GeorgiaDon

At what point do my daughters stop being my children? If people ask me if I have any children, do I have to answer "Nope. I do have two daughters and a son, though. However since they're all over the age of 18, I have no children." Or, perhaps, you are choosing to intrude your politically convenient bias into your interpretation of the word? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sure you did. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Did you make 3 (or more) jumps in those 3 months? Priorities matter. So do deadlines. Hope you can work it out, or nothing bad happens to you or your family before October. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, it is a negative term, and it was used in a decidedly negative way in the article linked in the original post. Redefining it doesn't really change the "taint". You can try to redefine "rapist" as someone who enjoys sex, but that won't make people OK with being called a rapist. Anyway the fundamental flaw in the whole discussion is trying to divide people into just two groups. You're the one who's always saying we're all individuals, and (correctly) chastising posters who lump people into stereotypes, but I can't think of a cruder or less useful sterotype than "makers" and "takers". A useful discussion would have to include the costs vs benefits of government employees, and that would require that people be willing to look past their preconceived biases. Governments often provide services that cannot be provided by private individuals which create opportunities to generate wealth. I'll provide some examples in my rely to Bolas. Something to consider, then, would be the impact of "takers" who consume a certain share of the pie, if the actual size of the pie is larger because of the contributions of the "takers". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

"Yeah, I was definitely just in jail so I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be getting out." - Future President Not Sure Is there supposed to be a link there? I don't recognize the quote and google didn't bring anything up. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No, i wanted opinions on whether it's sustainable to have a voting base where a majority are takers of one form or another. (you see it in action - in reality, 100% are partial takers of one kind or another - do you see spending decrease in any way shape or form?)While the question is perhaps interesting, dividing the population into only two categories, prejudicially named "makers" and "takers", so obscures reality as to make any attempt at "analysis" a farce. Categorizing anyone who is paid by the government (at any level, i.e. federal, state, or local) as a "taker" (=net drain on the economy) ignores the role of government in stimulating economic activity. For example, I am a professor at a state university. I suppose that makes me a "taker". On the other hand, just one of the courses I teach brings to the university (and so to the state, as we are a state agency) twice my salary in tuition students pay to take my course. I also teach all or part of two other undergraduate courses, and three graduate courses, all of which bring in tuition dollars. I also run a research lab that brings into the state research grants, which are mostly used to employ people who then pay taxes and spend their money in the local economy. Most of the masters and PhD students I have trained are working for private industry, mainly the biotech industry. Biotech is a multi-billion dollar component of the US economy, and it would be unable to function were it not for the availability of a trained workforce. Those students have all seen a significant return on investment in that their income (and so taxes paid) are several fold higher than what they would have been without an education. Finally a couple of things I have invented have been patented, and are under development by the private companies that licensed those patents. This generates more revenue for the university, and eventually will generate revenue for those private companies. So all in all I bring in to my employer (the state) several times my salary in tuition dollars, I bring in more money that I use to employ people and train graduate students, and those students are integral to the success of private biotech companies. So tell me, am I a taker or a maker? Note that the same question could be reasonably asked for the vast majority of government employees. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, he didn't run or try to hide, or even change his name. The state screwed this one up. In the meantime he's kept out of trouble, started a business, got married and had a kid. There's no rehabilitation that could be accomplished by sending him to jail now, only screwing up the rehabilitation he accomplished by himself. Even the victim doesn't think he should go to jail. If the state needs to save face, make him do some community service. No good would come from jailing him now, only a waste of taxpayer money, plus killing his business and likely ruining his life and possibly his kid's life. The state says something about setting a precedent, but hopefully they'll get their act together so this situation never arises again. How can they be so incompetent that they thought they had him in jail all these years? This fits right in with the stories about people being "lost in the system" so they go months or even years in jail without a trial or (in one case I recall) even a hearing before a judge. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Do you have any actual examples of ski resorts being built on public land without having to pay "rent"? I have always assumed that a portion of my lift fees went to pay for such access. Similarly, part of my jump ticket cost is for fuel, which includes taxes used to maintain the airport, FAA etc. Also there are different flavors of "public land". There is land under Federal jurisdiction, such as BLM and National Forest land, there is land under State jurisdiction, and there is land owned by municipalities. Each owner is free to make the best use they can of the land under their control, within the scope of any applicable legislation. Mining companies must pay royalties on mineral resources extracted from federal land, for example (though we can debate if those royalties are sufficient). A State or municipality could decide that the economic activity generated by a ski resort brings enough money into a community to justify leasing the land, if they so wished. I would certainly object if somebody decided National Forest land was theirs for the taking, built a ski resort, and told the owner (which ultimately would be the US public) to fuck off or take a bullet. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Where'd you get that from? You're the one who has been saying they shouldn't have let it go 20 years in the courts. If it's publicly owned land I do have a right access. I always had current land ownership maps. I knew where the boundary was between privately owned tracts and BLM or National Forest land. When I talked to the ranchers (as I always did, to let them know what I was up to) I made it clear that I would stay well clear of any livestock (don't want to mess with them anyway) and close any gates behind me etc. One fellow told me "if you cross that gate nobody will ever find your body". Just to be clear, most of the time ranchers were friendly and cooperative, and appreciated that I stopped to let them know who I was and what I would be doing. There were just a few that had the bad attitude. So what? That argument was considered and rejected by both Federal and Nevada courts. The guy may believe whatever he wants to, but the courts say he is wrong. He is also a liar: he claims he will follow Nevada law, but then he rejects the authority of the Nevada court as well. He's just determined to do whatever the hell he wants. The problem with that is that it assumes both sides want to fix it. What do you do when one side (the rancher in this case) has no interest in solving the problem, because they are profiting by allowing it to continue? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

After 20 years, at some point you have to enforce the law. Do I think they needed to show up with an Army? Absolutely not. But nice letters didn't seem to be doing the trick. A site visit was in order. Earlier in this thread, I suggested a visit from the feds... not an army but a couple agents but that was ruled out as being too costly. ChuckWhat do you think a "nice little face-to-face" would have accomplished that 20 years of litigation didn't? It's not as if this guy had no idea anything was amiss until the BLM started to remove his cattle. He's been in "fuck you" mode for 20 years. Bundy is now claiming effective ownership of a huge swath of public land. His cattle are grazing through a large part of Lake Mead National Recreational Area and the Valley of Fire State Park. The situation is not much different from a mining company claiming that they don't recognize the United States Government, and then opening an open pit mine in the middle of Big Bend National Park. I'll admit that this case has a certain resonance with me. When I lived in Arizona, I was very frustrated with ranchers who closed off BLM land and denied everyone else their legal right to access that public land for hiking and camping. I ran into this at a number of places in both Arizona and southern New Mexico. For the price of a grazing permit, these ranchers got (well, took) what amounted to personal ownership of huge tracts of land, including in some cases entire mountain ranges. BLM officials just referred me to local law enforcement. Appeals to local law enforcement went nowhere, as they either were friendly with the rancher or decided it wasn't something they wanted to get mixed up in. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What next? How about someone opening up an open pit mine where Yosemite used to be? Clear-cutting the Blue Ridge Mountains? Hell yeah, fuck the government, take what you want and piss on everybody else. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This has already been debunked several times in this thread, yet you continue to repeat it as if it were true. I'd thought better of you. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You also have to bear in mind that regulation must (or should) be applied equally to everyone. If you have no regulations at all, anyone could dam or pollute water that passes through their property, denying everyone downstream the use of that resource. In the past, and even still today, that has been the basis for some nasty "water wars". Also, everybody thinks their stream/wetland is just an insignificant piece of the whole landscape, yet if everybody fills in the wetlands or diverts the streams that cross their property, the cumulative effect is drastic changes in the ecology of the whole region. Only a few % of the wetlands that used to exist in this country are still in existence, despite the well-documented role of wetlands in acting as water purification filters as well as essential habitat for animals such as waterfowl. Compared to water in running streams, water exiting reservoirs such as stock ponds is warmer, less oxygenated, and lacking in organic material such as insect larvae. A good way to kill a trout stream is to dam it; even if water continues to flow out a spillway, the water downstream will be too warm, and too poor in oxygen and nutrients, to support fish. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to have a process to evaluate changes to streams and other waterways for impacts on downstream users. If you say "well the regulations exist but we won't apply them to Bob" then you can't fairly apply them to Jane either, and then you're back to a situation where downstream users could have their water turned off, or rendered unusable, at any time and they would have no remedy. People who regard the EPA as nothing more than jack-booted thugs should educate themselves about the state of the environment that lead to creation of the EPA and passage of laws governing clean water and air. Do you really believe that the progress that has been made towards cleaning up water and air pollution would have occurred without laws and enforcement to back it up? How many industries would spend money to clean up their wastes if the law permitted them to simply dump it in the river, as used to be the case? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't see the conflict. On the other hand, it's "funny" how conservatives who claim to have such respect for life would rather that people would wait until they are absolutely certain they are having a heart attack (as opposed to heartburn) or having a stroke (as opposed to a sudden unexplained severe headache) before seeking treatment. Never mind that by that point the patient will be dead or have suffered irreversible damage; better that than "wasting" a single dollar on diagnostics and tests. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Whatever you say, Dr. Bolas. From WebMD: Stroke Warning Signs Sometimes symptoms of stroke develop gradually. But if you are having a stroke, you are more likely to have one or more sudden warning signs like these: Numbness or weakness in your face, arm, or leg, especially on one side Confusion or trouble understanding other people Trouble speaking Trouble seeing with one or both eyes Trouble walking or staying balanced or coordinated Dizziness Severe headache that comes on for no known reason Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

At the risk of derailing the amusing thread drift, I'd like to say how cool it is that unexpected results are coming out of the LHC. I suppose the day will come when our models are so accurate they become indistinguishable from reality, but it's good to know we still have some exploring to do. Here's clickable link to the article BV posted: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/04/physicists-announce-inexplicable-particle?et_cid=3876459&et_rid=45537935&type=headline Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That is what happens now. However, a doctor still has to examine the patient and determine the issue is not serious, and that exam costs time/money. Many cases are not clear-cut at the outset. That guy with chest pains? Maybe just heartburn, treatable (at least the symptoms) with a cheap antacid from CVS. Maybe it's a heart attack. How do you know without doing tests? That sore throat could be just a common cold, or it could be strep. That headache could be just a headache, or it could be a stroke. ERs have to at least examine the patient, often have some tests done, before a medically sound decision can be made. Most of the cost comes from the exam and tests. What's the alternative? Tell the guy with chest pains to come back when he's dead and it's obvious he was having a heart attack? A few years ago I started a thread to ask this question, in response to Lawrocket's comments about repealing EMTALA, and set up a poll. I was surprised that 5 people voted to refuse treatment to anyone who couldn't provide, in advance, proof of insurance or ability to pay. Those 5 people would be totally on board with refusing treatment to that little girl. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sometimes, though, the beerion combines with a dogion to make it look like a hottion. The interaction is unstable, decaying by the next morning into an oshition and a myheadiskillingmeion. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The Nature Conservancy buys land with ecologically sensitive resources. Their mandate is to protect habitat. Since they own the land, it would seem to me they have a right to do with it as they wish. Do you disagree? Or do you disagree with people buying land in order to protect endangered/threatened species or habitats? Should people be screened for their intentions before being allowed to buy land, and be denied if they intend to conserve it? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm pretty certain it was the second. The BLM can't just take your land without compensating you for it (it's in the Constitution!). On the other hand most Western ranchers (except for Texas, I think) do not own the vast majority of the land they use; they own the part with buildings and such, and pay for grazing rights on vast acreages of public land. It wouldn't really be practical to have to own the land, as most of it is so poor that it takes several acres to support one cow. Because BLM land is publicly owned, it is supposed to be "multi-use". That means the rancher is not supposed to be able to deny access to hikers, rockhounds, etc as long as they don't bother the livestock. For that reason, as one example, roads could have gates (to keep cattle in) but those gates were not supposed to be locked. However, when I lived in Arizona in the 90's there was a movement amongst many ranchers to treat the land as their private property and deny access to everyone. Local sheriffs were very reluctant to get involved in access disputes, so generally there was no practical way to fight this land grab. Southern Arizona has a myriad of small mountain ranges, often called "sky islands" because the higher elevations are much cooler and so are forested, unlike the lowland desert between the ranges. Ranchers could in effect claim entire mountain ranges as their private fiefdom just by leasing grazing rights to the surrounding desert and denying everyone else access. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Seems like a good excuse to break out the Warthogs for some live ammo practice. Might be tough on the tortoises, though. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

BILLVON Nice of you to "edit" my post and completely gut out the point I was trying to make about our society being one of "watchers" instead of "helpers". I said exactly nothing about a principal using a gun, the point was that the people like myself that carry seem to be the only people with the mentality to protect and help rather than stand by. So is this how you moderate a forum? Edit people's responses to make them say what YOU want them to say?If your argument was going to be that only people who carry concealed would get involved and try to help, then this incident is proof that you are wrong, as their is no evidence the vice principle was carrying (very very unlikely in a school), and he did get involved and help people out. If you are motivated to carry in order to "help people out" I'd suggest you rethink such Walter Mitty impulses. If you want to carry to protect yourself, to have a last card to play when other options have evaporated, you have every right to do so. If you see yourself as a potential hero of the moment, stepping in between the bad guy and the damsel in distress, well people have got themselves killed doing that. I hope you at least have some kind of formal training in active shooter scenarios. If the quote is your statement and BVs edit, I agree the message has been altered. However, I have to say I agree a lot more with the BV version. Using a gun to take the guy down, in a crowded hallway full of panicked students, could well have produced more casualties than the knife-wielding attacker did. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I didn't realize the ACA came with a cure for SB. Bravo!It's remarkable that the concept that prevention is less expensive than treating a life-long incurable condition is too much for some people to understand. Don Abortion is much cheaper than that. Lets require abortions.If you say so. We'll start with the turtles. Also let's not forget the cost savings that euthanasia could bring. A bit of CO2 gas is surely a lot cheaper than a lifetime supply of surgical glue to hold a cracked shell together, never mind the turtle wax to buff out the dings and scrapes. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Someone else (the author of the article you linked, not you) who does not understand the concept of "correlation does not prove causation". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

***There is yet another ObamaCare surprise waiting for consumers: from now until the next open enrollment at the end of this year, most people will simply not be able to buy any health insurance at all, even outside the exchanges. "It's all closed down. You cannot buy a policy that is a qualified policy for the purpose of the ACA (the Affordable Care Act) until next year on January 1," says John DiVito, president of Flexbenefit which has 2,500 brokers. John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas adds, "People are not going to be able to buy individual and family policies, and that's part of ObamaCare. And what makes it so surprising is the whole point of ObamaCare was to encourage people to get insurance, and now the market has been completely closed down for the next seven months." That means that with few exceptions, tens of millions of people will be locked out of the health insurance market for the rest of this year. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/09/latest-obamacare-surprise-most-wont-be-able-to-buy-health-insurance-until-end/?sc=711578774735426773More right wing hyperbole. Anyone with a change-of-life situation (get a job, lose a job, get married, get divorced, have a kid, age out of coverage on your parent's plan) will be able to buy insurance. The only people who will be affected are people who don't have insurance, who did not have any change in their circumstances, and who didn't bother to get insurance before the deadline. If they didn't bother to get insurance before, and their circumstances have not changed, what do you think the chances are that they will suddenly decide out of the blue to get insurance now? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)