Hello again Mark,
I stand by what I have said before. To repeat myself, to endlessly reinterpret what I have said before lies madness. I'm content to leave my "rants" as-is. It's probably time to close up shop on this particular discussion. At least we seem to agree on the fact that something must be done about PACs. If we had both had been elected officials serving our respective constituents I have the feeling that you and I together would try to find common ground in order to move forward. Granted it might be difficult at times, but if we remain capable of acknowledging to each other the fact that we both ended up having to sacrifice certain principals dear to our hearts in equal proportions... messy as democracy is, things tend to get done. I wish someone was capable of explaining that very messy principle to the Tea Party. IMO, not being capable of understanding what compromise is all about... that also leads to madness. B'well back. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 1:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race Good morning Steven, I think you are referring to this statement of mine: ". I believe you are the one who has, by far, pontificated at length about political/religious issues;" That is the only reference I made which you could interpret as referring to a 'rant' (your term, not mine). It was NOT a reference to something in your original email, but to a history of having to vent on this forum as to your OT postings you've done over the years about your disagreements with Wisconsin politics. Could that be the reason behind why I wrote what I did? You imply there was some derogatory or hurtful meaning in my original response to your posting, and I was trying to provide an explanation as to why that was not the case. I was simply trying to explain to you why I expressed my thoughts the way I did. that's all. I did read the article you linked to, and feel it's of interest to all concerned about events in this country. we do agree on that. When you write things like this, "Do the links I submit for the Vort Collective's consumption scare you that much?" Is it any wonder why someone might respond the way they do?? You are concluding that I'm scared by some article you posted. how in the world do you conclude that? Just because I try to point out to the forum that one has to read multiple sources to get a total picture of a given issue is NOT an indication that one is scared. Don't paint me as being something I'm not. I tend to be more socially liberal and fiscally conservative. "At least we can agree on the fact that PACs are not necessarily a good thing for our political system. If you feel close, though not necessarily exactly the same way as I may feel about them, I'm content to leave it at that." Agreed! B Well Always, -mark From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 8:53 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: Interesting interactive graphics depicting who is buying the 2016 presidential race Hi Mark, I must ask: where was the alleged "rant" in my original post? I pointed to a link that showed some interesting graphics about where political money is coming from. In your mind, does pointing to a link now constitute another "rant" coming from me? Do the links I submit for the Vort Collective's consumption scare you that much? Ok.so you disagree with those findings, and perhaps you also disagree with some of my expressed liberal tendencies. I can live with that. But another link supplied by me now constitutes another "rant"? It seems to me that you show your conservative colors just as much as paint me to be a liberal. But yes, I believe you have outed me. It would appear these days that I possess liberalistic tendencies, which perhaps from a ultra-conservative's POV would imply I must be a bleating hearted liberal democrat whose primary concern is to make sure that subversive gays and lesbians get the same insurance protections as some god fearing homophobic Christians believe they should own exclusive rights to today. Be damned about the economy. Let's just print up more money to pay for all those needy welfare queens - and be damned about the economy After all, Brad must be able to marry Bart if I'm going to be able to sleep tonight! But that would be misleading. I used to be a republican. I must confess: I voted for Reagan. Back in the 1980s it was during the reign of Reagan that I was forced to witness to my absolute dismay what was happening to the republican party as staunch ultra conservatives and religious factions slowly and methodically started to infest what used to be a more reasonable oriented centrist party philosophy - a party that was still willing to negotiate with the enemy in order to get things done. Over the decades it's only gotten worse. FWIW, and just to set the record straight, I'm not necessarily happy with a lot of democratic positions taken today. However, I do seem to possess far more criticisms aimed against ultra conservative factions than against the so-called liberal democratic platform. It's a matter of prioritization. The squeakiest wheel tends to get the most oiling. I'm also try to be pragmatic. Just so you know, I'd prefer B. Sanders (a decades in the making battle worthy candidate), but I try to be realistic in accepting the fact that Hillary, warts and all, will most likely be the democratic pick. It seems to me that none of us get out of this mess without at some time feeling just a tad like a prostitute. At least we can agree on the fact that PACs are not necessarily a good thing for our political system. If you feel close, though not necessarily exactly the same way as I may feel about them, I'm content to leave it at that. The continuing debate over what constitutes an artificial person in corporate land is no doubt a protracted discussion that should be left for another time and date when CF news becomes temporarily lean. But enuf for now, wouldn't you say? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
