thirdworld19

I went through Skydive Spaceland's "A License in a Week" - I'm the one from Egypt (American living abroad). I was in Houston for work earlier this year and did my first 4 tandems there. After I returned home, I couldn't stop thinking about it and watching my video. I finally decided to get my A license and I wouldn't go anywhere else. Because I was flying in specifically for that, I could've gone anywhere in the States, but I just felt very comfortable with the staff there (the DZ itself, safety conscious, helpfulness, equipment, etc.). I planned to be there for 12 days - just in case (flying in from Egypt is expensive), but it turned out not to be necessary. Shortly after I started there were 4 guys (2 from out of state) who did the same thing - all 5 of us getting our licenses in 7 days or less. I will say that it can be rough physically - using some muscles you haven't used before. I am in my late 30's and I was a bit sore that week. I did have to redo one of my levels - 2, maybe 3 times. Frustrating, but necessary. And I'm very glad I did. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.

Sorry, can't cut it down to 3: Malcolm McDowell John Malkovich Sean Connery Gerard Butler Johnny Depp Ewan McGregor Liam Neeson Christian Bale Russell Crowe Josh Holloway Shia LaBeouf Daniel Craig Clive Owen

Yes- however deviants are all based on perception. I understand what you are saying, and it was a tad left field on my part, but I call everyone a pervert to even the plane. There are groups that think sex is just for procreation and not for instant sexual gratification. While the believers of this might be small in numbers, would that make them perverts because they deny themselves a casual orgasms (other than the male) and just utilize the male orgasm strictly for procreation? Those perverts! Yes, according to the definition, that small group would be perverts. They deviate from the norm - doesn't matter which way.

Are you saying that we had no human rights violations before Bush? That would be awfully naive. You don't think the world was against us before Bush? That would be awfully naive. This is not to say that Bush didn't carry it along just as the other presidents, but it certainly didn't originate with the Bush administration.

This may be off topic, but I find these reports (at least based on what is posted here as I have not read the reports) being akin to a trial without the defense. Not being a doctor, what physical or diagnostic test can be run to determine that someone was stripped of their clothes or spit/urinated on. How is a test going to determine that the bruise someone has is a result of "torture" versus putting up a fight with the guards. (Kind of like a man going to trial for rape and because his semen is found in the woman, he is guilty. Couldn't possibly be that she consented.) First, we need to define torture. According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, torture is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted...It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." I'm not sure how stripping, being shackled, or being spit on (among others listed) fall under "severe pain or suffering." Of the eight items mentioned in the news story, only three actually look like they may be actual torture (sexually abused - if it includes penetration, shocked, and beaten). The addition of the other five items is for emotional reaction and not helping the case. According to one news report cited, "There's no way to know whether any of the inmates may have had medical or mental problems before being detained." However, the report states, "We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse, often causing lasting suffering." Anyone with any sense should be dubious of this statement. The doctors have no baseline, so how can they possibly be making this statement? The US has been torturing (or training for it) for many, many years (long before the Bush administration) and I don't see it being a significant hindrance so far in foreign relations. Do you really think the heads of states that tolerate torture in their countries are going to cut off diplomacy efforts with the US because of these 11 cases? I doubt it. There is far more to be gained for the majority of the people to allow this to impact much. Although, if there are any cases, please point to them - where this has impeded the advancement of US foreign policy (and it would be far more credible if the cases were prior to the Bush administration - I believe you understand why). As far as a commission, I am too cynical to see such a commission be fair and balanced. I believe there are far too many people in high places that don't want to lose this tool from their tool box.

Actually, a pervert is one whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable. I would tend to think that most adults believe that orgasms are perfectly acceptable and not a deviation from the norm.

That doesn't sound crazy does it?

Actually, the largest deficit came during WWII - because you really have to measure it as relative to the nations economic output (GDP). In 1943, the deficit was $54.3 billion, which equated to 30% of the wartime economy. (And don't read into this post that I am somehow saying that the deficit is not incredibly high now - didn't say that, not saying that).

But you did make a claim, and that is what I am asking you to prove/support. Simple really. And this is where we disagree. Keeping people ON welfare is stupid and irresponsible. Don't know. Never said that. You may want to stick to the actual discussion. Please explain why you believe this. If the US wants to stay competitive with the world, we need to do something. And maybe with some of the lower skill level jobs moving overseas, people here can focus on higher level functioning. Just a thought. Let's discuss. Again, you are claiming I said something when I did not. But, just to throw an idea out there, there are many people who do not "work" for others. There are other ways to make money besides having a job. It's possible to maintain a lifestyle by being entrepreneurial. But, many people don't like that amount of risk and are willing to trade some freedoms for job security. Maybe you should reply to him then. And to clarify again, there was NO implication that those who choose not to work (the people I spoke with) are welfare cheats. I had no idea whether they were on welfare or not, just that they were homeless and living off of begging. But back to the main point, who decides what our taxes are spent on? Obviously you and I disagree. So, how can we get millions of people to agree on how taxes should be spent? Maybe we could each fill out a checklist when we prepare our tax returns stating which programs we would like our money to fund.

Generally speaking, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you tell me you've seen a UFO, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to prove that you didn't. If that's the case, then Kallend needs to support his claim that taking away the welfare programs will result in people dying of starvation in the streets. I'll wait to see the studies to support that claim. Is your charity going to support them? In case you hadn't noticed, we are exporting our jobs overseas at an increasing rate (something the Bush administration approves of, see Economic Report of the President, 2004) and unemployment is rising. Pretty naive to assume that a job is automatically available to anyone that wants one. It's also pretty lame to blame welfare and welfare cheats for our economic woes. Welfare existed BEFORE the huge surge in government spending under Bush. (Or are you claiming Bush is responsible for a sudden and undocumented rise in cheating?) 2nd request - Please post cite to support your claim. But, unlike you, I will continue with the discussion. I guess my point is made. I am going to assume you are a taxpayer. With that, we have very differing opinions on how OUR taxes should be spent. Who decides? To discuss your points - (1) We didn't start exporting jobs when Bush came into office. It had been happening for some time - it just may not have affected you yet though. So now that it does affect you, you want to gripe about it - fair enough. (2) I never said anything about jobs being automatically available to anyone - please show where that came from. (3) I did not blame anything on welfare. I simply stated that I thought it was an area of government spending that should not exist. And, not sure where you got the whole "welfare cheats" from - I never said that, nor implied it. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Generally speaking, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you tell me you've seen a UFO, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to prove that you didn't. If that's the case, then Kallend needs to support his claim that taking away the welfare programs will result in people dying of starvation in the streets. I'll wait to see the studies to support that claim.

What's really sad is people not taking responsibility for themselves and their families. It's really sad to see generation after generation on welfare of some sort. These programs do more to keep people down than they help. Sometimes people need that push (not having the safety net) to motivate them to be reliant on themselves and not the government. I don't know how many homeless or down on their luck people you've spoken with, but I've done my share. Every single person I spoke with was more than capable to work. Most of them didn't want to. They made more money begging - and they didn't have to be accountable to anyone else. They enjoyed that freedom more than the weekly paycheck. 2nd request: Please post a cite to these alleged studies. I don't have a cite for the study - so it must not have happened. You can go on ignoring the rest of the post now.

What's really sad is people not taking responsibility for themselves and their families. It's really sad to see generation after generation on welfare of some sort. These programs do more to keep people down than they help. Sometimes people need that push (not having the safety net) to motivate them to be reliant on themselves and not the government. I don't know how many homeless or down on their luck people you've spoken with, but I've done my share. Every single person I spoke with was more than capable to work. Most of them didn't want to. They made more money begging - and they didn't have to be accountable to anyone else. They enjoyed that freedom more than the weekly paycheck.

So what role do you think the following had, if any, with regard to Libya: Their people were starving because of economic sanctions. They gave up their WMD shortly after the US invasion of Iraq, realizing that the current administration were not a bunch of p*%$#@ as they had been during Clinton's years and they would back up their sanctions if necessary.

I don't know if you've heard of this thing called inflation, but we pretty much spend more on everything now than ever. If there is ONE thing society ought to stop bitching about is how much we spend on education. The sometimes freaky details of exactly how we spend it on education is another thing entirely, but the actual amount is trivial when you consider it's the future of your kids and society as a whole. I would agree with JohnDeere - I don't think it is up to the government to educate my children. There have been studies performed regarding money and education. They threw all kinds of money at some school districts for something like 15 years to see if that helped (test scores, rates of graduation, etc) and it had no effect. I also don't believe it is up to the government to ensure that I or anyone else has health care (or welfare/food stamps for that matter). The government is far too intrusive into peoples lives. I think this is a significant issue when determining what government spending is essential. Others may feel that welfare (or whatever program) is essential and want it funded with my taxes.