ianmdrennan

Rush, While I would hate for facts to get in your way, not that you've suffered that plight before, here's some stuff from the most unlikely of sources....Fox News: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/fox-news-sally-kohn-paul-ryan_n_1842580.html?1346336378&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009 http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/#ixzz251rvLkSe Performance Designs Factory Team

You are correct - I totally misread his post. My apologies, Chris. Performance Designs Factory Team

Thats because you have no idea what goes into being a good canopy pilot. You're entitled to that opinion, however wrong it may be. Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Tell me something I don't know

*cough* * Power first * Control second * Safety, a distant 3rd. NEVER give up the gates, and always trust your rears. You may now carry on, corrected

Earl Davis Jr just schooled a ton of people on his Sabre 2 120 at Pink Open in Klatovy loaded around 1.8 Super impressed with his skills on a 'big' canopy at a very high level meet. Performance Designs Factory Team

Where is government in that quote? Besides the fact that the statement is 100% true of anyone (none of us are truly self made, we've all had help from parents, mentors, someone who gave us a break at some point when we didn't earn it - whatever). I arrived in this country with $3000 (I sold everything I owned except a few clothes, and my skydiving rig). I was lucky enough to get a break, of all places, folding mail in a mail room for $5 an hr. Then on to landscaping, and finally on to my studied profession (computer science). I now own 2 houses, make a great living, have a wonderful family, and have plenty of toys (it certainly wasn't always so). I'm not afraid of hard work, any work, at all. BUT I definitely had breaks along the way. I strongly believe this to be true of all successful people (not limited to successful people mind you). I just don't see the big deal about the quote. edit: I won't argue that the last sentence in the quote isn't unnecessarily harsh, but the point of it is certainly accurate. Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/classifieds/detail_page.cgi?ID=130952;d=1 Performance Designs Factory Team

Send me your address - I'll ship you my copy (if I can find it)

The point is, Obama won't put a plan out there for us to look at. Strange youu would think it's more important for a guy who is runnung for President to present a more detailed budget but are OK with the guy who is President using smoke and mirrors. *sigh* I never said it was ok the Dems didn't have a good plan. In fact, I called it pathetic in the very post you responded to. That said it STILL doesn't make the Ryan "plan" any better. It's more like the Ryan "idea/concept". When it comes to details, no-one seems to be delivering the specifics on the HOW. That's the problem. Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

I fail to see how the lack of budget plan from the Democrats (as pathetic as that may be) invalidates the smoke and mirrors of the Ryan plan. It's not unreasonable for people to ask what these loopholes, etc that will be closed/addressed are. Since that seems to be the linchpin on whether or not the plan is actually financially viable. Ian ps: I plan to end world hunger I will do that by feeding people. Performance Designs Factory Team

No worries, buddy. Easy mistake to make. Even when I wrote about the post I was quoting, I got it wrong

I feel sorry for you, so much anger. I'm very, very happy without your faith in my life. More so than I ever was in Christianity - and evidently far more happy than you are with your life based on how angry you are most of the time (or at least your online persona) The point of my post was missed, as usual, by you - and ironically, proved at the same time. edit: The phrasing in my original statement was unclear/poor. It's not "my faith", but rather the "Christian faith". Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

I always looked at this part: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--" When I was in school, the term Creator had one meaning. For me it still does. I can definitely see why you'd interpret it that way. And for you, and your faith, that makes total sense. I think it's not unreasonable to argue that people of other faiths would draw the same conclusion about who the "creator" was based on their own belief structure. Most religions have a 'creator/god' and reference them as such. I don't think it's a Christian monopoly. edit: fwiw, this is the most enjoyable conversation I'd had with you Ron, even though we both feel differently about the topic.

Why would I squirm? Right now there's a discussion going on, and your POV hasn't been proved. If anyone should be squirming, it's you my friend. Your posts, their tone, and often their venom are a constant reminder of why I moved away from my faith. If anything, I'd argue that attitudes like yours do more damage than good to the faith you profess to love so much. Performance Designs Factory Team

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html The only reference to god in this document is "Natures God". I wouldn't call that a Christian reference (although I could see how someone of Christian faith would take it that way). Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Oh, he's mentioned in there. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html I searched for "God" and "Christian" - didn't find any hits in the text. Not saying you're wrong, just saying I can't find the reference to which you are referring. Edit: After some research it appears that god is not mentioned in any way in the Constitution. Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

I agree, and I was surprised to see that from him too. I think some of the replies were confusing as to who said what, so he probably got mixed up somewhere if he was reading too fast. I vote we just give him a spanking and carry on. I thought about posting "Who's on first"

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification Performance Designs Factory Team

You'll get no argument from me there! There's plenty of blame to go around

Never, ever said that. That statement was made by another poster, responded to by Marc, and then included in my first post for context. Nope, That's where I started, and that's exactly what he said. He also, at the same time said he didn't agree that doing that was bigoted. I disagree. I've asked the same question in as many different ways as I can think of since each time he didn't appear to 'get it'. I'm actually surprised to see this response from you. Generally you're one of the more thoughtful posters on topics, and take time to read and understand other points of view - even if you disagree with them. I would encourage you to do the same (and I really don't mean that in a snarky way). I have done nothing but ask him to explain a statement (I hadn't even said if I agree or disagree with the statement until a response to JGoose). Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

It goes back to the problem that marriage is a religious practice, and never should have been recognized by the government. The government should recognize only civil unions for all couples, and those who also want the religious ceremony are free to go to whatever church they want for it. Agreed. That is a big part of the root of the problem. The other problem is that the word "marriage" doesn't belong to any one religion - but people tend to hide their prejudice behind that word too. Ian edit: On a side note - if I boycotted every company I had some moral issue with. I'd have a really hard time getting anything at all That doesn't make it ok mind you, but I can't pretend otherwise. Performance Designs Factory Team

I never said a thing about marriage. Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that they can't claim a federal 'marriage' deduction under the umbrella of a civil union. Anyway, back to my original post/post: Marc made a statement in response to a statement that while being against same sex marriages didn't make someone a 'hate fill homophobe' (and I agree) that he didn't agree that 'actively promoting inequality for same sex couples is.' (and with that I disagree). I asked him a question about it and so far he's been unable to answer it, or understand meaning of the statement he made. Performance Designs Factory Team

Your response makes no sense. Either you don't understand the question, you can't read, or you dont understand what you wrote. I simply asked, FROM YOUR POST: How, exactly, is "Actively promoting inequality for same sex couples" not bigoted? It's a pretty simple question Marc. If someone actively promotes inequality (for any group), how is that not prejudiced against them? Performance Designs Factory Team

I *think* "Winnings" are taxed differently. But that is a total and utter guess