GeorgiaDon

Related how? Is there any evidence that Obama, or any of his staff, ordered the man fired? I agree that his union overreacted, and he shouldn't have been fired, but is the president really personally responsible for every single hiring/firing decision made in this country? Or just the ones you disagree with? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Actually, I think there would still be "institutional memory", but it would all be in the form of the unelected bureaucrats who do the day-to-day business of running government. Politicians set policy (or they should), but much of the actual wording of proposed laws, as well as regulatory rules governing how those laws are actually enforced, is done by bureaucrats, and their influence would be increased if there is no "institutional memory" on the part of the policy makers. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree with virtually everything you said. This has to be one of the most infuriating commercials on TV, on many levels. None of these services should be totally free to the consumer. Many studies have demonstrated that when things are given for free people don't respect or value them, so the services are often wasted. Even for the very poor, a nominal charge (so they have to give up something else, such as smoking for a week) will do a lot to ensure people only take the service if they need it. An out-of-pocket expense on the part of a real consumer will also do a lot to discourage fraud on the part of the medical service/device industry. Probably the real savings to the taxpayer would come from the reduction of fraud and waste, rather than from the revenue generated from the service fees. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

FWIW, I agree with you on pretty much all of this. I do think the situation with the military does illustrate some of the likely complications of reducing the budget, which I suspect are the actual reason why it is so hard to actually accomplish. How much of our aerospace industry, for example, is dependent on military spending? How could we cut spending in that area by, say, 25% without having a massive short-term impact on the industry, resulting in down-sizing and layoffs, and subsequently a long-term impact due to closing of manufacturing facilities and loss of trained personnel? Will the private sector really pony up the contracts to keep the industry viable? Can our military really be considered to be "strong" without the manufacturing and R&D capacity to back it up? The same questions can be raised about many other areas where government spending maintains important infrastructure capacity (biomedical research is another example). I think questions like this are one significant reason why it's easy to campaign on a slash-and-burn platform, but it never seems to happen once people are in office. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Interesting built-in contradictions in there: "Intrusive Government Stopped. English As Core Language Is Required. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged." So the gov't will stop being intrusive, except that they'll tell you what language to speak and what your values should be. How much more intrusive can you get? "Government Must Be Downsized. National Budget Must Be Balanced. Deficit Spending Will End. Stronger Military Is Essential." Do they mean a stronger military, but also smaller and with less funding? I'm curious how, exactly, they aim to achieve that. Or do they mean an even larger military (and presumably military budget)? If so, I really wonder exactly what they plan to cut to balance the budget and yet spend still more on the military. Especially while leaving medicare and social security in place. As Kallend has said, the entire remaining balance of the budget isn't enough to close that gap. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks Chuck. I used that in Google and went through the first 6-7 pages of hits. Most relate to constitutional rights of illegal aliens, such as education for children or access to health care. The only ones I saw that pertain to private property were the cases we've already discussed, where the issue is not detaining the illegals but rather administering a little impromptu "frontier justice". Frankly, I did not find a single thing that suggests that property owners can't try to keep out trespassers, or detain trespassers until law enforcement or the Border Patrol can come and pick them up. I also can't find any law or court judgment that suggests in any way that illegals have any rights that US citizens do not. If any such laws or judgments do exist, I'd really appreciate a specific link. Thanks, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sounds like an interesting premise for a science fiction story. I can't recall any that use this idea, does anyone know of one? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

STFU isn't rebutting an idea you disagree with, it's censorship. If you tell people to "STFU", it's basically admitting that the other side is factually correct, or at least that you can't refute their argument, so you'll prevent them from speaking instead. Adding the "America-hating liberal" crap doesn't make the post any less vacuous. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Your debating and logic skills are surely without equal. I'm duly impressed. Impressing you is not a difficult thing to do. Well, your avatar is indeed impressive. Your disdain for the first amendment is less so. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Chuck, Can you provide a link to articles about the incidents you mention, or the key words you used for a Google search? I searched with "illegals sue rancher" "Texas", but what I got was the following: In Arizona, a group of illegals sued a rancher for $35 million for violation of their civil rights. The court ruled that the rancher had a right to detain them and turn them over to the Border Patrol, so the illegals lost. However, they were awarded $78,000 for "infliction of emotional distress"; apparently for allowing his dogs to attack the group, or repeatedly threatening to do so (the article wasn't clear on the specifics) while waiting for the Border Patrol to arrive. In Texas, a rancher invited an anti-immigration group, "Ranch Rescue", to patrol his ranch. Ranch Rescue detained an illegal couple who were crossing the land, but then beat the woman and allowed their Rottweiler to chew up the man. The illegals successfully sued Ranch Rescue and the rancher, and obtained title to 70 acres from the rancher. The rancher was also charged, and convicted, of being a felon in possession of a firearm. I did see reference to another case in Texas (but I didn't find a real link to a credible news agency, just blog chatter) about a case where illegals successfully sued after they were detained, but in that case it seems the issue again wasn't that they were detained, but rather that they were beaten, attacked by dogs, robbed, had their shoes taken, then they were forced to march barefoot for several miles through rough desert to a road where the Border Patrol took custody of the group. It seems that in each of these cases, landowners or their proxies detained illegal immigrants on their land, which they are allowed to do, but then decided to administer a little "frontier justice" in the form of beatings, dog attacks, repeated threats of death or severe harm, and sometimes relieving the illegals of their money. While I really do understand the frustration that these ranchers must feel at the damage to their property etc, they do not have the right to beat, torture, or rob trespassers. It seems to me that the reality here is not that illegals have different (or more) rights than citizens do, but rather that when it comes to civil rights they have the same rights. Practically speaking, how could they not? If you say it is OK for ranchers to beat or rob trespassers because they are not US citizens, then don't you also say it wouldn't be illegal to rob or beat tourists on Miami Beach, just because they aren't US citizens? Unfortunately, it is the nature of the US judicial system that anyone can file a lawsuit, there are generally lawyers willing to take the case, and it costs money (maybe more than a landowner can afford) to defend against the suit. So the fact that suits are filed doesn't mean much in terms of what the law says is allowed or not allowed, you have to look at the rulings. Again, if you have a link to any case where any landowner has been successfully sued for simply detaining trespassers and holding them until law enforcement can come and pick them up, I'd really like to see it. Thanks. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Who did? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No, I didn't miss it. My post was directed at Streetscooby, whose inane post seemed to imply that Kallend didn't have have the right to raise the question. Do I expect other countries to take responsibility for their past behavior? No. But I think the world would be better off if they did so. People (and I believe countries) are generally better able to improve on their future behavior if they acknowledge past mistakes. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Agreed. I just think it doesn't help when we confuse the issue by pointing to something that happen on the Mexican side as "cross-border violence". There are enough real examples of that. I believe tourism is a major source of foreign trade for Mexico. If tourist dollars really dried up (unlikely) I think it would get their attention. Agreed, unfortunately. I think you're being too specific. I recall a thread that dealt with illegals who are crime victims while in the US, and some posters said those people should be immediately deported even if it meant the criminals could not be prosecuted. The comment was even made that women should expect to be raped if they are here illegally. I can't find that thread right now, but I distinctly recall being shocked that anyone could suggest such a thing. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Curious moral compass you have there. So, you equate treating human beings as lab mice with a political protest against "taxation without representation"? Funny how people who don't trust the government to get anything right are willing to give them the authority to experiment on people without the consent of those people. As long as they aren't American people, I suppose. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Kallend works for a private University. He is not paid by taxpayer dollars. On the other hand, all military personnel are paid with taxpayer dollars. Are they "living off the public tit?" What did your comment have to do with the subject of this thread? It's a simple question, does the US have, or ever have, the right to treat human beings who happen to be citizens of another country as lab animals? I say no, and I say an apology is in order. What say you? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Tragic story, and indicative of the major problem on the Mexican side. This, and other stories of tourists being held for ransom, are good cause for international tourists to boycott Mexican destinations. Perhaps hitting Mexico in the pocketbook will get the attention of the Mexican Government and force them to do something to clean up the cartels. However: If you pay attention to the story, they had actually crossed into Mexico, intentionally, to sight-see. Presumably they did not stop at some customs station in the middle of the lake. The incident happened in Mexico, so it wasn't a case of "violence leaking into the US". Also I wonder how outraged people get at violent crimes perpetrated by Americans on Mexicans illegally in the US? I can't recall a single post about that! Or should Americans be able to come and go wherever they want, whenever they want, but everybody else better respect our border? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

True enough. The questions can be viewed as a sort of "trivial pursuit", but at least they relate to objectively verifiable facts. What sort of questions could possibly be asked about the religious experience that have correct/incorrect answers that could be verified by an objective referee? You could ask "Do you consult God's Word before making important decisions?", and some would answer yes and some no, and both would be correct from their perspective. I think you may be missing the point of the survey, which was not about an understanding of "reality" in a universal sense. I do think it interesting that so many people who self-identify as being very religious seem to be so lacking in understanding of the basic tenants of any religion apart from the one they follow, and even there they seem ignorant of basic facts and tenants of their own religious tradition. How can that be? Doesn't that suggest that their "faith", however deeply held, is superficial and has never been subjected to serious inspection? Of course that would be a personal matter, except for the part where their ignorance extends to the US constitution and the law. As a result they read things into the law that are not there, which on the one hand feeds their sense that there is a "war on Christianity", and on the other hand bolsters their feeling that laws should be passed to "protect" Christianity and society by restricting other religions. Are you over your ear infection yet? Hope so. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

From the linked news story: "Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said it was the 11th DUI-related murder conviction in the county since 2008." I don't recall reading about 10 other prominent sports figures being killed by drunk drivers in Orange County. I bet most or all of those 10 victims were just "some guy". Seems to me justice was served in this case. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That old lie again? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wonder how disastrous it would actually be for the Democrats if Tea Party candidates took a substantial number of seats in November. It seems to me that it could turn out to be a case of the emperor being found to have no clothes? They have promulgated a lot of anger and heat, but (it seems to me) no specific policies to get us out of our economic situation. Further, they come across as ideologues who are unwilling to negotiate, discuss, or even acknowledge anyone else's viewpoints, but actually getting anything done in Washington (or anywhere) will require being able to work with others. Two years down the road, the bloom will be off the rose and everybody will see the Tea Party has no more to offer than the other two dysfunctional parties. Here's a crazy idea. Maybe the best thing that could happen to US politics (or politics anywhere) would be to abolish the party system altogether. No more monolithic voting blocks. The only way anyone could get anything done would be by convincing a majority of the House, or the Senate, that their idea is better than everyone elses. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Actually, I understand his theories well enough to follow the logic and principles. More importantly, I described the rational basis on which any theory may be falsified, and replaced with a new theory that more accurately describes reality. In principle, any person can invest the time to learn the necessary skills to personally test any scientific theory (although it might be very expensive to do so). I believe religion lacks any similar objective basis by which one may evaluate theologies. Also, in science all theories are understood to be conditional, in that they can in principle be falsified (if their predictions fail to match experimental observation), but they can't be proven to be true. If a theory withstands a lots of rigorous testing, we may come to believe it's likely a very good approximation of reality, but if we're honest we recognize that even if the theory is perfect (i.e. true) we could never prove that. None of these attributes apply to religion, as there is no objective test by which one religion can be weighed against another. So when you equate accepting a scientific theory as "consistent with the data to date" to accepting a religious edict based on the "authority" of the author of the pronouncement, you are just wrong. Anyway, hope you (and everybody) have a safe, jump-filled weekend. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You just made the same argument most church elders make. Difference is you believe Hawkins to be right and believe religion to be wrong. Perhaps I underestimated you, and if so I apologize. Feel free to explain your specific criticisms of his theories, and postulate your own. If I don't currently have the requisite math and physics skills, I'll make an effort to get up to speed enough to follow your arguments. I expect you have specific instances where astronomical observations are in conflict with predictions from Hawkins' theories, and your own theories account for the data better. That's how it works. You have to have data. It's not enough that a theory doesn't seem right to you, or you can't understand it. Lots of people are uncomfortable with evolution, quantum mechanics, or relativity, but they do an extremely good job of accounting for experimental evidence. They will stand until some other theory comes along that does an even better job of accounting for reality, as revealed through experimentation and skeptical observation. The fact that most people don't understand molecular biology, and can't quite believe things could really be that complicated, is no impediment to cells functioning normally. I do hope you weren't just talking through your stomach. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Which basically means that YOU (and Turtlespeed) don't understand them. Of course, in this you have lots of company. But, how much effort have you put into learning the requisite mathematics? Otherwise, why would you presume the universe should be simple enough for you to understand without putting in the effort? Don't you think there is a reason why it takes years of learning before anyone is in a position to contribute original research to physics (or chemistry, or biology, or any other science)? Your inability to understand (or intelligently critique) Hawking's theories says nothing about their validity, it only suggests you haven't considered the subject important enough to invest the effort to learn to speak the language. In all honesty I don't have the background to critique his theories either, but I wouldn't assume he's wrong just because I can't follow every nuance of his arguments, or because they just don't "feel" right to me. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK. So you disapprove of how they choose to spend their money, but you're happy to take it. Pretty much a textbook example of, well, you know, hypocrisy. Whatever floats your boat. Congrats on the great kids. I am also 53, and have 3 kids (and 2 grandkids) who are all doing just fine. I don't see what that has to do with anything, but you seem to think it significant so I thought I'd mention it. It's even harder for me to see the relevance of my profession or number of jumps to this "discussion", but evidently you see some connection. I'd suggest you might want to check into decaf drinks. Or Prozac. CYA, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So, from this it would be safe to say that a substantial portion of the revenue that keeps your DZ in business, and that pays you as a "fulltime DZ Staffer", comes from the exact source that you are criticizing. Do you interrogate clients to see how they are paying for their jump, so you can offer them the benefit of your accumulated financial wisdom, or do you just take their money and whine behind their backs? If the latter, wouldn't that be rather hypocritical? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)