Skydiving graduate
21 messages in this thread
Uh…. David…. Prove What!
Mr. C. has already UnProved Himself. If your still supporting him then I don't
know what to say to you.
James.
O-o-o-h-h-h! You meant Bill CLINTON!!! I didn't know that. Never heard him
called Bubba before. And, yes I still support him. I think the Republican and
conservative Democrats throwing roadblocks in his path are doing so for their
own benefit and for the benefit of those wealthy levels of society that stand
to gain the most (or lose the least) by maintaining the status quo. For that
matter, the man was elected on the premise of a change in direction. If Perot
had not re-entered the race, Clinton would have had a MUCH larger majority than
he did. As for me, I am absolutely and adamantly opposed to Reaganomics and
Bush's Wimponomics, the former of which I was in California to witness while he
(Reagan) screwed an entire state. I was stunned and appalled when he was
elected President. For the first time, I voted for someone I didn't want
(Carter) in an attempt to keep him out of office. People are now getting what
they deserve in the way of an economy, if they voted for that …PERson. At
least Bill Clinton is trying to make an alteration to the way things are being
done, here, which is WAY more than you can say for those other two. Sh*t, Bush
had never seen a bar-code scanner until 1992. That shows how far away from
reality he and those he represents are. Of course Rush and other hard-right
personages are knee-jerking that Bill is just another tax-and-spend Democrat.
Easy for them to say now, after the Bobsy Twins ran the deficit up by *orders
of magnitude* on one hand while saying they were reducing the size of
government on the other. What a bunch of ^&#%#^$&%#* liars!!!! Don't get me
going, here, Jim!! If you don't know what to say to me, OK. I, however, know
exACTly what to say about the last 12 years of government in this country,
about the world-wide swing toward right-wing religious extremism, about the
very real potential for neo-fascism and stylish bigotry in this country. I'm
just SO disappointed that a former Rainbow person could have swallowed the
party line of those who brought us Watergate, the Tet offensive, Kent State,
Iran-Contra and a whole HOST of other illegal and immoral activities designed
to *shaft us* (and the 3rd World) while trying to convince us it's "all for our
own good"! Yeah, right! I could almost agree with the John Birch society that
there's a plot to control the world by the Rothchilds, Bilderbergers and
whomever. Arrgghh! I'm going to go chew and claw something to pieces, now.
Pardon me a moment….
David {What me opinionated?} Taffet
Uh…David…. refresh my memory will you…who was the controlling party in
power for the past 30 years….you know…Congress! You can't make me beleive
that whomever happens to be President is any REAL controlling factor as far as
the REAL business that gets done in this country. I think you really need to
study this further. If you give me your address or any address you can pick up
UPS at, I will personally Buy you your own Copy of Rush Limbaugh's " The Way
things Ought To Be".
Certainly I don't swallow the Tons of Bull being dished out by both parties
but have you really read the Constitution Latley. How bout' the bill of
rights. We've come a long way Baby….In the Wrong Direction. I certainly
don't feel that Socialism is the Answer. That sounds like what your talking
about. I don't think you've really thought this through for yourself.
Sure a lot of crap goes on no matter who is president. I think we're not
focusing on the real problem…The real problem isn't who's President. The
real problem has been and is Congress, The Lobbiests, and the Militarial
Industrial Complex. The (Republican) President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us
about this in his farwell speech way back when. You should get a copy…it's
interesting reading. Especially coming form a former four star General and
"War" Hero.
As for Rush Limbaugh…I don't agree with everything he says
(sometimes I think he's rude and insensitive towards women) but a lot of it
needs to be said. He is after all an Entertainer and not to be taken any more
serious than any of the other "HollyWood" types. As far as your comment about
["them" & *shaft us*] remember POGO saidk, "We have met the Enemy and He is
Us."
How bout' it David. If you'll promise to read the book I'll Buy it and Send it
to you?
James M. Murphy
Thanks, I've seen Rush's book already. I am, by the way, not an "ist" of any
sort, social or otherwise. I know Congress has had the greatest influence over
enactment of law in the country, ever since the US was formed in its current
incarnation, not just in the last 30 years. I DO, however, believe that the
President has real influence over attitudes and the general tenor of Congress
and the public. It's also the case (if *you* put more study and thought into it
you'd know) that the goals and agenda of the Republican party have changed
radically since WWII. Reagan marked an extreme point in the curve of departure
from the former mainstream of Republican thought. Carter was absolutely right
when he pointed out in the televised debates that Reagan did not represent ANY
vector, let's call it, previously followed by ANY major political party. His
"position" represents a schism in the continuity of government in this country
that let in all sorts of foul a-political influences. Those debates are where
Reagan really won over the American people who barely speak English enough to
recognize what a fool the man made of himself as well as those who saw a chance
to carve a bigger portion of the pie for themselves. And I *must* take issue
with your suggestion that where we are now is some sort of linear result of the
last 30 years of Congressional error. Just look up the public record of debt
over that period of time and see for yourself the SPIKE that formed in the
curve during Reagan's terms (after he inSISted that he was going to balance the
budget that Carter and the Democratic party supposedly wrecked – sounds
amazingly current, don' it?) and then come up with a good argument to
demonstrate that the President has no "real influence" over what happens in the
US. I have, indeed, thought this through, quite thoroughly, from the time I was
in Vietnam right thru to today when there is finally someone in the oval office
who at least SAYS things that suggest that money and business *might* not be
the be-all and end-all of life on Earth. If I'm an "ist" at all, I'm an
Organism-ist. I think countries and planets flourish in the same way that
organisms do and that the "plan" espoused by the current Republican cum
religious right represents a life style that would kill an organism that tried
to follow it. I find it stunningly mind-boggling that… aw, ferget it. I'll
never shut up, at this rate.
OK, everybody. I officially step off the soap box. No more diatribes, I
promise. (for at least a month…)
LaTER,
DT
David…I don't quite know how to say this so I'll Just Say it.
You seem to have some sort of problem with "Religion"…You've taken a shot at
the "Religious Right" in every diatrabe so far.
America has embarked upon a path of socializm, are you aware of the "religious
nature of the Constitution _And_ the Declaration of Independence? Evidently
you've forgotten the Christian foundation upon which this nation is reared and
the importance of its relation to the form of government established by the
Constitution.
We as a people, are allowing ourselves to become separated from the keystone of
our national structure – our Christian heritage. By omission, America has
deflected into socialism. The keystone in the arch of our national structure
has been loosened.
In proportion as Americans let go of faith in the absolute power of God, they
have accepted the belief in an all powerful State. This is true of peoples or
nations, for their idea of God determines the form of their civil, political,
religious and social institutions. "Communisim" and "Socialism" are anti-God
and anti-Christian; the battle against communism and socialism never was, and
is not now, just economic and political; it is religious.
Shall Christianity be taken captive?
Today, when thinking and talking in terms of civil government, our ignorance of
fundamental Christian history in the founding of our country becomes at once
apparent. We invariably reject or misconstrue references to the word Christian
– in relation to civil governments – as being doctrinal and sectarian. Our
Christian history as a nation does not involve doctrinal or sectarian views,
and our failure to understand this, largely contributes to the present
disregard of Christianity in relation to civil government. Each religion has a
form of government, and Christianity astonished the world by establishing
self-government. With the landing of the Pilgrims in 1620, Christian
self-government became the foundation stone of the United States of America.
"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner."
(Psalm 118:22; Matt. 21:42.
I have much to say on this subject but I think you get my point.
James
BOY, do I wish I hadn't said I'd get off the soapbox, NOW!!! Whew! (Those poor
Jews, Buddhists, Native Americans, Hindus, Mormans, etc., etc., etc., etc.
Religious freedom guaranteed? Ha!)
DT
Jes' tryen ta' sauv' yaw immmotal soul. <g>
James
Oh, puh-leez!
Oh my gosh! Did I accidently get in with the wackos in the Whitehouse forum?
David, really now, you need to get hold of yourself. Calm down, develop a
sense of humor and make a life for yourself. Otherwise, the men in white coats
will come and lock you up!
>>the men in white coats will come and lock you up<<
Thanks, I been already. I converted my doctor and they let me out.
As far as a sense of humor, you should see my Daffy Duck impression. Or my sea
bass… I do a great sea bass. <g> no, no, I mean <G> or is that <BG>,
whatever.
<<<Arrgghh! I'm going to go chew and claw something to pieces, now. Pardon me a
moment….
Daffy Duck?… Great Sea Bass?… I don't think so. Maybe Great White Shark!
No apologies for being a political bigot. Periodically I rave passionately
about it. In between I'm just like mild-mannered Clark Kent (except with a
sense of humor). Really! And no apologies about that either. But BOY! Some of
Jim Murphy's comments really pull my trigger! Sheesh! (shaking my head)
DT
I didn't ask for apologies, David, I was very much concerned that you were
coming unglued. Its OK to be passionate about something you believe in.
I must admit though if I had to choose between you and Jim as my negotiator I
think the choice would be easy. His comments are well thought out and
presented in a logical manner. On the other hand you came across angry,
psychotic, almost mad. I was just concerned we were about to loose a fellow
3Dstudio forum member to the luny farm. Anyway, your luny sense of humor has
been most entertaining, ie I don't take anything you say (political) seriously.
;>)
Don –
>>concerned that you were coming unglued<<
Not a chance. That just means that my attempt to paint an image of a spitting,
frothy-mouthed bug-eyed personage was successful. I wish I were more capable of
coming unglued. I'd be a better guitar player.
>>His comments are well thought out and presented in a logical manner.<<
Surely you jest!?! I'll have to go back and re-download that thread to see if I
missed some subtle glue of ideation that I was too dense to pick up on the
first time. At the risk of.. whatever…did *you* think Reagan did well in the
debates with Carter?
D {loony…And, Loving It} T
P.S. Well, I did re-download those messages and, for the life of me, I can't
find less logical progression in my own and certainly not more in his. I can
only conclude that your comment actually meant "I agree with Jim." If, however,
I were actually trying to present ideas in a logical manner I'd compose you a
real essay, complete with statistics and bibliography to demonstrate that my
rantings are solidly based on observation, research and the public record. I
intended to rant and did quite effectively, I think. I have not taken the
effort to put an argument on paper for several years, but I'd consider it if I
thought there would be a real purpose, i.e. it would do any good.
David,
What's the big deal? I think Ronald Reagan did quite a good job playing the
part of President.<g> It's the producers and directors I'd be more afraid of.
<g>
Roger D.
Don't forget the special efects crew…
I'm with you, RD. Of course it's Clinton's relative lack of producers and
directors that makes him look so unpolished.
<<image of a spitting, frothy-mouthed bug-eyed personage>>
>>close to my reference to the Great White Shark
<<At the risk of.. whatever…did *you* think Reagan did well in the debates
with Carter?
>> Irrelevant issue! I don't discuss the finer points of 3Dstudio in church
sunday morning and likewise reserve my opinions on political, religous, sex
issues for forums appropriate to the subject.
<<I'd compose you a real essay, complete with statistics and bibliography to
demonstrate that my rantings are solidly based on observation, etc.
>>Please, David, spare us all. We really would rather you spend your time
working on something of benefit to the forum members. You see, I can get
gratuitous political nonsense from anyone on the street so why would I ever pay
premium $ to access it on this fine forum about 3Dstudio?
Let's get some perspective, here. I was having a *brief* amiable conversation
with Martin Foster when Jim came in with a pretty irrelevant slam about
Clinton. I responded strongly because I feel strongly. I also said I'd stop
because I'm quite sensitive to the fact that these messages cost $. However,
this IS a thread about skydiving, so I can't feel TOO bad about it. And despite
the fact that the concurrent debate on the forum is about what is art and who
is an artist, it has no more relevance to 3DS usage than this does. Haven't
seen any complaints about it, tho'. And the comment about Reagan was not
irrelevant. It was a thinly veiled pop in the chops suggesting that if you
think Jim's comments were more logical than mine then you may have also thought
that Ron comported himself well in the debates. He did not.
Wow! what a change in attitude! Your response was very logical, factual, and
convincing. You must have gotten a good night's sleep or something. But, so
there is no reading between the lines I will repeat and clarify my comments to
you.
I never said I agreed with Jim's views. You drew that conclusion because I did
say I thought he was a better, more logical negotiator (in what he presented).
Your question regarding Reagon debates to me was irrelevant TO ME on this forum
for the reason stated. I'm not at all interested in discussing politics with
you here.
I do feel a discussion of art is relevant to this forum because it is one of
the end results of the product 3Dstudio. Skydiving is interesting to me only
because it is a discussion of an activity by a forum member. I even offered
some of my knowledge of hypothermia to those long distance swimmers here on the
forum. You see it relates directly to the well being of a forum member. Now
if Clinton should decide to Propose a Tax on graphics service bureaus or
something the like: I think that political subject would be quite appropriate
for forum discussion and I would get involved. And, just so there is no
confusion, David, these are MY views on how and what I get involved in and not
to say you or anyone else is wrong for doing otherwise. If you wish to hear
what my particular political preference is I would be happy to continue this on
another forum appropriate to the subject.
I'm glad you sound like you're altogether again.
Thank you for the supportive comments Don.
James