winsor

Correct. When the deficit is mentioned in terms of percentage of GDP but they don't mention the total debt as a percentage of GDP, then obfuscation is the goal. We're already at more than 100% of GDP for debt. So each new deficit is just added weight. If I have a massively negative bank balance, habitually writing checks for, say, $5,000 more than I deposit every month, and tell my bank that I will henceforth write checks for only $1,500 more than I deposit every month, I doubt if they will be elated. For some reason, many people that can figure out that scenario seem to think that the rules of arithmetic do not apply to the Gov't. BSBD, Winsor I'm pretty sure that the bank would have you arrested before you could write too many of those. Well, the Gov't seems to count on the principle that if you owe the bank $1,000 it's your problem, but if you owe the bank $100,000,000 it's the bank's problem. I agree that if I handled my finances the way the Federal Gov't did, I would face life in prison. Bernie Madoff asked why people were taking him to task, since the Federal Gov't was a Ponzi scheme. He would know. BSBD, Winsor

Bill Clinton is, and has always been, a slut. Given his amateur status, he should take pride in being accepted warmly by professionals.

Correct. When the deficit is mentioned in terms of percentage of GDP but they don't mention the total debt as a percentage of GDP, then obfuscation is the goal. We're already at more than 100% of GDP for debt. So each new deficit is just added weight. If I have a massively negative bank balance, habitually writing checks for, say, $5,000 more than I deposit every month, and tell my bank that I will henceforth write checks for only $1,500 more than I deposit every month, I doubt if they will be elated. For some reason, many people that can figure out that scenario seem to think that the rules of arithmetic do not apply to the Gov't. BSBD, Winsor

I did not buy the arguments for invading Iraq at the time, and questioned the sanity of anyone who did. Just because they were gullible does not mean they are not culpable. BSBD, Winsor

What an exercise in cluelessness. Any time someone takes the time to tell you that what they propose is 'common sense' or 'reasonable,' it is a guarantee that they are full of shit. Bureaucracy is the mother of mediocrity.

Turns out he was a rapper in days gone by. Explains a lot.

I think the article is overly optimistic regarding the future of the U.S. of A. Given that mediocrity has become an unassailable virtue, and that stupidity is our most cherished inexhaustible resource, we are doomed. We are well beyond the tipping point, and the question is not 'if' so much as 'when, and how bad.' It was fun while it lasted. BSBD, Winsor

I thought it was funny as hell. You know what they say, 97% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

I've always been a student of history but I didn't know this. In 1272, the Arabic Muslims invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine. In 1873, the British refined the idea by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

It has a bit of a glass house feel to it, or have you blocked out of your mind the communes of white extremist Christians doing the same sort of shit? Its been proven there are child molesters in most (all?) religions. I just can't recall a case in recent times where some Christians were pushing through a law to give them rights to fuck 9 year olds. On the other hand, it might be said Muslims don't have the political power to cover up widespread fucking of 9 year olds by denying it at the highest level, shuffling around offenders, and bribing people to make the problem go away. Infidel! You dare to suggest that there is anything at all wrong with having passionate sex with 9 year old girls? Muhammad himself married a 9 year old girl! Criticize the faithful much further, and you will be subject to a Fatwa! Any more questioning of the Religion of Peace (tm) and you will die a hideous and violent death. You have been warned...

And if one is critical towards Jews; are they being critical of a nation or a religion? Judaism is a tribal identity; 'Universal Religions' are based on political affiliation. For example, the difference between the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches, or between Shiite and Sunni Islam, is almost entirely a matter of political power. A case in point is the Old Sod. 'Religion' in Ulster is more a matter of ethnic, and thus political, identity than belief structure. If you're Catholic you are likely the militarily defeated indigenous Irish, Presbyterians are Scots imported to be overseers, and Anglicans are English who are of the Landed Gentry and run the show. The differences in belief structure are largely cosmetic. The specifics of liturgy and various tenets of faith serve to very effectively obscure the fundamental issues, which is necessary for the proliferation of the particular 'ism.' Understanding of 'Universal Religions' entails knowledge of Epidemiology as much as Psychology and Sociology. The more virulent the 'ism,' the more successful is its proliferation. Anyhow the 'Children of Israel' are exactly that - the offspring of Jacob/Israel. The Tribes of Israel are the families of Jacob's 12 sons (female offspring get short shrift, which is ironic, given that while one's lineage is paternal, one's Jewishness is maternal). Criticism of things Jewish is neither national nor religious per se; it is tribal. It may be quite valid - I know Rabbis that can't stand matzos. BSBD, Winsor

Oh I bet's it's not .. I quote Black Adder quite a lot... I'm sad that way Well, he DID graduate from the world's 2nd best university. The Zelinsky Institute of Organic Chemistry, or the other one?

Keep a copy of Doug Kenney's "How to Write Good" on hand and you're all set.

What did Neanderthals do to warrant this kind of abuse? I think they deserve an apology.

I'm not sure why, but this comes to mind.

Maybe you ARE a firearm skygod. But the funny thing is that not a single one of the gun owners who posts here admits to being anything but a firearm skygod. DZ.COM must be the Lake Wobegon of guns. So where are all the below average gun owners? I guess they're in the police, or firearms instructors who shoot themselves. My limited exposure to the confluence of firearms and skydiving indicates that, in general, the skydivers who are not extremely competent with firearms are those that eschew them entirely. Our population includes an inordinate number of Special Ops, Law Enforcement, and other heavily trained personnel. I know quite a few Class III manufacturers, dealers and licensees as well. The number of active participants in Rifle, Pistol and Shotgun Competition is much higher than in the general population, and the level of technical expertise regarding shooting tends to be in the top 10% of people who show up for any class I have taught. If you show up at a DZ with anything from a BB gun to a 16 inch naval rifle, dollars to donuts says there will be someone there who not only knows how to use it, but can use it supremely well. The skydiving community may be a lot of things, but it is not, and likely will never be, reflective of the population at large. An unusual level of competence with firearms (again, among those who do not routinely avoid them) is typical of skydivers. BSBD, Winsor

AAROOOOO! That being said, America would never go to war on a trumped-up pretense. Silly boy. The advice is sound that one should not attribute to conspiracy that which is easily explained by incompetence. We tend to elect people who either failed or cheated to pass Arithmetic and History (at the very least). BSBD, Winsor There are 535 Senators and Representatives in Congress. How many of them are scientists or engineers by training? Not very. Spending years addressing technical fundamentals does not prepare one for dealing with the unwashed masses. It would take an intensive course of study to bring most people up to speed with the starting point of the conversation, so trying to sufficiently dumb down one's message is problematic. In advertising, the rule of thumb is that, once you exceed an eighth-grade level, you have lost half your audience. This applies to capital expenditures, and equally so to political candidates. I again state that our only inexhaustible resource is stupidity. Washington is proof of that. BSBD, Winsor

AAROOOOO! That being said, America would never go to war on a trumped-up pretense. Silly boy. The advice is sound that one should not attribute to conspiracy that which is easily explained by incompetence. We tend to elect people who either failed or cheated to pass Arithmetic and History (at the very least). BSBD, Winsor

It seems Putin is following Clinton's lead. He did, in fact, establish precedent here. No need for blamestorming; incompetence in the Oval Office has no political persuasion. BSBD, Winsor

Source; http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-russian-legislators-approve-troop-deployment-in-ukraine-20140301,0,5534961.story Question: is there any legitimate reason the US should get involved? 30 years ago we'd be concerned with the spread of communism, but that's not an issue since Russia isn't communist now. We'd also be concerned if Putin was a dictator, but regardless of his beating up some people against him, Russia as a whole seems to be doing quite well compared to before the wall fell. I'm just not sure we have any moral grounds to stop him. Morals have precious little to do with it. Given the precedent we established in Kosovo, I suspect the 'secession' of Crimea is fait accompli.

When I don't want an animal anymore, I can have it euthanized. Or, alternatively I can give it to local animal control/humane society and if they cannot find a quitable "home" within a very short time frame, they will euthanize it. When I can legally start doing that with human family members, your analogy makes sense. The only time I have had an animal euthanized is when it was terminally ill and in great pain. Generally I do what I can to make a terminally ill animal comfortable, and give it the highest quality of life I can arrange until it dies. What I was talking about with a "rabid dog" and its featherless biped counterpart is, as I stated it poses a real and immediate threat to those in it's vicinity so long as it draws breath. If you lock someone up for tax evasion or what have you, it behooves you to protect them from malevolent predators if you ever expect to release them. Someone with the hope of being freed has something to lose; someone who will neither be freed nor executed, and is assured room, board and medical care for the rest of their life, has nothing to lose. If you can isolate the pathology that is intrinsic to such malevolent lifers, and so guarantee that they NEVER pose a threat to another human being, fine. Unfortunately, the only way that has been accomplished to date is to put them to sleep. Do not get me wrong, I have no illusions regarding how effective is the system of ensuring that only the truly guilty are prosecuted, convicted and sentenced, and I thus do not claim any particular confidence in the process whereby this social surgery might take place. Nevertheless, there are people who pose a significant threat to those around them as long as they are alive, and the sooner they are not alive, the better. I wish it was not the case. BSBD, Winsor

Spend more greenbacks? Do not confuse the real resources with waste paper. Touche.

In all fairness, pain management in pallative care is different from other pain management. Don't really care about addicition issues for the terminally ill. Agreed. My mother mentioned the use of Diamorphine (heroin) in the hospice where she worked. It turns out that the appeal of diacetyl morphine from the illicit standpoint has nothing to do with its addictive qualities. As an addition reaction, turning morphine into heroin produces more weight on a molecule by molecule basis - morphine will yield over 10% more when converted to heroin. The real appeal is that heroin is 6 to 8 times as potent as morphine. If someone is going to pay $10 to get a serious nod on, it will take a grain of morphine (60mg), but 10 mg of heroin will do the trick. Oddly enough, this is the advantage from an end of life standpoint. When faced with terminal pain, one can up the dose with morphine to the extent that the load on the liver and kidneys is significant. You have to up the dose another sixfold before heroin shows the same level of hepatoxicity. It is recommended that one stay away from most of these things unless death is imminent and inevitable (okay, death is inevitable for all of us, but I'm talking about the untimely variant). One of the reasons these drugs have clinical utility is that, under their influence, things that are generally worrisome (such as being maimed and/or dying) are not as big of a deal. It is recommended that one avoid permanent solutions to temporary problems, and becoming dependent upon narcotics has too great a potential to become a permanent issue. YMMV. BSBD, Winsor

Thank goodness the Boy Scouts still draws the line at atheists!

If you want to understand the underpinnings of any 'ism,' RTFB. Mein Kampf, the Koran, the Tanakh, the Christian Scriptures, Dianetics, the Communist Maifesto, the Book of Mormon and rather a few other works are available for your perusal. The Koran, in particular, is a compilation of quotes from a source that makes Jeffrey Dahmer look well adjusted (not that Joseph Smith was much better). Whether your take is 'gosh, that's wonderful!' or 'gee, that sucks out loud!' it's all there in black and white (Holy Typos and redaction, too!). I think South Park has the whole thing dialed in pretty well.