RackJR

A lot of the stress of beginning skydiving is that you don't know what to do when you leave the airplane. You don't know how to control yourself, and are relying on two other people to control you (not something most adults do, or are comfortable with). If you fly in a tunnel, you'll begin to learn how to control yourself. For most people, a little bit of confidence can go a long way. Knowing that if everything goes wrong, and you lose both instructors, you can still control yourself, stay stable (or regain stability), and deploy your parachute, can be tremendously comforting. Having to figure all that out while you're screaming toward the ground can be a little hectic. Why not build your skill set in a relatively stress free environment? If you don't understand what's going on while in the tunnel, your instructor will take you out the door, explain it to you calmly, and get you back in to try again. Try that on a skydive. :) Careful under canopy. The ground hurts. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Excellent point. You believe the holocaust happened? Were you there? Did you witness the event personally? How do you know it happened? I'm guessing that you were not there, but have seen evidence that it occurred, and found that evidence to be compelling. I believe there are groups of people who believe the holocaust did not occur? They have rejected the evidence because it does not fit with their belief system. They will cling to that dogma, no matter what you say to them, or what evidence you attempt to show them. To you, this makes no sense. The evidence is voluminous. Scholars, historians, scientists, philosophers, laymen, all in agreement that the holocaust did occur. One small sect of people who reject logic and reason in favor of their narrow belief. Sound familiar? Someone else said it better than I can. “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” -Stephen Roberts Say what you mean. Do what you say.

We lose. From the headlines and stories here (United Arab Emirates), the position of Isreal and the US have been significantly undermined. The papers are reporting that Turkey is investigating the possibility of bringing charges. Sweden dock workers are boycotting Isreali goods/ships. Paris, Dublin, London, all over Canada, New Zealand, Istanbul. All protesting Isreal and the US. You can tell me the papers are biased, and only reporting one side of the story. I know that. However, you cannot deny that there are a lot of people angry over the way Isreal handled this situation. We can debate here about whether they were right or wrong, justified or not. I wonder if you still think that matters. Isreal is more isolated. The US/Isreal more vilified in the eyes of muslims. If the goal is peace, we lose. If the goal was to keep the blockade, Isreal lost this battle, in that war. If the goal of the US was to make our country a safer place by repairing damage from the past, we lose. I have come round to your thinking, that the Isreali soldiers were justified in their actions. I continue to think this was a victory for the opponents of Isreal, and that peace has moved further away. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

If the SOLDIERS would have surrendered, the PEACE ACTIVISTS would have stopped being violent? You take away from the possibility of real discussion with this nonsense. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I wish that someone could sensibly ask you to stop this ridiculousness, but it won't work, will it? I would ask you to share with us the parameters of who can discuss this situation (based on THEIR country), but I have the strong feeling I'd be disappointed with your answer. There are lots of reasons to wish this had turned out differently. Humanitarian, intellectual, even self-preservation, to name a few. But buddy I can tell you if I'm carrying my gun and someone approaches me with a knife, they're gonna put that knife down before anything else happens, with the possible exception of a gunshot. You should keep in mind that a person with a knife who continues approaching a trained soldier after he cocks his weapon is not a peace activist. I'm sure you'll disagree. I just don't buy it that you believe peace is accomplished at knife point. I think this could have been handled better by everyone. That being said, if you're ok admitting that the peace activists charged soldiers with knives, I'm ok agreeing that they deserved to be shot. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

The dead are compromised, 100%, of activists who attacked trained soldiers armed with guns. Those who remain alive are comprised of those who did not attack trained soldiers armed with guns, although not 100%. Some of those who did attack the soldiers managed to remain alive (Proven by watching the video, seeing the number of people who attacked the soldiers, and then seeing the body count). Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Thanks. Looked up a couple of those things. Obviously I didn't ask the question about Rhys before, I was attempting to make an analogy, since I asked if you would support Isreal unconditionally, and you didn't answer. In another thread, killing others seemed solidly within what you would call acceptable. In this case, Isreal did the killing. If the goal is to win the argument of who is right/wrong in this situation, I would say that Isreal was within their rights to kill those people (clearly just my opinion). But also, IMO, if the goal is peace, everybody lost here. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

You take away from any real conversation with nonsense like this. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I did watch the video. I saw the attack on the soldiers. Clearly those people had every intention of provoking conflict. I think the whole operation was a sham, contrived completely to generate sympathy for the situation in Gaza and with only the secondary notion of providing aid. Kind of like that boat on "whale wars" ( I realize this is a crappy analogy), they stir up a lot of shit, and maybe save a whale. However, I doubt that the people were prepared to die. I guess the reason I said I had been out of the loop was because I still haven't heard about weapons being on the boat, and I was curious if your post was an admission to that, as well as the preemptive explanation that it doesn't matter, Isreal is still in the right no matter what happens. I have no emotional stake in this conflict. Whether you choose to believe it or not, the people who do not support Isreal the way you do are not jew hating nazi's. I realize my bio info lists my current city as Abu Dhabi, but I'm not arab. I grew up in the US and have only been over here for 6 months. So back to the question you didn't answer. Do you feel that rhys is fine to support his 9/11 conspiracy theory, no matter what facts are presented? He will explain everything away, since his beginning stance is that the conspiracy exists, and all information after that must fit the original stance. Is Isreal correct, no matter what actions they take? Are they above reproach, IYO? Did 16 people need to die here? I think Amazon called them martyrs. Is that really what you believe, that those people got on the boat thinking they would die for this cause? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I've been out of the loop for a couple days, so if I missed something, please enlighten me. I watched a video of the confiscated "weapons". Without summarizing the whole video, I think the worst of the bunch was a pretty sinister looking knife. Otherwise, it seemed like a lame attempt to show that the people were armed. Certainly they knew that they would be dealing with the IDF. I can't imagine they would have thought that slingshots would be effective weapons against trained soldiers. So sundevil. They said it was humanitarian. 16 people are dead. They didn't have weapons, and you're saying here that it's no problem, IDF had to kill them to show that they would search all vessels thoroughly? I'm not doubting that they had in mind some level of media attention, that the circus would bring light to the situation. But your post here seems that you'll justify any action by the IDF (or Isreal), no matter what it is. I doubt that's a behavior you admire in others. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Ok. I watched the video someone posted. Obviously the soldier were met with hostility. I didn't see anyone tossed onto a deck 30 feet below. It looked like they sent him over into the emergency boat. Not sure from the angle if I can say that with certainty. And that doesn't make it a lot better, he still got tossed over the side. Why was the video clipped? That can't possibly be all of the video. sundevil, was the boat in international waters? Do we know if there were weapons on the boat? Is this a legal act? I've seen people comment on both sides of all these issues, and I can guess where you'll come out. But I'm still curious. What is the status of the boat now? What is the status of the wounded? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Where is sundevil777 to explain this to us? Please, make sense of this to all of us, since you are so vocal about these issues, and how the Isreali's are the real victims in all this mess. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I don't always agree with airdvr, but I honestly don't know how you could disagree with him on this one. Both sides do it, it's wrong no matter who does it. Is this politics? Why is this conversation still going? How come the rest of you don't have the integrity to just say that it was wrong no matter who does it, and move on? The guy who actually said it, admitted it was wrong. How is this still an argument? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I wasn't gonna comment on this, because it seemed everyone was pretty much saying the same thing: The dog owner is to blame. Then I voted, and saw that 16% (9) people who voted said the owner is not to blame, ie should not have to pay damages. I've had dogs all my life, and they have been my kids. If my dog gets out, and bites someone, I am responsible. If my dog gets out and kills another animal, I am responsible (this actually happened, a chicken). If my dog gets out, and destroys someone's property, I am responsible. Why is it different if my dog is killed? He is loose, and causes damage. I am responsible. Seems like some folks are voting with their hearts, and not their brains. I realize it's sad the dog is dead. I would be heartbroken. And I would pay for the damage he caused. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I think it's a pretty big stretch to lump together the material of a comedian with the material of a political commentator. Unless you're actually saying that Beck is a comedian, or that Bill M has put himself out there as a political commentator. Comedians make their living by making fun of people, among other things. I don't think that's how Beck would describe his profession. I'll still agree with you here. I'm not sure how this debate has gone on, even as long as this. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Are you saying Beck is a comedian? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

+1 Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Slippery as ever Ron. At least you don't disappoint. You mean like calling homosexuality a choice whether anyone else is talking about it or not, bleating it out whenever you can, but then apparently being unable to call pedophilia a choice because you want the man locked up for the rest of his life? You change your tune when it suits you, just like your book. You avoid simple, straightforward questions in an online forum for debate, where you spew your hatred and intolerance at every possible opportunity, and then run behind some biblical reference about not debating. At least you don't disappoint. That's exactly what I expect from a religious nut job. Anyone who disagrees with you must be a dog, or a pig. When you call people names like this, does it make it easier for you to dismiss their arguments? I doubt you have much trouble with it anyway, but I'm just curious about your earlier labeling of me as an adolescent rebel, but then resorting to the playground tactic of name calling. Maybe it's ok for you because you did it by quoting your favorite fairy tale? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

And completely avoided the questions you don't want to answer. I guess you can't help being slippery. Probably stems from the book you cling to. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I think the actual expression (although I'm not positive of the spelling) is "Insh'allah", which roughly translated means "if it's god's will". People use it all the time over here (to a really annoying extent). Doesn't that pretty closely reflect John's feelings? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I imagine some of the words you use in your part of the world are different from the words we use here. I have several black friends. None of them appreciate being called negro. None of them have a problem with being called black. Did ya want to comment on the subject matter? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Slippery Ron. Try answering the question. Is this man choosing to be interested in children? Why do you avoid straightforward questions in plain english? blah, blah, blah. Why do you write all this stuff? Just to talk? You spout off about the choice people make regarding sexuality. If you want this man locked up, and comment on how liberals are ruining this country, how is that consistent with your beliefs? Is he not a completely safe person when he simply chooses to no longer prefer children? Why did you only feel these guys could be released in a "tightly controlled environment"? Your admission that it's not a choice? Say what you mean. Do what you say.

Ron, I"m curious. Your previous post seemed to indicate that this liberal judge was doing terrible things to the american way, or something close to that. I take it you don't agree with his feeling that the man can be reformed, and therefore doesn't need to be jailed for decades. I agree with you. He cannot be reformed, and needs to be behind bars. Although I consider myself a liberal, this guy is going to hurt more children than he already has, probably at his first opportunity. However, since I feel that he cannot be reformed because he was born that way, I'm curious what your stance is? Wouldn't it be more consistent for you, as a christian, to be forgiving of the man? Wouldn't it be more christian of you to pray for him? And of course, wouldn't it be more consistent of you to call his sexual desires a choice, which he was capable of not making, and therefore really not a danger to society? Why not release him today? He's no longer a danger? You'll tell anyone who will listen that sexual preference is a choice. Will this guy ever stop being a danger to children, IYO? Try not to be slippery. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

You know Ron, reading your post, for a second there I thought you had learned something. Can you quote something from Leviticus for us, about how this guy should be put to death? Probably not. In the time of the bible, they were marrying girls as young as those this man was looking at. The youngest legal age of marriage I could find with a quick search was 13....in the US (special circumstances required=pregnancy). Or Iran, where 9 is ok. I believe the prophet Muhammad married a 6 year old girl, and consummated the marriage at 9. Lest you start throwing stones, we can always talk about Lot and his daughters if you'd prefer christianity. Some is ancient history. Some, current events. Did you read the article Ron? This judge is not arguing that what the man did was acceptable, or legal. He's arguing that he doesn't agree with the mandatory sentence length. Prison terms for looking at pictures that sometimes run longer than those for actually abusing a child. You don't get tired of this one. As I recall, some of the previous arguments have talked about relationships between adults, not children. I guess you don't mind twisting that when it suits your purpose. If the man broke the law, he needs to be punished. This law I'm in full support of. Sounds like this judge deals with this kind of case, and has some experience. You obviously don't mind armchair quarterbacking his decisions. Maybe you missed your calling as a judge, so you could be on the other extreme, and lock them up for life. I might agree with you. They are born this way, and I don't think any amount of therapy is going to fix it. Eventually, I don't think pictures will be enough, and they will harm a child. If you read the article, you're being intentionally deceptive. If you didn't, tragically lazy. Or perhaps you agree that the judge should be forced to sentence the man to more time in prison for looking at pictures than if he had actually abused a living child? I would argue for the same term. A child was harmed, either way. Say what you mean. Do what you say.

I guess what I was getting at was this... Illegals in the US are a problem. Should we change the constitution? Gun crime is a problem. Should we change the constitution? I would guess that a lot of the people who would argue to change the 14th amendment would also argue strenuously NOT to change the 2nd. Just a guess, admittedly. Just for the record, I think there needs to be greater gun control in the US. Until there is, I own 2 handguns, and when I'm in the US, I carry one wherever I go. Say what you mean. Do what you say.