[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
The way to tell is to track the taxes. Do you pay a smaller or
greater percentage of your income in taxes (and other fees) than
you did under the Nixon administration? If you do, then government
has gotten bigger, and this translates to me into, "More liberal".

No, that's not at all what it means. Redefining "liberal" and
"conservative" is not the solution either.

Note that tax rates for the wealthy today are lower than they were
back then, too. So how you'd answer that question depends on how
much money you make. --scott

To me, its the expectation of how much money you will make in the
future. I have always liked to think of myself as an "up and coming
millionare" I always expected to be wealthy in the future. I know a
lot of people who hated the rich, and wanted to tax the hell out of
them, and never expected themselves to ever become rich. These are
the ones I called liberals, and I still do. They have the attitude
that if you're rich, you must have stolen the money from the poor,
or gotten where you are by climbing up the backs of the poor. They
are the Robin-Hooders that think everyone who is rich is a thief.
This is the face of liberalism to me.

I feel really sorry for you, if fact you have my PITY
Peace
George

Oh. I forgot to mention. Another thing about liberals is that, instead of
addressing the facts, they say things like, "I feel really sorry for you,
if fact you have my PITY"
Billy, I have not tipped my hand as to my leanings, It is You making
assumptions with out a fact base to make them from.
I am just commenting that your concepts label you a sad sack who's ranting
are petty close to what I hear the hillbillies spouting, That is not very
well thought out , or ahble to absorb complex realities
but I am sure your God loves you :-)
George

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:

Speaking of speakers, whatever happened to, "University" speakers? When I
was young, back in the 60's they were the big thing in speakers. Today,
nobody even heard of them. Tell me. Is there a tendency for professional
manufacturers to build something that is so spectacular that it gets a
reputation that creeps out into the general public, so they commercialize it
and start selling it to the general public? Surely things like this must
happen from time to time.

A lot of the old-line speaker companies from that era, like University Sound,
Bogen, and Frazier, basically moved entirely into the installed sound market.

University is still there but they won't be selling at your local music store,
you will have to go through an actual University dealer. And they do actually
still provide real tech information including radiation patterns.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
To me, its the expectation of how much money you will make in the
future. I have always liked to think of myself as an "up and coming
millionare" I always expected to be wealthy in the future. I know a
lot of people who hated the rich, and wanted to tax the hell out of
them, and never expected themselves to ever become rich. These are
the ones I called liberals, and I still do. They have the attitude
that if you're rich, you must have stolen the money from the poor,
or gotten where you are by climbing up the backs of the poor. They
are the Robin-Hooders that think everyone who is rich is a thief.
This is the face of liberalism to me.

It's basically true. Most of the wealth of the wealthy is stolen from
their employees, not created directly by their labor. It's no
different from party leaders in Communist countries living the
(relative) high life on the work of the laborers.

There is no truly just economic system -- that is, a system in which a
person is entitled /only/ to the wealth they directly create by their
own labor. Communism is the worst of all systems. Market economies
are much better, but still hardly fair.

The reason most Americans don't accept the basic unfairness of our
system is that everyone wants to get rich, and they don't care how
they do it.

Look up "Labor theory of value" and /think/ about it.

Well, I have studied a lot of systems, and I still think capitalism is the
best. If each person charged what his services were worth, and each one
paid what those services were worth, then the system would be ideal.
Unfortunately, nothing works that way. Because some people are much better
salesmen than others, and some are better at running their businesses than
others. But there is an ideal we can all strive for, and I think
capitalism is that ideal.

It is working very well in China right now
Capitalist ideals with Communist government
perhaps you would like us to revert to the Chinese model where nothing
matters but profit.

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:
No. An anarchist is one who wants no laws. I am a libertarian. I don't want
no laws. I just want no laws that take away one persons rights without
protecting someone else's rights. IOW, if a law doesn't protect anyone, it
shouldn't be on the books. that's simple enough, isn't it?

_ALL_ laws protect someone. Sometimes, though, there are laws that protect
only one or two people. But even the crazy loopholes in the tax code protect
_someone_.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

But there is an
ideal we can all strive for, and I think capitalism is that ideal.

I said nothing whatever about capitalism. I was talking about market
economies.

you need to be a politician, you got the double speak DOWN bro.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, your remarks certainly do shout "liberal" to me.
I am sorry we disagree. As a conservative libertarian,
I only want individual responsibility...

I don't think you do. I know of no current political belief that places any
particular emphasis on personal responsibility. If you're liberal, you
believe that government should do almost everything. If you're conservative,
you believe people should do whatever they like, especially with regard to
making money.

It is interesting that in the last Presidential election, of all of the
candidates, there was only one person who said that we all had tough times
ahead and we would all need to buckle down and sacrifice for the future.
There was only one candidate who said anything about fiscal responsibility.
And that candidate was Al Sharpton.

And let me tell you, when Al Sharpton is making more sense than any of the
other candidates, something is horribly, horribly wrong.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

Well, fascism, but yes. Either end tends toward state
control when you get too far to the extreme.

There is a French expression to the effect that, regardless of which
direction you walk, if you go too far you eventually arrive at the same
point.

[[email protected]]

On 2010-12-13 (ScottDorsey) said:
geoff wrote:
So let me get this right (not being from the USA).
A liberal is somebody tending towards what in the extreme becomes
communism.
A conservative is one who tends towards the direction that in
extreme becomes nazism.
Well, fascism, but yes. Either end tends toward state control when
you get too far to the extreme.
YEs it does, and why I"m not either. ABsolutists are some
of the scariest damned people around.

And George Bush was considered by many Americans to be too liberal
? Phew - that, combined with the religous fundamentalism to
almost rival the islamists, is really scary !!!
You're telling me.
Y'all don't need to tell me, I"m scared for my grandson.
Yeah ditto, SArah Palin for president. HOw very ignorant
can we get?


And of course, the old boy can't find anything else to
blabber about when he's over his head in audio so he brings
up politics. yawn

SOme real contributors to this forum have been driven away
by the political discussions and bs, which is too bad. So
what do we get? A newbie who stirs that nest of snakes up
again. MR. Graham, you have earned a permanent place in my
killfiles for both usenet access methods.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , wrote:

Y'all don't need to tell me, I"m scared for my grandson.
Yeah ditto, SArah Palin for president. HOw very ignorant
can we get?

Yes, I am disturbed at what has happened to the right. Guys like Barry
Goldwater and William F. Buckley have been replaced by Sarah Palin and
Rush Limbaugh.

I didn't like what Goldwater had to say, but he was articulate when he said
it, and he had a coherent message that he could support with valid arguments.
I often didn't agree with the points he began with in his arguments but at
least the arguments themselves made sense given where he was coming from.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-12-13 (ScottDorsey) said:
In article , 0junk4me@bellsouth.
net wrote:
Y'all don't need to tell me, I"m scared for my grandson.
Yeah ditto, SArah Palin for president. HOw very ignorant
can we get?
Yes, I am disturbed at what has happened to the right. Guys like
Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley have been replaced by Sarah
Palin and Rush Limbaugh.
I didn't like what Goldwater had to say, but he was articulate when
he said it, and he had a coherent message that he could support
with valid arguments. I often didn't agree with the points he began
with in his arguments but at least the arguments themselves made
sense given where he was coming from. --scott

WOuld agree with that. True conservative, limited
government, whole nine yards. Since REagan what's happened
to the right is a scary proposition. Where the far left
wants to go is equally scary however. INstead of being
vocal however the center has given a collective yawn.
tHat's the scary part!!!




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[geoff]

wrote:
On 2010-12-13 (ScottDorsey) said:
In article , 0junk4me@bellsouth.

WOuld agree with that. True conservative, limited
government, whole nine yards. Since REagan what's happened
to the right is a scary proposition. Where the far left
wants to go is equally scary however. INstead of being
vocal however the center has given a collective yawn.
tHat's the scary part!!!

Trouble is, what yanks call the "far left" is what most others call the
"centre". Or "center" for spelling impaired dialects.

geoff

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:


Let's say instead you buy a low-end pro console like a Midas Venice
or a Crest. It breaks, you take it to the tech. He pops it open,
pulls the
board out, and fixes it. The whole thing comes apart with a couple
screws, all the ICs are socketed

That the ICs are socket could very well be the cause of the problem
....

Nahh, these days most folks use good machined-pin sockets. The days
of seeing stamped-pin sockets that go intermittent are pretty much
gone. --scott

Have seen even those (gold ones at that !) tarnish in some enviroments...

geoff

[Bill Graham]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, your remarks certainly do shout "liberal" to me.
I am sorry we disagree. As a conservative libertarian,
I only want individual responsibility...

I don't think you do. I know of no current political belief that
places any particular emphasis on personal responsibility. If you're
liberal, you believe that government should do almost everything. If
you're conservative, you believe people should do whatever they like,
especially with regard to making money.

You don't? What about all the liberal welfare programs? The special low
interest loans for fixing up the poor peoples houses. The social security
programs that are breaking the system and causing the government to borrow
money to cover? The millions of unwed mothers who are on welfare. (I knew
several of them when I was young and living in California) What about
Obama's "Caqsh for Clunkers" program? You don't call these taking away
peoples responsibility and providing taxpayers money for them? Where do you
think the money comes from for all these programs? As a conservative, I
don't think people should do wahtever they like, unless what they do doesn't
take away anyone else's rights. Then they should be allowed to do it. And,
yes, making money is not a bad thing. Everyone should be allowed.....Hell,
encouraged, to do it.

[Bill Graham]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
No. An anarchist is one who wants no laws. I am a libertarian.
I don't want no laws. I just want no laws that take away one
person's rights without protecting someone else's rights. IOW,
if a law doesn't protect anyone, it shouldn't be on the books.
that's simple enough, isn't it?

But even a liberal such as myself can recognize that a law that
protects someone can be unfair and unjust.

Yes. That is the problem with law in general, and why we need Supreme
Courts. There is always the problem where protecting your rights infringes
on mine, and visa-versa. So the court has to decide whose rights are more
basic, or how the decision will affect others in the society. No system of
law is perfect, but a good place to start is with pure libertarianism, and
our constitution seems to believe that too. It seems, to me, to start with
libertarianism, and then go from there.


People need to do a lot more thinking about what the /purpose/ of
government is, and where the dividing line between individual freedom
and social responsibility falls.


I certainly agree with this. And, it seems to me that some of the decisions
made in recent years neglect individual freedom for the convenience of the
society. IOW, even though nobody in particular loses any rights, they will
take away one person't rights just so the rest of society isn't
inconvenienced in any way. Like the law in Palo Alto, California which
prevents anybody from buying a tavern, and putting a sign on his front door
that says, "Notice. - This is a smoking bar. If you come in here, you will
be subjected to second hand tobacco smoke, which may be deliterious to your
health. If this is unacceptable to you, then you should go down the street
to XXX's bar, where there is no smoking and enjoy your drinks there." The
city fathers actually made a law that prevented any bar owner from doing
this, so all the ones who smoked had to sell out and buy another bar in some
other (less liberal) city. I claim that this was, or should have been
unconstitutional, since any non smoker had a number of other bars he/she
could frequent, and it didn't transgress anyones rights to have some
percentage of smoking bars.


We have a frighteningly conservative Supreme Court, which believes
that incorporated businesses are the literal equivalents of human
beings, and have the same Constitutionally protected rights. THEY DO
NOT. This belief is hardly new, and its implementation further pushes
government in the direction of plutocracy.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Well, your remarks certainly do shout "liberal" to me.
I am sorry we disagree. As a conservative libertarian,
I only want individual responsibility...

I don't think you do. I know of no current political belief that
places any particular emphasis on personal responsibility. If you're
liberal, you believe that government should do almost everything. If
you're conservative, you believe people should do whatever they like,
especially with regard to making money.

You don't? What about all the liberal welfare programs? The special low
interest loans for fixing up the poor peoples houses. The social security
programs that are breaking the system and causing the government to borrow
money to cover? The millions of unwed mothers who are on welfare. (I knew
several of them when I was young and living in California) What about
Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program? You don't call these taking away
people's responsibility and providing taxpayers money for them? Where
do you think the money comes from for all these programs?

I stand firmly by my statement. Neither liberals nor conservatives are the
least-bit interested in personal responsibility, /particularly/ in regard to
how one's behavior affects others.


As a conservative, I don't think people should do whatever they
like, unless what they do doesn't take away anyone else's rights.
Then they should be allowed to do it. And, yes, making money
is not a bad thing. Everyone should be allowed... Hell, encouraged,
to do it.

Thank you for making my point so eloquently...

Read about LTV, and then we can have a more-informed conversation.

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
So let me get this right (not being from the USA).

A liberal is somebody tending towards what in the extreme becomes
communism.

A conservative is one who tends towards the direction that in extreme
becomes nazism.

Well, fascism, but yes. Either end tends toward state control when
you get too far to the extreme.

And George Bush was considered by many Americans to be too liberal ?
Phew - that, combined with the religous fundamentalism to almost
rival the islamists, is really scary !!!

You're telling me.
--scott

In 8 years, George Bush did almost everything his congress wanted him to do.
The only bill he vetoed in 8 years was that stem cell research thing, and I
wanted him to sign that one. So, if you didn't like his administration, then
put the blame on where it belongs. On the congress the American people voted
in every two years during his tenure. President have very little power, but
they take the blame for everything.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, your remarks certainly do shout "liberal" to me.
I am sorry we disagree. As a conservative libertarian,
I only want individual responsibility...

I don't think you do. I know of no current political belief that
places any particular emphasis on personal responsibility. If you're
liberal, you believe that government should do almost everything. If
you're conservative, you believe people should do whatever they like,
especially with regard to making money.

You don't? What about all the liberal welfare programs? The special low
interest loans for fixing up the poor peoples houses. The social security
programs that are breaking the system and causing the government to borrow
money to cover? The millions of unwed mothers who are on welfare. (I knew
several of them when I was young and living in California) What about
Obama's "Caqsh for Clunkers" program? You don't call these taking away
peoples responsibility and providing taxpayers money for them? Where do
you think the money comes from for all these programs? As a conservative,
I don't think people should do wahtever they like, unless what they do
doesn't take away anyone else's rights. Then they should be allowed to do
it. And, yes, making money is not a bad thing. Everyone should be
allowed.....Hell, encouraged, to do it.

hell while we are cutting out these socialist evils, lets get rid of the
largest socialist part of our society
The Armed forces
lets each take personal responsibility for our own defense.

[Bill Graham]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
hank alrich wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:
Facts have every effect on me. But I'm not getting any from you.
Give me some facts, baby....I am an open bucket waiting to be
filled. Tell me all about the 9 grand mike, and how its built, and
why I should spring for it instead of the $500 mikes I am
accustomed to buying. Oh, and while you are at it, take that
double blind test just to find out if I am right.

Okay, let me explain to you about the pro audio world. It's not
like consumer electronics.

In the consumer electronics world, you make a million of something.
All your costs are in the tooling, engineering, and setup. You
amortize that cost among a million items, and so that cost is
cheap. When you make a hundred of something, you have the same
engineering
costs, sometimes much more since you're making something for a more
picky customer who wants something very specific. You're now
splitting that cost and
the setup costs among 1/10,000 the number of items.

So, it costs a lot more to actually make a thing.... and a lot of
that
stuff is basically handmade, so the labor costs are hundreds or
thousands
of times higher.

A lot of the cost is labor. Back in the seventies, you could buy a
Telefunken 251 for $200 on the used market. But now, because the
sound
of that particular mike (and much of the sound comes from
aberrations in
the design) has become so popular, many people want them. And they
are
not $200 any more, they are more like $15,000. The reason that
they are $15,000 is just supply and demand... there are a lot more
studios now
than there were when those mikes were made. So they cost a lot
just due
to simple economics.

So... if you could make an accurate 251 replica, you could sell it
for a good percentage of that cost. The PROBLEM is that when you
sit down and actually try and make an accurate 251, you find that
there is an awful
lot of skilled hand work.... it is very hard to tension the
diaphragm once, let alone repeatedly when you're trying to make a
run of a hundred mikes.
So you spend a few months training someone to do the job repeatedly
so they can make a hundred mikes. Once you have that down it's
time to figure out how to drill the backplates properly. The 251
backplates aren't all drilled the same way; the drilling pattern is
changed in order to compensate for variations elsewhere in the
capsule. Figure more than a few months to figure out how to
replicate that.

Are you starting to get an idea of where the money is going here?

I'm not saying the 251 is a great mike or that it's worth $15,000
to me,
but clearly it's worth $15,000 to a lot of people because that's
what they are paying on the open market. And the sound of the 251
is very easily identified in a double-blind test. It's not a
neutral microphone, but that's what people like about it.
--scott

They're exploiting a famous name, while trying to do a decent job
building good mics.

David Bock's version of a 251 is allegedly not too shabby, at a much
more reasonable price.

Well, I'll take your word for it. All I can say is, "Thank God I
don't need such a thing to mike my horn with". The main reason why
such things exist, IMO, is because the people who hire you pros,
want you to have them. That is an argument I really understand. When
you are a pro, you do whatever you have to do to get the business.
And, that is one reason why, when it comes to art (and music) that I
am very glad that I am not a pro. I can play what I want to play,
when and where I want to play it, and I don't have to buy $9000
mikes.

The transmission in my van costs 4500.00 I sure wish I could get one
of those 1500$ trasmissions to do the job a 4500$ transmission does
but it ain't gonna happen.
if the job requires a 9000$ mic, you best have it if you want that job
if your happy doing jobs that do not requrie the features of a 9000$
mic then you do not need to have it
pretty simple stuff , Bucky.
even you should be able to grasp it

You know, if everyone who bought a $9000 mike really needed it, then I would
have no argument wi5th that. And, perhaps they do. But something way in the
back of my mind tells me that that isn't the case.
And, all I am trying to do here is put that suggestion out there. The
suggestion that perhaps there is something called the placebo effect
working, or somthing other than audio excellence working that gets some
people to spring for that much money. I didn't mean to insult anyone. If you
have the money and need it, or even think you need it, then, by all means
buy it. And happy recording!

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
So let me get this right (not being from the USA).

A liberal is somebody tending towards what in the extreme becomes
communism.

A conservative is one who tends towards the direction that in extreme
becomes nazism.

Well, fascism, but yes. Either end tends toward state control when
you get too far to the extreme.

And George Bush was considered by many Americans to be too liberal ?
Phew - that, combined with the religous fundamentalism to almost
rival the islamists, is really scary !!!

You're telling me.
--scott

In 8 years, George Bush did almost everything his congress wanted him to
do. The only bill he vetoed in 8 years was that stem cell research thing,
and I wanted him to sign that one. So, if you didn't like his
administration, then put the blame on where it belongs. On the congress
the American people voted in every two years during his tenure. President
have very little power, but they take the blame for everything.

I suppose you feel the same way twards JFK? Bill Clinton? Millard Fillmore?

[Bill Graham]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
The way to tell is to track the taxes. Do you pay a smaller or
greater percentage of your income in taxes (and other fees) than
you did under the Nixon administration? If you do, then
government has gotten bigger, and this translates to me into,
"More liberal".

No, that's not at all what it means. Redefining "liberal" and
"conservative" is not the solution either.

Note that tax rates for the wealthy today are lower than they were
back then, too. So how you'd answer that question depends on how
much money you make. --scott

To me, its the expectation of how much money you will make in the
future. I have always liked to think of myself as an "up and coming
millionare" I always expected to be wealthy in the future. I know a
lot of people who hated the rich, and wanted to tax the hell out of
them, and never expected themselves to ever become rich. These are
the ones I called liberals, and I still do. They have the attitude
that if you're rich, you must have stolen the money from the poor,
or gotten where you are by climbing up the backs of the poor. They
are the Robin-Hooders that think everyone who is rich is a thief.
This is the face of liberalism to me.

I feel really sorry for you, if fact you have my PITY
Peace
George

Oh. I forgot to mention. Another thing about liberals is that,
instead of addressing the facts, they say things like, "I feel
really sorry for you, if fact you have my PITY"
Billy, I have not tipped my hand as to my leanings, It is You making
assumptions with out a fact base to make them from.
I am just commenting that your concepts label you a sad sack who's
ranting are petty close to what I hear the hillbillies spouting, That
is not very well thought out , or ahble to absorb complex realities
but I am sure your God loves you :-)
George

You'd be wrong again. I have no God. I am an atheist. Another assumption
that many liberals make about us conservatives. And as my ability to "absorb
complex realities." I have a 143 IQ, and a degree in Mathematics from The U.
of Santa Clara. (1974) So there is nothing wrong with either my logic or my
ability to understand complexity. But, I have become, during recent years,
very interested in the placebo effect, and what it does to peoples
perceptions of the real world. Unfortuantely, this doesn't add much to my
popularity......

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

Speaking of speakers, whatever happened to, "University" speakers?
When I was young, back in the 60's they were the big thing in
speakers. Today, nobody even heard of them. Tell me. Is there a
tendency for professional manufacturers to build something that is
so spectacular that it gets a reputation that creeps out into the
general public, so they commercialize it and start selling it to the
general public? Surely things like this must happen from time to
time.

A lot of the old-line speaker companies from that era, like
University Sound, Bogen, and Frazier, basically moved entirely into
the installed sound market.

University is still there but they won't be selling at your local
music store, you will have to go through an actual University dealer.
And they do actually still provide real tech information including
radiation patterns. --scott

Thank you. Its good to know that they survived after all these years. A lot
of companies fail when their original founder dies and/or sells out to
someone else.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
The way to tell is to track the taxes. Do you pay a smaller or
greater percentage of your income in taxes (and other fees) than
you did under the Nixon administration? If you do, then
government has gotten bigger, and this translates to me into,
"More liberal".

No, that's not at all what it means. Redefining "liberal" and
"conservative" is not the solution either.

Note that tax rates for the wealthy today are lower than they were
back then, too. So how you'd answer that question depends on how
much money you make. --scott

To me, its the expectation of how much money you will make in the
future. I have always liked to think of myself as an "up and coming
millionare" I always expected to be wealthy in the future. I know a
lot of people who hated the rich, and wanted to tax the hell out of
them, and never expected themselves to ever become rich. These are
the ones I called liberals, and I still do. They have the attitude
that if you're rich, you must have stolen the money from the poor,
or gotten where you are by climbing up the backs of the poor. They
are the Robin-Hooders that think everyone who is rich is a thief.
This is the face of liberalism to me.

I feel really sorry for you, if fact you have my PITY
Peace
George

Oh. I forgot to mention. Another thing about liberals is that,
instead of addressing the facts, they say things like, "I feel
really sorry for you, if fact you have my PITY"
Billy, I have not tipped my hand as to my leanings, It is You making
assumptions with out a fact base to make them from.
I am just commenting that your concepts label you a sad sack who's
ranting are petty close to what I hear the hillbillies spouting, That
is not very well thought out , or ahble to absorb complex realities
but I am sure your God loves you :-)
George

You'd be wrong again. I have no God. I am an atheist. Another assumption
that many liberals make about us conservatives. And as my ability to
"absorb complex realities." I have a 143 IQ, and a degree in Mathematics
from The U. of Santa Clara. (1974) So there is nothing wrong with either
my logic or my ability to understand complexity. But, I have become,
during recent years, very interested in the placebo effect, and what it
does to peoples perceptions of the real world. Unfortuantely, this doesn't
add much to my popularity......

as I said ,you have my pity. I have seen hundreds spout off as your doing
over the decade and a half I have been on line
logic escapes you, balanced thought escapes you
understanding the complexity of society escapes you
and nobody will ever get you to reconsider your positions
for this you have my pity
enjoy your so called life
no more from me lest the readers stop being able to tell the idot from the
replys

[Bill Graham]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
To me, its the expectation of how much money you will make in the
future. I have always liked to think of myself as an "up and coming
millionare" I always expected to be wealthy in the future. I know a
lot of people who hated the rich, and wanted to tax the hell out of
them, and never expected themselves to ever become rich. These are
the ones I called liberals, and I still do. They have the attitude
that if you're rich, you must have stolen the money from the poor,
or gotten where you are by climbing up the backs of the poor. They
are the Robin-Hooders that think everyone who is rich is a thief.
This is the face of liberalism to me.

It's basically true. Most of the wealth of the wealthy is stolen
from their employees, not created directly by their labor. It's no
different from party leaders in Communist countries living the
(relative) high life on the work of the laborers.

There is no truly just economic system -- that is, a system in
which a person is entitled /only/ to the wealth they directly
create by their own labor. Communism is the worst of all systems.
Market economies are much better, but still hardly fair.

The reason most Americans don't accept the basic unfairness of our
system is that everyone wants to get rich, and they don't care how
they do it.

Look up "Labor theory of value" and /think/ about it.

Well, I have studied a lot of systems, and I still think capitalism
is the best. If each person charged what his services were worth,
and each one paid what those services were worth, then the system
would be ideal. Unfortunately, nothing works that way. Because some
people are much better salesmen than others, and some are better at
running their businesses than others. But there is an ideal we can
all strive for, and I think capitalism is that ideal.

It is working very well in China right now
Capitalist ideals with Communist government
perhaps you would like us to revert to the Chinese model where
nothing matters but profit.

If everyone was completely free to live and work wherever they pleased, and
there was no government interference, I think it would work very well.
Unfortunately, we don't have pure capitalism here. So its impossible for me
to tell in many cases whether our problems are lack of the pure thing, or
too much of it. Its true that the work force can be taken advantage of in
our system, but then its also true that people have been taken advantage by
one another for thousands of years. (perhaps millions of years) So, how
much can you blame on any one economic system? I have seen people jump over
me in business because of their charisma and/or good looks all of my life.
But I have also seen many who were more disadvantaged than I lose out
because of their misfortune. That's life. I can't complain. I ended up
relatively rich. Now, I just have to watch over it 24/7 to keep my own
government from stealing it from me.

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
No. An anarchist is one who wants no laws. I am a libertarian. I
don't want no laws. I just want no laws that take away one persons
rights without protecting someone else's rights. IOW, if a law
doesn't protect anyone, it shouldn't be on the books. that's simple
enough, isn't it?

_ALL_ laws protect someone. Sometimes, though, there are laws that
protect only one or two people. But even the crazy loopholes in the
tax code protect _someone_.
--scott

Yes. Its a complex system. Its not only the number of people protected, but
the degree to which they are protected. You could make a law that takes all
of Bill Gates' money away from him and distribute it to the rest of the
population. But that would mean that the same thing could be done to anyone
else....Even you. The constitution is what protects Gates, and you, from
that happeneing. It protects the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.
But many laws are not so cut and dried. That is what the supreme courts are
for.

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, your remarks certainly do shout "liberal" to me.
I am sorry we disagree. As a conservative libertarian,
I only want individual responsibility...

I don't think you do. I know of no current political belief that
places any particular emphasis on personal responsibility. If you're
liberal, you believe that government should do almost everything. If
you're conservative, you believe people should do whatever they
like, especially with regard to making money.

It is interesting that in the last Presidential election, of all of
the candidates, there was only one person who said that we all had
tough times ahead and we would all need to buckle down and sacrifice
for the future. There was only one candidate who said anything about
fiscal responsibility. And that candidate was Al Sharpton.

And let me tell you, when Al Sharpton is making more sense than any
of the other candidates, something is horribly, horribly wrong.
--scott

Maybe he's been listening to, (and learning from) Bill Cosby.....

[Bill Graham]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, fascism, but yes. Either end tends toward state
control when you get too far to the extreme.

There is a French expression to the effect that, regardless of which
direction you walk, if you go too far you eventually arrive at the
same point.

Must be Rome.....

[Bill Graham]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, your remarks certainly do shout "liberal" to me.
I am sorry we disagree. As a conservative libertarian,
I only want individual responsibility...

I don't think you do. I know of no current political belief that
places any particular emphasis on personal responsibility. If you're
liberal, you believe that government should do almost everything. If
you're conservative, you believe people should do whatever they
like, especially with regard to making money.

You don't? What about all the liberal welfare programs? The special
low interest loans for fixing up the poor peoples houses. The social
security programs that are breaking the system and causing the
government to borrow money to cover? The millions of unwed mothers
who are on welfare. (I knew several of them when I was young and
living in California) What about Obama's "Caqsh for Clunkers"
program? You don't call these taking away peoples responsibility and
providing taxpayers money for them? Where do you think the money
comes from for all these programs? As a conservative, I don't think
people should do wahtever they like, unless what they do doesn't
take away anyone else's rights. Then they should be allowed to do
it. And, yes, making money is not a bad thing. Everyone should be
allowed.....Hell, encouraged, to do it.

hell while we are cutting out these socialist evils, lets get rid of
the largest socialist part of our society
The Armed forces
lets each take personal responsibility for our own defense.

If the year was -5000, I might agree with you. But organized military
operations have been here for quite a while now, so in order to protect
ourselves, we have to have a standing army. Hence it is one of the necessary
prerogatives of government. I still believe in individual self protection,
however, and that's why we have the second amendment. The police can chase
down the criminals after the fact, but everyone has to be responsible for
their own protection from crime.

[Bill Graham]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
So let me get this right (not being from the USA).

A liberal is somebody tending towards what in the extreme becomes
communism.

A conservative is one who tends towards the direction that in
extreme becomes nazism.

Well, fascism, but yes. Either end tends toward state control when
you get too far to the extreme.

And George Bush was considered by many Americans to be too liberal
? Phew - that, combined with the religous fundamentalism to almost
rival the islamists, is really scary !!!

You're telling me.
--scott

In 8 years, George Bush did almost everything his congress wanted
him to do. The only bill he vetoed in 8 years was that stem cell
research thing, and I wanted him to sign that one. So, if you didn't
like his administration, then put the blame on where it belongs. On
the congress the American people voted in every two years during his
tenure. President have very little power, but they take the blame
for everything.

I suppose you feel the same way twards JFK? Bill Clinton? Millard
Fillmore?

Yes. I was not alive for Fillmore, but for Kennedy and Clinton, I thought
they were both OK.Kennedy was fine in my book until he wanted to go to the
moon. That was a ridiculous fiasco that involved 10x too much money for
something that we could have found out 90% as much about for 10% of the
price. But, what the hell, he was no technician, so he let the science boys
pull the wool over his eyes. I thought Clinton was fine, and the Monika
Lewinski thing was a joke. Only in America.....In France, they were laughing
at us.

[Bill Graham]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
The way to tell is to track the taxes. Do you pay a smaller or
greater percentage of your income in taxes (and other fees)
than you did under the Nixon administration? If you do, then
government has gotten bigger, and this translates to me into,
"More liberal".

No, that's not at all what it means. Redefining "liberal" and
"conservative" is not the solution either.

Note that tax rates for the wealthy today are lower than they
were back then, too. So how you'd answer that question depends
on how much money you make. --scott

To me, its the expectation of how much money you will make in the
future. I have always liked to think of myself as an "up and
coming millionare" I always expected to be wealthy in the
future. I know a lot of people who hated the rich, and wanted to
tax the hell out of them, and never expected themselves to ever
become rich. These are the ones I called liberals, and I still
do. They have the attitude that if you're rich, you must have
stolen the money from the poor, or gotten where you are by
climbing up the backs of the poor. They are the Robin-Hooders
that think everyone who is rich is a thief. This is the face of
liberalism to me.

I feel really sorry for you, if fact you have my PITY
Peace
George

Oh. I forgot to mention. Another thing about liberals is that,
instead of addressing the facts, they say things like, "I feel
really sorry for you, if fact you have my PITY"
Billy, I have not tipped my hand as to my leanings, It is You making
assumptions with out a fact base to make them from.
I am just commenting that your concepts label you a sad sack who's
ranting are petty close to what I hear the hillbillies spouting,
That is not very well thought out , or ahble to absorb complex
realities but I am sure your God loves you :-)
George

You'd be wrong again. I have no God. I am an atheist. Another
assumption that many liberals make about us conservatives. And as my
ability to "absorb complex realities." I have a 143 IQ, and a degree
in Mathematics from The U. of Santa Clara. (1974) So there is
nothing wrong with either my logic or my ability to understand
complexity. But, I have become, during recent years, very interested
in the placebo effect, and what it does to peoples perceptions of
the real world. Unfortuantely, this doesn't add much to my
popularity......

as I said ,you have my pity. I have seen hundreds spout off as your
doing over the decade and a half I have been on line
logic escapes you, balanced thought escapes you
understanding the complexity of society escapes you
and nobody will ever get you to reconsider your positions
for this you have my pity
enjoy your so called life
no more from me lest the readers stop being able to tell the idot
from the replys

A convenient escape. Lets call it, "Escape from Libertarianism" Perhaps I'll
write the book.....

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 12/13/2010 9:21 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

...snip...
[ ... ] I still believe in individual self
protection, however, and that's why we have the second amendment. The
police can chase down the criminals after the fact, but everyone has to
be responsible for their own protection from crime.
Except in New Jersey where legal transport of a firearm
[locked in the trunk with ammunition removed]can net you
7 years in prison.


Later...
Ron Capik
--

[William Sommerwerck]

Kennedy was fine in my book until he wanted to go to the
moon. That was a ridiculous fiasco that involved 10x too
much money for something that we could have found out
90% as much about for 10% of the price.

There was a "space race", and many Americans were worried the Commies would
beat us to the moon. One of the "good" things about Communism is that it's
such a screwed-up economic system it's hard to get anything done.

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:

In 8 years, George Bush did almost everything his congress wanted him to do.
The only bill he vetoed in 8 years was that stem cell research thing, and I
wanted him to sign that one. So, if you didn't like his administration, then
put the blame on where it belongs. On the congress the American people voted
in every two years during his tenure. President have very little power, but
they take the blame for everything.

This is true, but by the same token you can point out that this was a sign
he had no intention of thinking for himself but just went and signed anything
Congress gave him. You could also make a good argument that Congress just
passed everything that Bush jr. asked them to... I don't think that's true
but I have heard good arguments for it.

You could also take the conspiracy argument and suggest that the Congress
and Bush both did whatever Cheney told them to do. I doubt this was the
case, or at least I hope not, but there are no good arguments against it.

It is always a bad sign when people are just passing laws without spending
time arguing about them. Democracy works when people argue about things.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

It is always a bad sign when people are just passing laws
without spending time arguing about them. Democracy works
when people argue about things.

No, democracy works only when intelligent, thoughtful people argue about
things.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
It is always a bad sign when people are just passing laws
without spending time arguing about them. Democracy works
when people argue about things.

No, democracy works only when intelligent, thoughtful people argue about
things.

Point taken.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Kennedy was fine in my book until he wanted to go to the
moon. That was a ridiculous fiasco that involved 10x too
much money for something that we could have found out
90% as much about for 10% of the price.

There was a "space race", and many Americans were worried the Commies
would beat us to the moon. One of the "good" things about Communism
is that it's such a screwed-up economic system it's hard to get
anything done.

It got the first man into space ....

geoff

[geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
It is always a bad sign when people are just passing laws
without spending time arguing about them. Democracy works
when people argue about things.

No, democracy works only when intelligent, thoughtful people argue
about things.

Which makes it a worry when the media fauns upon stupid people arguing about
things. Stupid people that are in danger of running the country.

geoff

[Bill Graham]

Ron Capik wrote:
On 12/13/2010 9:21 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

...snip...
[ ... ] I still believe in individual self
protection, however, and that's why we have the second amendment. The
police can chase down the criminals after the fact, but everyone has
to be responsible for their own protection from crime.
Except in New Jersey where legal transport of a firearm
[locked in the trunk with ammunition removed]can net you
7 years in prison.


Later...
Ron Capik

Yeah....Well, remind me to stay away from NJ. But, if I were caught with a
pistol in my trunk, I would take it to the SC, where today, it would be
thrown out as a clear violation of the 2nd amendment. How long that would be
true, I can't say. It not only violates the second amendment, but very
likely the forth, if the arresting officers had no good reason to search
your trunk.

[Bill Graham]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Kennedy was fine in my book until he wanted to go to the
moon. That was a ridiculous fiasco that involved 10x too
much money for something that we could have found out
90% as much about for 10% of the price.

There was a "space race", and many Americans were worried the Commies
would beat us to the moon. One of the "good" things about Communism
is that it's such a screwed-up economic system it's hard to get
anything done.

Yes. I had a friend back in the 70's who had a PhD in political science, and
spoke Russian. He used to go to Russia frequently and he knew some of the
high-up politicians there. He told me that you would go into a restaurant,
and sit there for perhaps an hour of more while the help laughed and talked
in the kitchen before someone would come out to take your order. You know
what you were going to order, because every restaurant in town served the
same thing on that particular day. These people got paid the same whether
they did any work or not, so who cared? It didn't matter whether the
restaurant made any money or not, either. So, there was no incentive to do
anything at all. The whole country was going broke, and my friend knew it.
So did Ronald Regan.....

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:
The whole country was going broke, and my friend knew it.
So did Ronald Regan.....

I find it hilarious that folks talked for seventy years about how the Soviet
system would collapse under its own weight, and then when it finally did
the same people gave all the credit for the collapse to Reagan....
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill wrote:
The whole country was going broke, and my friend knew it.
So did Ronald Regan.....

I find it hilarious that folks talked for seventy years about how the Soviet
system would collapse under its own weight, and then when it finally did
the same people gave all the credit for the collapse to Reagan....
--scott




The people who said it would collapse under its own weight were
different people from who gave Reagan credit. The latter group,
the Neocons, had invented the "Russian Superman Myth" and had
to have a prime cause for the collapse...

--
Les Cargill