Latest Santorum sound bite

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So an individual (the DZO) rather than the government, should make the call as to whether someone can do something dangerous for their own enjoyment, without worrying about the effects on the jumper's family?

You're starting to sound like a liberal!

Not in the world we live in. The Dick Floyds of the world tend to be liberal Democrats, eagerly passing legislation to protect us from ourselves. The GOP tends to impose when they think we're having too much fun.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

So an individual (the DZO) rather than the government, should make the call as to whether someone can do something dangerous for their own enjoyment, without worrying about the effects on the jumper's family?

The DZO is running a private business. A jumper can choose to do business (or not) with the DZO.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,131]

>The DZO is running a private business. A jumper can choose to do
>business (or not) with the DZO.

Exactly. Or, if the jumper chooses, he can hire his own pilot and aircraft, file the NOTAM, and jump on his own. His choice and his responsibility. Which, I think, is the way it should be.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>The DZO is running a private business. A jumper can choose to do
>business (or not) with the DZO.

Exactly. Or, if the jumper chooses, he can hire his own pilot and aircraft, file the NOTAM, and jump on his own. His choice and his responsibility. Which, I think, is the way it should be.

I do too. If you want to run red lights on your own property and you aren't endangering anyone, have at it. When you go on the streets where I drive, I expect you to follow the rules of the road so we can all be safe. I don't really see why thats so hard to understand.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

There is a big difference between a Doctor, who has access to morphine, and a heroin addict whos steals and robs to get his next fix. Here we go again with the extreme examples to try and justify a point. Must be something in the water

Quote

First of all, there's NOT a big difference. Do you think this doctor pays for this morphine out of his pocket??? I don't think so. Who pays for it then? He probably steals it....and lies about it....

Second of all, there's a humongous problem of doctors abusing drugs. It's not an extreme example at all. Do you want the surgeon who is removing your gallbladder (or whatever) to be actively using illegal drugs? Physicians have a responsibility NOT to abuse drugs that far exceeds (imho) that of the general population. There are a lot of addicted doctors. Not an extreme example at all....

The comparison is valid.

linz

First of all the doctor isn't out breaking into homes, stealing little old ladies purses and shoving a gun in someones face to get the money.

Second of all... I agree, but to compare someone who drinks occassionally with a heroin addict is a pretty inaccurate comparison. People can have a few drinks socially their whole life and not become addicted. The same cannot be said about a heroin user.

• Quote

[Gravitymaster 0]

I'm not defending Santorum, I'm responding to Toms post. Santorums an ass. Surely you have the intelligence to see that. I would be happy to go back over it with you if you need me to. Just let me know.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Surely you don't think it's OK for somebody married with 4 children to get addicted to heroin...

I actually know several regular drug users who function pretty effectively in normal society, holding down jobs, supporting families, etc.

In general, I don't think it's a good idea, but I absolutely believe that the right person to make that decision is the individual involved.

Regardless of perceived benefit to society as a whole, I do not believe that the government ought to be making decisions for individuals--at all. That's one reason I find taxes so abhorrent. They represent the government taking of your hard work, to make decisions about how to spend your money, and potentially overruling the way that you would most like to see that money spent. I'd like to see that money, and the ability to make decisions with it, left in your hands. And, yes, I still feel the same way if your decision is to spend it on heroin.

When the government starts dictating lifestyle choices to individuals in the name of the "greater good", you've walked away from freedom (and capitalism) and started the path toward authoritarianism. It's a slippery slope, and I'd hate to see the idea of "from those with the ability, to those with the need" end up in "you will do this, because it is written thus in the 5 year plan."

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply pointing out there are a lot of instances whereby someones judgement about whether they are affecting others isn't correct.

[Lindsey 0]

First of all the doctor isn't out breaking into homes, stealing little old ladies purses and shoving a gun in someones face to get the money.

Second of all... I agree, but to compare someone who drinks occassionally with a heroin addict is a pretty inaccurate comparison. People can have a few drinks socially their who life and not become addicted. The same cannot be said about a heroin addict.

The problem, then, is not so much related to decisions people make, for themselves, about things like substance use. The problem is with people threatening harm to other people. If there's no problem (or a small one) with a doctor who steals and lies in order to abuse morphine, but a BIG problem with a person who threatens harm to little old ladies to abuse heroin, then the problem is with the violence, not the substance use.

I DO think there's a problem with substance abuse, but that's already regulated. I also have a big problem with regulating people's behavior two steps away from where the problem lies. Does that make sense? If we're regulating "x" behavior because "y" problem is often associated with it, then it's "y" that should be regulated....not "x."

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Gravitymaster 0]

We are agreeing. See my above post to Tom.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

So anyway, I was talking to this chick who's an escort and she makes WAY more money than me per month. She practices safe sex. And votes democrat.

BTW personal attacks, even when veiled are still considered personal attacks. No need to say more, you and I know why you said this.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Second of all... I agree, but to compare someone who drinks occassionally with a heroin addict is a pretty inaccurate comparison. People can have a few drinks socially their whole life and not become addicted. The same cannot be said about a heroin user.

When you consider the damage done by non alcoholics that had a few drinks and then killed via DUI or comitted 'date rape,' it doesn't seem too unfare. Heroin isn't killing 20,000 a year, is it?

I would believe that one heroin user has more collateral damage than one drinker, but our society doesn't have that one to one ratio.

[AlexCrowley 0]

So sensitive?

For those who aren't keeping score, it was from when you challenged me to bet my months salary against yours as to who earned the most. (see: "is this about dick size?" from the original thread)

Since the lady in question is real and the conversation is real can you explain to me why you consider this a personal attack? Escorts do exist outside of my imagination, and this one costs $350 for 90 minutes, would you like her contact info?

I felt your original challenge was laughable and illustrated enough about your psyche that I didnt feel attacking you further was necessary.

Now you'd have me believe that you're sensitive enough that you're crying foul based on an anecdote that plays into your original challenge?

Ok, attacks are rarely along the lines of [insert situation which graphically shows the stupidity of a previous comment] and are usually along the lines of [insert ad hominem attack on the poster].

I'm really confused as to why you'd see this as an attack. Perhaps a very clear demonstration of why your macho salary bet two weeks ago was bloody stupid, but an attack? The only possible way that could be considered such is if you felt that somehow I was calling you a whore, but to go that far would require a level of insecurity that I could not fathom without a negative reaction from someone else.

Urm, sorry for unintentionally calling you a whore.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

So sensitive?

For those who aren't keeping score, it was from when you challenged me to bet my months salary against yours as to who earned the most. (see: "is this about dick size?" from the original thread)

Since the lady in question is real and the conversation is real can you explain to me why you consider this a personal attack? Escorts do exist outside of my imagination, and this one costs $350 for 90 minutes, would you like her contact info?

I felt your original challenge was laughable and illustrated enough about your psyche that I didnt feel attacking you further was necessary.

Now you'd have me believe that you're sensitive enough that you're crying foul based on an anecdote that plays into your original challenge?

Ok, attacks are rarely along the lines of [insert situation which graphically shows the stupidity of a previous comment] and are usually along the lines of [insert ad hominem attack on the poster].

I'm really confused as to why you'd see this as an attack. Perhaps a very clear demonstration of why your macho salary bet two weeks ago was bloody stupid, but an attack? The only possible way that could be considered such is if you felt that somehow I was calling you a whore, but to go that far would require a level of insecurity that I could not fathom without a negative reaction from someone else.

Urm, sorry for unintentionally calling you a whore.

Personal Attack #2 noted.

[tbrown 26]

With any luck, the newly minted word "santorum" will hopefully outlive this a-hole/presidential hopeful. We have Dan Savage, writer of the Savage Love column to thank for coining this word, which may yet find its way into the dictionary.

Per this definition, santorum is the backflow from anal sex that tends to cause untidy problems with the bedsheets. Can't think of a better way to honor the jerk...

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[AlexCrowley 0]

Unnecessary overreaction #2 noted.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Gravitymaster 0]

At least I don't have a little dick.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

At least I don't have a little dick.

You're in Virginia, I'm in Massachusetts, of course it looks small!

Now stop peeking, I'm getting paranoid.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[TomAiello 26]

Gravitymaster, AlexCrowley;

Leave off guys. If you've got snippy one line responses, please send them via PM.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Gravitymaster, AlexCrowley;

Leave off guys. If you've got snippy one line responses, please send them via PM.

...........of course, the one time I think GMs being funny and I respond in kind a moderator shows up.

Snippy looks different, has less smileys and runs for several paragraphs. Or havent you seen my posts before?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Everon 0]

"Pleases them the most:" I'd better abandon my personal issue of loving pure mathematics - hedonist that I am.

"Sexual freedom:" I don't even know WTF the ignorant moron means by this.

Persuit of happiness be damned.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Don't be ridiculous. There is a big difference between shooting heroin and drinking beer. Many people drink beers their whole life and don't become addicted.

Heroin is an extreme example of a drug. Still, it is a fair comparison. Alchol may be legal, but few drugs are uglier when abused.

Quote

If the DZO shows poor judgement by allowing someone to skydive who isn't safe, the Govt. will step in and do it for him.

What legal mechanism would be used? Dangerous skydivers are alowed to jump in the US all the time, without gov't intervention.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

There is a big difference between a Doctor, who has access to morphine, and a heroin addict whos steals and robs to get his next fix. Here we go again with the extreme examples to try and justify a point. Must be something in the water.

Should we not also recognize the difference between the effects of the drug and the effects of the drug laws? Addicts to steal due to the limited supply and high cost, not because of the drug itself.

Quote

do you think it's better to be hush, hush about it for fear of offending those who act irresponsible?

What if that irresponsibly acting person holds a high public office and is responsible to the people? Is it still a good thing to speak out against the irresponsible actions?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Don't be ridiculous. There is a big difference between shooting heroin and drinking beer. Many people drink beers their whole life and don't become addicted.

Quote

Heroin is an extreme example of a drug. Still, it is a fair comparison. Alchol may be legal, but few drugs are uglier when abused.

Chris, I've given up trying to clarify my point, but I'll try just one more time. If someone uses heroin, the only reason is to get high. When someone drinks, it is usually not to get drunk (at least in my circle of friends). When someone uses heroin over a long period of time, they will become addicted. This is not necessarily true for alchohol use. Please note I am not saying addiction to alchohol is any better or worse than heroin addiction. Most addictions lead to mental and physical deteriation and generally cause a persons life to be taken over by their thirst for whatever their poison is. It's just that by using heroin this is pretty much guaranteed

Quote

If the DZO shows poor judgement by allowing someone to skydive who isn't safe, the Govt. will step in and do it for him.

What legal mechanism would be used? Dangerous skydivers are alowed to jump in the US all the time, without gov't intervention.

The same mechanism we are currently using seems to work, but it requires everyone to cooperate. Not run around with a "I can do whatever I want" mantra.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Chris, I've given up trying to clarify my point, but I'll try just one more time. If someone uses heroin, the only reason is to get high. When someone drinks, it is usually not to get drunk (at least in my circle of friends). When someone uses heroin over a long period of time, they will become addicted. This is not necessarily true for alchohol use. Please note I am not saying addiction to alchohol is any better or worse than heroin addiction. Most addictions lead to mental and physical deteriation and generally cause a persons life to be taken over by their thirst for whatever their poison is. It's just that by using heroin this is pretty much guaranteed

Whether you drink to get a very slight buzz, or you drink to get shitfaced, falldown, sloppy, can't even remember your own name for a day and a half drunk, it is still a high that you are seeking, just like the smack addict. I suppose some people take a single drink a day for the circulatory system, but some people use heroin because of pain.

Quote

The same mechanism we are currently using seems to work, but it requires everyone to cooperate. Not run around with a "I can do whatever I want" mantra.

You either missed my point or ignored it. Outside of locking me up the gov't currently has no mechanism to keep me, as a hypothetical dangerous skydiver, out of the sky. Either the DZO does it or no one does.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Whether you drink to get a very slight buzz, or you drink to get shitfaced, falldown, sloppy, can't even remember your own name for a day and a half drunk, it is still a high that you are seeking, just like the smack addict. I suppose some people take a single drink a day for the circulatory system, but some people use heroin because of pain.

People don't drink to get shitfaced drunk unless they are already in the early stages of alcohol dependency. I know thats not a popular thing to say to a group of skydivers, but in most cases it's true unless their is some kind of intervention before the dependency progresses to the middle and later stages. Once again I'm not arguing whether heroin is worse than alcohol, I stating that people can and do drink socially without getting drunk. Generally, most people can drink moderately their whole lives and never have a problem with dependency or addition. Conversely, most people who start using heroin eventually end up addicted. Yes I know there is always the exception. Going back to my original point, the question is, do you think someone whose judgement is impaired is capable of making the decision as to whether what they are doing is only affecting them and not hurting anyone else? Makes no difference whether their judgement is impaired by alcohol, heroin or any other substance. I'm not talking about when they are high either, I'm talking about when that little voice inside their head is telling them they need their poison.

When I was in school, I studied addiction. Go to a few AA or NA meetings and you will probably see what I mean.



The same mechanism we are currently using seems to work, but it requires everyone to cooperate. Not run around with a "I can do whatever I want" mantra.

Quote

You either missed my point or ignored it. Outside of locking me up the gov't currently has no mechanism to keep me, as a hypothetical dangerous skydiver, out of the sky. Either the DZO does it or no one does.

I didn't miss or ignore you, I agreed with you. The reason the govt. doesn't have that mechanism is because they haven't seen a need to. Let a group of skydivers adopt a "I can do whatever I want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone but me", like unlicenced rigger packing reserves and you will start to have a lot of accidents and fatalities. Thats when the govt. will decide our current method of self-policing doesn't work, and they will step in.