Liberal skydivers unite

[SkydivingNurse 0]

Dyslexic Skydivers of the world, UNTIE!!!!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Dyslexic Skydivers of the world, UNTIE!!!!

This thread should be on fire by now...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[champu 1]

Quote

Dyslexic Skydivers of the world, UNTIE!!!!

I'm a victim of lysdexia,
if it don't get no worse,
that be nicer.

'Cause I'd bottom my tops on the put,
'an versa vicer.

long a sing!
long a sing!

body, every long a sing!

[FunBobby 0]

Okay there, bud, hang on a sec....

As you probably can guess, I'm not here to sign up for your organization. I’m not here to dump on it, either. Nor am I here to comment on any of the issues that have been raised in this thread. If I may, though, I'd like to offer a polite and well-meaning observation and a suggestion.

Before I get to those, though, lemme say a few other things. Good on you for having well defined political views. Better on you for being well informed than most about the issues on which you base those views. And even better on you for having the fervor to speak up on your opinion. Hell, I enjoy reading your posts from time to time and have even stepped up to joust with you a few times. I don't agree with everything that you write or think, but hey, everyone’s entitled to their opinions - that goes both ways, btw. Like someone said in an earlier post, it makes for juicy threads in the forums.

Getting to that observation I promised….

One thing that was a pleasant surprise to me when I first started jumping years ago was how unpolitical the dropzone was - at least in the sense of libertarianism and conservatism. And I’ve found that that’s really kind of the same case at all the dropzones where I’ve jumped. Oh, there are staunch conservatives and liberals alike at all DZs. I jump at Skydive San Diego, and the folks here run the gamut. There are a lot of servicemen out here as the DZ has a huge contract for training military jumpers; also, a whole bunch of guys from the SEAL teams jump out here for fun. Those guys are as conservative as they come. And yes, there are lots and lots of liberals here too. But you know, aside from the military folks, it takes a while to figure out who’s who because when people show up in the morning, they are first and foremost skydivers…. folks who come to the DZ to make jumps, meet other skydivers, and have fun. There’s a great vibe out here and I’d say that in general, folks get along really well, make lots of awesome skydives (and really cool swoops!) and enjoy each other’s company sharing jokes over beers and/or dinner long after sunset. Oh, there are a few - a very few - political debates every now and then in the packing area, but for the most part, people leave their political views at home or wait to bring those out until after the jumpers on the sunset tracking dive have landed.

Uniting for a cause is great. I applaud the successes of Mallory Lewis and Kate Cooper and all the jumpers in the “Jump for the Cause” events; I think the Pink Mafia does good work in promoting skydiving among women, as do events like the “Chicks Rock” boogies - truth be told, men are apt to make more skydives at that event as well. Great organizations there and events there. But a political organization for skydivers? Hmmmmmm. That’s different - politics can be very divisive. Might wanna think of that.

Okay, I’ve started into that suggestion.

Like I said, good on you for wanting to do something with your political views. But consider carefully the course you set if it involves skydiving and your dropzone. If there’s even a chance that it might alienate anyone at a DZ, consider your course even more carefully. The formation of exclusive groups and cliques can kill good vibes and generate resentment really fast at a DZ. There’s one thing that’s quicker, though: dropzone politics. Keep that in mind, too.

It seems to me that some of the most well liked jumpers at the dropzones where I’ve jumped are those who have, among other things, left the politics at home or in the forums on this website; I think most skydivers, conservative or liberal, would rather not see the DZ become a political arena or forum. (Anyone? Bueller?) Whatever the wishes are of the skydivers around you, try to be respectful of those.

Good luck.

Bobby

[mjosparky 4]

Door slamming What was that noise? Benny sneaking out But he was going to explain "Realistic, historically consistent national security policy." to all of us.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

I see you're attempting to unite with no stated goal. Liberal organization at its best.

A suggestion for the group: take back your party. A worthy goal, the achievement of which would greatly benefit the nation.

Hmm, stated goals:

Progessive system of taxation.

Realistic, historically consistent national security policy.

Support for public education.

Realistic consideration of family planning.

Not sending our troops to war unless absolutely necessary.

What part of that agenda do you object to?

What?! A liberal agenda with no GUN CONTROL at the top of the list?

Oh, wait, that's right -- they've decided to keep that part deathly quiet because they know it cuts their throats in every election because intelligent voters know that gun control is abject stupidity and futility interwoven into a nice faggotized doily. Nope, we don't expect to hear dems singing the mantra of gun-control for at least an election cycle or two. This does not mean they haven't given up their grand, useless experiment in voluntary victimhood and unilateral disarmament: just that they know everyone hates them for trying to force it upon us.

It's far too late for the dems to save face while at the same time admitting that their insistence on useless bans and restrictions has never made anything one iota better or safer. They'd rather go down with that particular ship, apparently, and I say good riddance. That's what happens to people who are too small to admit they were wrong and go with what makes sense, even if it was the other guy's idea.

---Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[n2skdvn 0]

I agree with funbobby i dont goto the DZ to get into debates about bush,dean,kerry...ect. I go there to jump, with anyone who wants to.it is also the reason you rarely see me on a political thread.

if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN
my site

[Luna 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

sorry I am LIBERTARIAN not LIBERAL

but good luck with that.

we welcome you too, after all the policies of GWB could hardly be called libertarian

I thought this was a Liberals Unite thread not a Bush Basher's Rally?

Oh wait it must be the same thing. Uh thanks but no thanks.

I was just trying to be inclusive....

No, Benny, if you were trying to be inclusive, you would not have started a thread like this. The last thing that you are being is inclusive. Don't delude yourself.

I'm walking a marathon to raise money for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Click Here for more information!

[Luv2Fall 0]

I love ya, Heather!

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I see you're attempting to unite with no stated goal. Liberal organization at its best.

A suggestion for the group: take back your party. A worthy goal, the achievement of which would greatly benefit the nation.

Hmm, stated goals:

Progessive system of taxation.
[And exactly where does the taxation stop? Are we allowed to keep any of our money, or is it the governments responsibility]

Realistic, historically consistent national security policy.
[Describe more in detail how you would stop a crisis like 9/11]

Support for public education.
[I believe that the Federal spending on education has gone up at least 30% and there is a policy of "leave no child behind - so that is a mute point]

Realistic consideration of family planning.
[What would this entail, forced abortion or forced sterilization?]

Not sending our troops to war unless absolutely necessary.
[That is the goal of every one - Saddam Hussain HAD to be taken out of power, he supported terrorism, funded terrorism, and made a spiffy little example that we will keep our word, an example that has been lacking until this administration.]

What part of that agenda do you object to?

[I believe the above would explain that]

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[melstarr 0]

Quote

four words that sum up, 100% why Edwards, Kerry, Dean or anyone will not win election this year:

Hillary Clinton in 2008.

LOL ~ gawain ~ that's EXACTLY right!

oh benny, you are too funny with all of your little political threads the skydiving community is Very Small to begin with...and the skydivers who read the politcal threads/reply are even Smaller --- you will "unite" among the Same individuals who always agree with you and debate with those who don't. you know that the true point of this thread is just another debate: republicans vs. democrats ~ then once it dies ~ you will start up another with a different subject**

i like your fire benny, it burns bright...but water is Everywhere ~

~ meL* Pink Mafia / Tunnel Mafia Sister

[kallend 2,105]

Quote

Iraq - perhaps, but still justifiable. Not the road I would have chosen, but like you, I don't have an intelligence apparatus providing me information - GWB does.

But does he listen to it, or just the parts he wants to hear? Is our intelligence apparatus really so inept as the WMD debacle makes it look?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

sorry I am LIBERTARIAN not LIBERAL

but good luck with that.

we welcome you too, after all the policies of GWB could hardly be called libertarian

No, but voting Democrat to address the shortcomings of Republicans is like a dog rolling in particularly fragrant excreta to get rid of that "wet dog" smell. It's a change that is hardly an improvement.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

sorry I am LIBERTARIAN not LIBERAL

but good luck with that.

we welcome you too, after all the policies of GWB could hardly be called libertarian

No, but voting Democrat to address the shortcomings of Republicans is like a dog rolling in particularly fragrant excreta to get rid of that "wet dog" smell. It's a change that is hardly an improvement.


Blue skies,

Winsor

Nice Analogy. That logical path is similar to laws of physics - you can look at it any way you want to, but there are just some things you can't deny.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I see you're attempting to unite with no stated goal. Liberal organization at its best.

Had to re-read that. At first glance, I thought it read "I see you're attempting to urinate with no stated goal."

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

I see you're attempting to unite with no stated goal. Liberal organization at its best.

A suggestion for the group: take back your party. A worthy goal, the achievement of which would greatly benefit the nation.

Hmm, stated goals:

Progessive system of taxation.

Realistic, historically consistent national security policy.

Support for public education.

Realistic consideration of family planning.

Not sending our troops to war unless absolutely necessary.

What part of that agenda do you object to?

The progressive taxation bit is particularly offensive.

If I were to, say, spend a decade in poverty working my ass off to get a bunch of degrees, my reward would be to pay a higher percent of my resultant income NOT to repay debts incurred in getting so situated, but to subsidize "unfortunates" and their progeny. I'm not buying it.

This socialistic concept that you should only have so much money after taxes, regardless of how much you make, is criminally stupid.

With a flat tax, someone making twice as much pays twice as much. They still don't get more services for their money - in fact, they are likely to receive less. They are more likely to send their kids to private schools and colleges, while the offspring of indigents are likely to get a free ride from Head Start to Grad School.

This is why I see that bastion of the Liberal ethos, the Democratic Party, as the natural choice for losers, deadbeats and parasites.

Physicians are predominantly Republican, Attorneys are predominantly Democrat.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[andrewstewart 0]

Quote

A suggestion for the group: take back your party. A worthy goal, the achievement of which would greatly benefit the nation.

I could make the exact same criticism of the republican party. How exactly is the republican party the party of "smaller government"? Government spending is absolutely enormous now. Or "fiscal responsibility"? The deficit has reached untold levels. And what did you think of the obviously political move that bush made on immigration? It didn't exactly jibe with republican voters, did it.

It's best not to make a criticism that equally applies to yourself. That's called hypocrasy.

[andrewstewart 0]

Quote

because intelligent voters know that gun control is abject stupidity and futility interwoven into a nice faggotized doily.

I am very surprised that the moderators allowed you to get away with saying "faggot".

[andrewstewart 0]

Quote

With a flat tax, someone making twice as much pays twice as much. They still don't get more services for their money - in fact, they are likely to receive less. They are more likely to send their kids to private schools and colleges, while the offspring of indigents are likely to get a free ride from Head Start to Grad School.

Well, I am in the highest tax bracket and I'm not complaining about it. And I'm going to send my kid to public school (just like me).

Quote

This is why I see that bastion of the Liberal ethos, the Democratic Party, as the natural choice for losers, deadbeats and parasites.

Well since the democratic candidiate received over 50% of the popular vote in the last election, you're saying that the majority of american citizens are "losers, deadbeats and parasites?". Uh huh.

Quote

Physicians are predominantly Republican, Attorneys are predominantly Democrat.

Got proof?

[andrewstewart 0]

Quote

The Clintons, as much as I despise their flavor of politics, are masters at the game. No way will they let a dem get elected this year. Their hunger for power is unmatched anywhere in the universe.

Did Rush tell you all this? Because he must have been drugged up to the eyeballs at the time.

Do you really think that the Clintons have so much "power" that they can ensure that a Democrat won't get elected in the upcoming presidential election? Do they have some sort of mind control ray that they fire from their lair in Brooklyn?

How about you lay the proof on us.

[mjosparky 4]

Argue just to argue. You have yet to "lay proof" on any of your claims.
I smell Troll.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Argue just to argue. You have yet to "lay proof" on any of your claims.
I smell Troll.

The only claims he made are about the budget and deficit. Are you disputing that?

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

Argue just to argue. You have yet to "lay proof" on any of your claims.
I smell Troll.

The only claims he made are about the budget and deficit. Are you disputing that?

Check his post history.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Lee03 0]

Benny,

Surly, you knew that this thread would draw considerable flak before you posted it. I'm not here to crack on you, bash you , or slam you for your ideals, but since you ask:

"What part of that agenda do you object to?"

I'll give you my objections, and the reasons why I object.

I believe you to be an educated man, and I would imagine you have read "The Communist Manifesto", written by Karl Marx. If not, I would suggest you read it, you might be surprised. In it, Marx states 10 steps, tennants, planks, or whatever you want to call them of the road to Communism. Says that these are the things that must occur in order for a government to be turned to Communism. One of them, (bear in mind, I'm paraphrasing here)

1. A progressive system of taxation.

Marx uses the words increasing and burdensom in it as wel, but the fact is that any progressive system of taxation grows larger, and becomes increasingly budersom to the people forced to live under it!

This part of the agenda I disagree with!

2. Support for public education.

Marx states that the government take over control of the school system and use them as transmission bands to indoctrinate pupils with Communist and Socialist idologicly!

This part of the agenda I disagree with!

I also object to Government controlled "family planning". This equals, as someone above in the thread pointed out, FORCED abortion, FORCED sterilization (this was a common practice in the old Soviet Union, is common in Communist China right now) Government mandated FORCED sex education, run by the government, teaching whatever sexual practices, acts, believes, etc the government deems necessary! In otherwords, freedom of choice is completely wiped out, you accept the morals, believes of the state, or else! There is no choice!

This part of the agenda I disagree with!

As to a consistent policy on national security, from what I saw, in twenty years of service in the military, (which IS the security of the nation) whenever a liberal adminstration was in control, the military, i.e. national security/defense, was neglected, cut back to bare bones, malined, insulted, debased and degraded! Liberal adminstrations seek to either let the military fall into a state of disrepair and unreadiness (the "paper tiger/hollow military) or to dismantle it as much as possible!

This part of the agenda I disagree with!

Finally, not going to war unless absolutly necessary. That I can agree with, but anytime there is a threat to this nation, that is the number one necessity for goimng to war! You may debait that Hussain was not a direct threat to the U.S. I will heartly disagree. Threats come in many layers and levels. While he may not have been a direct threat to attack this nation, he possesed (This guy Kay said that there were no WMD, but what he also said, that the news media conviently neglected to report, was that the WMDs that he had were probably sent to Syria!) WMDs, or the ability to produce them, and he would have had no problem delievering them the another nation, such as N. Korea, that had the ability to deliver them to this country, or to terrorist groups to be used against this country! Therefore he was a threat to this nation, and I believe is all the justification that we needed to attack Iraq, and rid ourselves of the threat that he posed! As I said, when, in any way, a country is or is preceived to be a threat to this nation, I feel it necessary justification to go to war.

Bear in mind, that although I voted for Bush, and will again, I actually disagree with quite a few things he, or those that he has appointed, has/have done. I am strongly against the so called "Patriot Act", see it as one of the most vial assaults on freedom that this country has ever seen. I think the so called "Department of Homeland Security" is anything but! Tom Ridge is an idiot, and so is the entire organization that he heads! Ashcroft scares the Hell out of me, he is an assault on personal freedom and liberity! This being said, though Bush and his adminstration are not the best that this nation has ever seen, he, and it were the only choice that I could make, with a clear consience, as I hekld my nose and punched the ballot! Voting for me has become, basically, an exercise in the voting privledge, nothing else, as I do not trust any of the individuals or partuies that the come from. I vote for what I consider to be the lesser of two evils!

Again, my reply was not a bash, slam or crack at you. You ask what part of the agenda was disagreed with, well, you have your answer, and the reasons why I disagree.

--------
To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities.

--Nevil Shute, Slide Rule

[lawrocket 3]

Hmm, stated goals:

Progessive system of taxation.
By this, do you mean equality of net income across the board? And by this, do you mean "equal misery for all?"

Realistic, historically consistent national security policy.
I hate to break it to you, my friend, but you can toss "historically consistent national security policy" out the window. "Historically consistent" would be to re-up all our nukes and keep them aimed at the Warsaw Pact nations. A lot of fucking good that'll do.

Support for public education.
I notice you did not say an "historically consistent support for federalized public education." Why not? Because that's what we've done for the past 40 years. Do you really want to support those same results?

Realistic consideration of family planning.
How's this? "If you can't feed em, don't breed em." Realistic enough for society's goals? Then join our side. Also, note the lack of personal choice (the liberal call to arms) in a policy of "family planning." Sounds inherently communist. Remember, Chairman Mao had a "realistic consideration of family planning." It was called infanticide.

Not sending our troops to war unless absolutely necessary.
Dang. I agree with you on that. Now, state for me the factors of "absolutely necessary" so we can get the subjective elements out of the way."

What part of that agenda do you object to?

Objections in Italics...

My wife is hotter than your wife.