class "C" amplifiers, too much mike gain, no limiters, excessive "swing" all contribute to overall poor audio quality. Many of these "mods" also contribute to adjacent channel interference and RFI. There is nothing even remotely redeemable about these actions. Echo is not legal. See above. _ Class "C" (or any other) amplifiers are not legal. Removing modulation limiters is not legal. Transmitter modifications are not legal. Generating RFI above the technical specifications is not legal. So I'm not bashing people for liking different things than I do. I'm bashing people for their displayed ignorance of good RF practice and for displaying an indifference to, or an outright contempt for, other people's right of access to the hobby. An echo mic is in no manner affecting any of your rights. You are still confusing the law with your preferences. Echo mics are legal. Email the FCC and ask them. I might do that. I cannot see how a device which is clearly intended to "amuse or entertain" could be considered legal, when the rules expressly prohibit them. But let me outline a few examples of how many of these "radio hotrods" do affect other people's right of access. 1. A radio which is running in excess of the legal power limit promotes a stronger signal. While this maybe be an advantage to the operator, he cannot control just how far his signal travels. Legally operating stations in the distance, now have a harder time communicating, because of the illegally produced signal. Those legal operators are having their right to access affected. There doesn't seem to be any place at all where these "legal operators" are making any waves. I submit this is an extremely rare problem concerning cbers. 2. A radio which has had its modulation "clipped" the radio peaked, and uses a class "C" "modulator" amp to get that added "swing" is producing spurious audio harmonic content and splatter which makes their signal extend outside (sometimes very far) outside of the 10 Khz bandwidth of the CB channels. So when the operator transmits, he's not only dominating his own channel, be creates sufficient interference on others. Legally operating stations on those other channels, now have a harder time communicating, because of the illegally produced signal. Those legal operators are having their right to access affected. There is no right to access. You have the freedom to use a radio at will,,,you haev no right that said radio will be free from interference. You are discounting the problem is world wide, and as you said with our ops, the signal doesn't stop. Our ops, compared to the word ops, are an exterme minority when it comes to not complying with FCC cb radio rules. Even if you would have cbers obeying all rules at all times, it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in the noise and skip, except on channel 6, as its strictly American owned and operated g. 3. A person operating a "peaked and clipped" CB into a class "C" amplifier generates spurious emission and higher harmonic content. People living in the vicinity of this illegal operator may have trouble using their entertainment devices (Broadcast radio, TV, computer) due to interference from those increased harmonics. Those people are having their right of access impeded. Again, no one has such a "right of access" of "unimpedement". The mere fact that the devices say they MUST accept interference discounts any "right" concerning unimpedement and unfetttered use. Would you listen to a radio with a torn speaker? Poor analogy, as your equipment apparently is not the problem...but your personal preference with another's broadcast. You always have the righyt to change the channel, as your "rights" are not being infringed upon. That depends. See my #2 above. I did. Check out my reply. Would it not bother you? See above. If it bothered me, I'd shut it off. But why should you have to? Don't "have" to,,thats what comes with freedom of choice. _ If you have a hobby or activity that normally brings you pleasure, and you are now faced with some undesirables which ruin your pleasure, why should you be always forced to be the one who has to yield to these people? No one is forcing anyone to partake in the hobby. There is no "force going on. If it were as simple as allocating certain channels for each activity and there were no such things as bleedover or interference, then your solution would be acceptable. But you know that that's not reality on CB. What solution? If changing the channel or band doesn;t work, shut it off. I tend to look at a glass that has 50% contents as half full also. Not with CB, society, the FCC, and personal privacy rights you don't - Because, in those cases, the glass in much less than 50% full. No,,NOT in those cases, in YOUR personal experiences CB and society may be crumbling, but not to the rest of the world. What you experience is not the last word, far from it. Again you claim to know what the "majority" are thinking. You cannot possibly know what anyone else is thinking. Hehhe,,,,,,,correct,,,not in the manner youappear to be taking it,,not in an esp kind of way, but I indeed have the pulse of the public on a variety of issues. I *have* to. But no "pulse" or poll is completely reflective of reality. Correct. Most polls carry a margin error of 3% give or take, but it's pretty damn close,,and indicative. . Polls are subject to political or social biases, and limited to the demographics of the participants. And the best thing we have to measure the current pulse of certain factions. Other factions have other manners of gauging such things. |
|
#9
August 24th 04, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Trifilar winding -- twist or plait? | Antenna | |||
| Where's that military group, Twist? | CB | |||
| its all yours twist...........go and get it............ | CB | |||
| Twist | CB | |||
Hybrid Mode
