winsor

On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with a "nation taking care of its own people." If that was anything close to what the legislation entailed, there would be much less debate on the issue. One problem I had when President Clinton tasked his wife to "fix" (in the same sense as one would "fix" a pet, I suppose) the health care system is that I am instantly suspicious of Attorneys attempting to improve the business model of Physicians. I am old enough to recall days when medical care was an out of pocket expense. The birth of a baby and the attendant hospital stay was paid by writing a check. Now it is just a little different. The hospital room alone was $10,000 a day a couple of years ago, and I doubt that things have become much cheaper in the meantime. Rather than addressing why the same services that used to price out at Honda 50 levels now find themselves in the Lamborghini price range, the legislature simply accepted the price tag and mandated that everyone pay Lamborghini prices. Thus, while I agree that the problem is severe, I dispute wholeheartedly the suggesting that Obamacare is anything close to a solution. If the legislature had chosen to deftly manipulate the rules so that a health care provider could charge what the services actually cost without being put out of business, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, the "fix" worked out to be brute force and ignorance at its finest. Our broken health care system is symptomatic of fundamental flaws in our sociopolitical system in general, and Obamacare is a huge leap in the wrong direction. It is an example of the principle that the greatest source of problems is solutions. If someone proposes a legitimate fix, I'm in. Obamacare, however, is no such thing. BSBD, Winsor

Sounds similar to: "When black people stop destroying my city and jews stop ripping me off, I'll stop insulting them. Until then, they're fair game... So what's your point?

I dunno, some pretty evil people have been pretty upfront with it. I can think of one guy who wrote a book all about how he was going to kill 6 million people and folks said, "Ok, that sounds like a plan. Let's go for it." Evil is reading the plan to be an asshole toward your fellow man and going along with it. Sure, but what about those who aren't so easy to get to? We're the ones that saw it coming and managed to get out of town. After a few pogroms it becomes a polished skill.

I like this guy's standpoint. Invoking the religious aspect of the matter appeals to people's fundamental stupidity, and stupidity is our only limitless natural resource. However, using such stupidity carries great risks, since it is hard to keep terrified sheep pointed in a particular direction, and much gets trampled in the process. My objection to "Climate Science" is not so much a matter of Continuum Mechanics, Radiation Heat Transfer and whatnot, it is the religious fervor shown by both the unwashed masses (as led by Algore), and people whose credentials would have led me to expect better. I am constantly amazed by otherwise intelligent people who, when they shift into "religious mode," are capable of spouting the most inane drivel. The cult of "Global Warming" is a case in point. BSBD, Winsor

Too late - he's already forked in the head.

It's been done.

You made me chuckle. Logic only makes complete sense to people who have studied logic. It is a secular humanistic concept, shared by mortal philosophers. Common folk communicate without it. And, like quade you're coming in late on the message exchange. Beowulf and I were doing OK. He doesn't need the late arrival of a big brother. Try to get a computer to function using the communication standards of "common folk." Let me know how that works out.

There is the shift toward rebellion. You believe your opinion holds some power over me, that it will affect my values and my life. That is just adolescent thinking. I am your elder and whether you like it or not, I have more experience in life and know more than you do. You are just spitting into the wind son. By that logic, a grandma who dated Henry Ford would be a better driver than Jeff Gordon. My money's on the kid.

If they weren't witches, we wouldn't have burned them at the stake, now would we?

Circular logic. P.S.: The Doobie Brothers blow.

I'd disagree they're highly adaptable and are still going strong despite the best efforts of the alliance for a decade. Kinda like gonorrhea.

Look how it's turned out so far - I'm underwhelmed.

I am not delusional. I know what the term means in a professional setting. I have been validated by several in this forum, by many in my social world and by my entire family. I know Whose I am and where I am going. I am not alone. The use of the term in a professional setting bears no similarity to the use to which you objected. Being 'validated' ('Validation' is a legally defined process, and I recognize that you are using an entirely different definition here) by members of this forum et al. is logically irrelevant - Argumentum ad Populum and all that. You may be correct regarding what you claim to know, but said claims, at least as stated, are subject to equally valid refutation. The fact that you are not alone is equally irrelevant. Again, if it makes you happy, that's great. I would counsel any newcomer to The Rooms 'to thine own self be true,' however that shapes up. It is only when you go from 'I believe this' to 'this is true' that your claims are subject to review. A statement of belief (or doubt) is merely a statement of fact, a claim of veracity on any subject may be evaluated on its merits. If you believe in Ra and build pyramids, all I can say is "nice pyramids, dude." If you build pyramids and use their existance to claim the existance of Ra, we're off to the races. BSBD, Winsor

I don't think he was trying to diagnose you. When most people use the word "delusional," they are using the dictionary definition, not the DSM-IV criteria. And I think the dictionary definition worked just fine for what he was trying to say, even if it wasn't a very nice thing to say. I suppose you think I should just forget my formal education and life experience and just roll over. I am not willing to do that. There are various types of definitions, none of which trumps all others in every circumstance. You have lexical, technical, precising, legal and medical definitions, to name a few. A medical or legal definition may differ from location to location, or from year to year, and these definitions are all too often contradictory. Someone can correctly use the term 'delusional' in accordance with another, perfectly legitimate, definition. You would be correct that the use was inappropriate if used in the wrong, very specific, context (i.e., a court of law or during clinical diagnosis). You need not forget everything you know to accept that its scope is not universal. BSBD, Winsor

Hey, if you can't trust the Government, who can you trust?

And that is the main point, those of us interested in a spiritual life do not use rationality to get there. We are sensitive to the awareness of it. After living a committed spiritual life, we acquire empirical evidence which provides the data for a spiritual rationality. Be advised that spirituality and religion are entirely unrelated. There are many people who are very religious without a hint of spirituality, and the very spiritual are more often than not entirely non-religious. Comprehension is a prerequisite for understanding. Much of what passes as "spirituality" is little more than obfuscation. BSBD, Winsor

It's real...there is a God. Reality can withstand any scrutiny. Given that criterion, every god has an equal claim to "reality." It can be demonstrated that faith in Ra allowed his followers to create pyramids that remain unequaled to date, sacrifices to Zeus gave his followers the rock-solid assurance that they found favor in his eyes, and so forth. You want to believe in the mythical construct of your choosing? Knock yourself out. You want to claim that said belief system holds up to rational evaluation? Don't hold your breath. BSBD, Winsor

I've not heard about armed resistance in China en mass and they didn't have guns in Tiannamin square and they were crushed regardless of the worlds media. The world stood watching then and it would again. Rather like it is in Syria right now. Small arms don't do much good against tanks and helicopter gunships. The best defense against tanks and helicopter gunships, in my experience, is geography. Being in a different part of the globe than the one with all the projectiles whizzing about serves to greatly improve one's life expecancy.

And yet, what was the most singularly powerful image from Tiananmen Square? A lone and unarmed man standing up to a column of tanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989 Sure, he could have easily died trying to stop the tanks unarmed, he also probably would have died if he had been armed as well, but unarmed he's heroic in a way no amount of weaponry could have improved upon. I'm not going to go so far as to say that image stopped the massacre, but it sure as hell got the rest of the world on his side. A) It did not stop the massacre. B) The world's sympathy had no effect on the efficacy of the suppression. C) The individual who stood up to the tanks has apparently been identified by various sources; he was never prosecuted, but simply "dissapeared." The person standing in front of the tank had just committed suicide. D) When all was said and done, the protesters lost and the powers that be won. An RPG would have had an awful lot more impact than having the tanks stop briefly to avoid having to clean giblets our of their tracks.

I lost track of how many jumps I have on Blue Tracks, but it's somewhere between 500 and 1,000. The BT-50 is 150 square feet and the BT-60 is 175. It is claimed to be ZP, but it is not the slick ZP or the stuff used in Triathlons and so forth. A couple of notes: Being a first-generation elliptical, it was not detuned so its handling is twitchy. If you bury a toggle in full flight, you will put the canopy between you and the ground (literally - I have pictures of the event). If you do a panic turn on short final, you WILL die. It is also sensitve to packing. If you know how to pack it, there is no problem at all. However, DO NOT simply hand it off to a packer and hope they will get it right. You may have an opening that loosens your fillings, or one that takes about two or three rotations to settle out before you realize that it is simply a funky opening and not a mal. Needless to say, I will not jump someone else's pack job, considering it worth the time to repack it myself. In any event, my primary canopy is a BT-60. It opens great and flies beautifully, but I would not recommend it to someone without a lot of experience. It's a brilliant canopy, but it certainly is not for everyone. Blue skies, Winsor

About as likely as Ajax and Achilles. Significantly less likely.

The proper terminology is I don't claim to know unlike y'all. The plural of 'y'all' is 'all y'all.'

Aw man, that response is just bullshit! Is that the best you can do? Judging from your other posts I assumed that you were capable of more intellectually inspired concepts. There, how was that? Plain enough? ... I think the point was that being sanctimonious and patronizing is repellent. You have simply demonstrated that being intentionally obnoxious is equally repellent. Religion is like genitalia. It is fine to have either, and what you do with either in private with consenting adults is not a problem. Exposure in public is an exercise in bad taste at the very best, and forcing either on the unwilling is criminal.

Okay, so I was looking for a reference to Credo quia absurdum, but I stumbled across this. Apropos of nothing it may be, but it struck me as funny as hell.

Winsor, While enlightening I refuse to belive the outcome is already decided. To be sure change is coming. Those most affected will be those who rely on the government to earn a living, either directly or indirectly. That option will be curtailed severely, and the ripple effect will be huge. Some of it will be offset by the end of the boomers and their load on the budget. We also have a history of getting what we need/want. We won't sit back idley. It is later than you think...just not too late. In 'The Last Starfighter,' the bad guy aliens are on the losing end of the battle. The First Officer type turns to the CIC alien and says "what do we do now?" "We die." None of our options are much better. With 6+ billion humanoids on this planet in various shapes and sizes, the logistical requirements for mere survival are significant indeed. Even when awash in free energy (you need only stick a straw in the earth and suck it up), there were all too many at or below subsistance level. Take away the seemingly unending supply of fossil fuels, and the equation tips nastily in favor of a partial-extinction scenario. The discovery of oil and its many uses was an unimaginable boon for a century or so, but it has also planted the seeds of our inevitable demise. If we were all on the same page, committed to a common vision of survival of our species, we might have hope for a sustainable future. We are not, and we do not. Like a supertanker aimed at a reef at flank speed, you could still have time for a leisurely lunch and dessert, and the outcome would be unavoidable. I agree that Bob Hoover's recommendation to fly as far through the crash as possible applies. Unfortunately, those who are in charge either have no idea how dire is our predicament or they despair of a viable solution. I suspect the former is the case, though I could not criticize the latter. As the F-86 test pilot said when his plane began to do a backflip onto the runway, 'tower, this will be a full-stop." I wish I was wrong, but I'm not. BSBD, Winsor