GeorgiaDon

I agree, or at least I agree the connection is tenuous and it would be unsupportable to blame right-wing Christianity for this. The issue to me seems to be xenophobia, hatred of "outsiders" who dilute "cultural/ethnic purity". Not a "looney" in the sense of "insane", though. Rather, an intelligent and organized extremist who decided other people could be used as poker chips in his gamble to foment an anti-multiculturalist uprising. Just another Timothy McVeigh, who would no doubt become another Stalin given the opportunity. These people are much more dangerous than the truly insane, because they can plot and plan and so generate many more casualties. 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)

More likely just an example of poor journalism and lazy editors. The article states: "Investigators said the neighbor threw a T-shirt on top of the gun and it accidentally went off...". I suspect a more accurate statement would have been: "Investigators said the neighbor said he threw a T-shirt on top of the gun and it accidentally went off...". Now if the police could repeat the experiment, i.e. throw a T-shirt on the gun and have it go off, that would indeed be disconcerting, but I'd be very skeptical of that ever happening. 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 is your alternative then? You get to pick who can vote, according to your "purity test"? Yeah, that'll work. 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)

Snopes could be your friend, should you decide to stop copying and pasting crap that has been circulating on the internet since the Bush/Gore election of 2000. Even so, the article is riddled with errors. It wasn't written by Professor Olson, "Alexander Tyler" is "Tytler" and he never wrote about the fall of the Athenian Republic (indeed, he never wrote anything attributed to him in your POS copy-and-paste), and most of the numbers given were false even following the Bush/Gore contest, and are even more unreal when applied to Obama. I'm sure there must be some conservatives out there who can make a logical case for their views, but when I see absolute rubbish like your cut-and-paste posted I have to think the poster is either extremely gullible or is entirely unconcerned with truth or honesty. As for the basic premise of your post, I think the greatest threat to American democracy is the ascendancy of cultural troglodytes who feel threatened by anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs/social "values", have zero intellectual curiosity, and desperately want to return to an imagined America of somewhere between 1750 and 1950 when people who looked and acted just like they do held all the power. No amount of "American exceptionalism" will rescue a country that refuses to invest in its own people (for example by creating ever higher barriers to education) while grasping desperately to expensive but outmoded economic structures (the military/industrial complex) and technologies (gas powered transportation), when the rest of the world is recruiting their best and brightest for productive roles in economically and socially productive disciplines. 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 think it's more accurate to say he just appointed himself "the first martyred Justiciar Knight". He says the "Grand Master Overseer" must "pay the costs for the first commendation and tombstone for the first martyred Justiciar Knight". He also says "Why the position of a Grand Master Overseer has not been filled prior to first spectacular attack? Obviously, this would have implicated and incriminated the individual. Therefore, the position will only be available after the first spectacular attack." Clearly, he cannot be the Grand Master himself, but he is hoping to start the process by volunteering as the first Justiciar Knight. Very twisted thinking, but this seems to be what happens on occasion when one marries political extremism with a delusional personality. I think his motives, but not his methods, would find a substantial sympathetic audience here in the US, and even amongst the regular posters here in SC. I just hope no-one else decides to emulate his methods [to be clear, I am speaking of Western societies in general, not referring to any of our SC community]. Years ago I read an analysis of terrorist tactics, which presented strong evidence that left-wing groups tend to target property and infrastructure associated with specific companies or governments, and usually announce the attack in time for people to be evacuated, or else time the attack so relatively few people were killed. On the other hand right-wing groups aim for a high body count, as the motive is to disable institutions of organized society by creating fear and chaos, in the hope that they might be able to seize power in the confusion. This attack certainly fits that pattern. 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)

An employee is owed an honest disclosure of what the pay and benefits (if any) will be, what the expectations are, and a safe work environment (within the constraints of the job, some have inherent dangers). I know people who have had jobs where new, uncompensated responsibilities appeared out the blue. I even know a few (working for a biotech startup) who got to the end of the month only to be told there was no money to pay them for the month they had already worked, and there might not be money for a while, but a "big contract was in the pipeline" so they would eventually get paid, but only if they stayed and continued to work for IOUs. If they left, then they would have to go to court to try to get their back pay. They did leave, there was no "big contract in the pipeline", and they never did get paid. 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)

Fair enough, but police still have to verify the "self defense" story to make sure it checks out. In the town where I live there was recently a case where the homeowner claimed he stabbed an intruder to death during a home invasion. Subsequently it turned out the homeowner was dealing drugs, and had a dispute with a buyer who wanted drugs but didn't have enough money. In the ensuing argument the buyer was stabbed outside the house, and was then dragged into the house and the scene was staged to look like a home invasion. Blood on the sidewalk outside (despite an attempt to hose it off), lack of any blood spatter inside the house, and the fact that there was too little blood in the house (as he was dead and bled out outside before he was dragged in) gave it away. So, even if you claim "castle doctrine", don't be surprised if the police want to make sure your story is consistent with the evidence at the scene. 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)

In which case I suppose we could send in our vast, bigger- (or at least more expensive) than-the-rest-of-the-world-put-together military to just TAKE what God obviously meant for us to have. And being at war with the entire world would certainly guarantee full employment, at least until we run out of cannon fodder. How's that for a neoconservative stimulus plan? 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)

Explain to me how I am supposed to be able to afford Obamacare by raising my prices when my customers are already having trouble affording our products? Explain how the very real possibility of inflation affecting interest rates on loans helps me do more business? Expalin how inflationary increases in the costs of doing my advertising, marketing and branding are helped, when the country continues to borrow and spend? And don't even think for a moment that we aren't getting ready to move into a huge inflationary cycle. QuoteInterest rates are at historic lows. The primary factor potentially driving higher interest rates is the threat of the government defaulting on already incurred obligations, such as treasury bills. Obama has already indicated a willingness to cut entitlements, against the wishes of his own party. I have not seen one millimeter of movement from the Republican side. Since when does "negotiation" mean "you will capitulate to everything we want, and when you do then we'll move the goal posts even further"? If it comes to a situation where the government can't meet its obligations, I see only one side to blame, and that isn't the donkey. 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)

Perhaps, but without knowing why the rest were not submitted, are you making assumptions that they did not originate in the US? I'm curious about why such a small percentage was submitted. Were they a random sample? Then you could extrapolate to the whole sample. Were most guns rendered untraceable in some way? If so, you can't tell much of anything from the data. If the 29,284 guns were the whole sample of what was potentially traceable, then about 70% were traced by the ATF. Not 90%, but still a high percentage. If on the other hand the 29,284 were the guns the Mexican authorities already suspected came from the US, the sample is too biased to be meaningful. 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)

Really? Did you read the linked studies? Did you read this one? It's been my experience that it's very difficult to get most people, regardless of their political leanings, to change their mind once it's "made up", no matter how many facts are presented. 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)

Thanks for noticing. As Wendy commented, though, trying to have a thoughtful discussion about anything around here seems to be a lost cause. Most people seem much more interested in 3rd grade level pissing matches. No wonder Nerdgirl, GeorgeRussia, and so many others have stopped playing. 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)

Is clean air/water a right, a freedom, a benefit, or a privilege? Why do manufacturing industries, the auto industry, etc consistently oppose environmental regulations? Why am I forced to breath/drink their waste even if I choose not to buy their products? Don Clean air/water is a right. Whether you choose to live where industry fouls the air and water is up to you. If you choose to live in such an area then you have consented to give up that right. Nobody forces you. With the history of industry and he environment, it would be ridiculous to live anywhere near a factory and expect to never have problems with air/water quality. Seriously? You are saying that industry has a "right" to pollute that trumps my right to live where I wish to and enjoy my right to clean air/water? Whatever happened to "freedom of association" and the "pursuit of happiness", which for me might entail living on a patch of land I happen to have bought and built a house on before some industry decided to save a few dollars by dumping their waste into my neighborhood? Why should their "rights" (and I dispute that anyone has a right to expose others to harm by fouling their air/water) take precedence over mine? Also, perhaps you are aware that air and water pollution does not stay local; there is not a place on Earth, not even the Antarctic, that was not touched by DDT and its metabolites, or by lead from gas (and the auto industry fought tooth and nail against the ban on leaded gasoline, despite overwhelming evidence of serious adverse health effects). Are you seriously suggesting that by continuing to live on Planet Earth I am agreeing to be harmed by these corporations? 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)

Is clean air/water a right, a freedom, a benefit, or a privilege? Why do manufacturing industries, the auto industry, etc consistently oppose environmental regulations? Why am I forced to breath/drink their waste even if I choose not to buy their products? 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)

When a group defines "freedom" essentially as being "good for corporations" then that shouldn't come as much of a surprise. There is definitely a hefty fiscal conservative bias to the rankings, which isn't surprising considering the source. Basically there seems to be an assumption that any government spending on anything is bad. For example, almost every one of the 30 "least free" states are criticized for spending too much on education, and also for requiring curriculum review and standardized testing for home-schooling. It seems clear that according to their metrics paying taxes to support public schools is a loss of freedom, but the increase in career opportunities and earning potential that follow from access to affordable decent education, for children from lower and middle income families that can't afford private school tuition, simply doesn't count. In their world view "freedom" simply means freedom from taxes, not freedom of career opportunities or social mobility. If you aren't already rich enough to afford $50,000/yr tuition at a private university (with room and board on top of that), well I guess changing bed pans at an assisted living facility is good enough for you! One could argue (and I would) that as a society we are better off when the most talented people can end up as engineers, doctors, accountants, etc, instead of limiting the pool of potential future professionals to the offspring of wealthy families, but in the calculus of the linked study there is no value assigned to such "benefits to society". Similarly, they ding states for expenditures on public health, hospitals, and even water treatment facilities. Perhaps this isn't surprising for an organization with a history of opposing limits to arsenic in drinking water, and mandatory rest periods for long-distance truckers. Basically, any regulation that imposes a burden on industry is to be opposed, regardless of the adverse consequences to the general public. On the other hand, the standards they applied seem to be quite socially liberal, marking states down for opposing same-sex unions and for draconian marijuana and "victimless crime" laws. Also they oppose elections for judges and are proponents of revising forfeiture laws to put the burden of proof on the government. Those are all positions I can agree with. Overall I'm not sure there is a clear-cut correlation between "free" and "not free" and R and D states. Several Southern states (for example Louisiana) are ranked very poorly despite being solidly Republican, and some fairly solid Democratic states (eg Oregon) are ranked at the high end of the "free" scale. There does seem to be an inverse correlation with average income, and it seems to me there may also be a loose correlation with the degree of urbanization. Basically states with large urban populations need a system of services and regulations to manage large numbers of people living in close association (so they are less free), whereas states that have large rural populations, where there is need for regulation and services as your actions as an individual (using your back yard as a toilet for example) are less likely to affect your neighbors. 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)

Why did that amuse you, Ron? Something that amuses me is the fact that all the supposed"rational thinkers " are blown out of the water by quantum physics. Salvador Dali may be correct. I believe he is. All Truth is within the stomach. Peace, Jim B. You seem to get it. Many here do not. It is very difficult to overcome formidable training. Colbert agrees with 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)

I hope you have a great afternoon. 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, I can relate to! OK. I didn't really expect a specific answer from you (though that might have been more interesting). I've just been trying to get you to acknowledge that there are a lot of "socialist" aspects to our culture, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a tempting trap to believe that we succeed as individuals, and that America has been spectacularly successful, as a result of every individual person standing alone against the world, succeeding or failing solely on their own merits. In reality, humans have been successful as a species because we have an incredible capacity to work together towards common goals. If it was only each individual against everyone else in some winner-take-all struggle for survival, we wouldn't need the capacity for language, for example, any more than a hawk does. A better model is a balance between individual and collaborative efforts. The individuals who do best are the ones who are able to contribute to and benefit from collaborations, yet still take the initiative or go the extra mile to benefit their own interests. Individuals who only contribute to the social collaborations will survive, but never do better than "average". Individuals who refuse to participate in necessary collaborations such as defense of the group or food gathering will be perceived as parasites, and will be cast out to sink or swim on their own; mostly they end up as lion chow. Individuals who insist on doing everything on their own will generally not be competitive against groups of people working together. Think of the military service you are justifiably proud of: on average, how would one soldier acting alone without supply lines, military intelligence, and fellow soldiers to provide cover or backup fare against a well-organized platoon? Society is like that platoon: some things we do to cover one another, to increase the chance of us all succeeding, but that doesn't mean we aren't all individuals responsible for doing what is necessary to ensure our own survival. The question it is fair to debate is where is the optimal balance between collaborative and individual effort? It's disingenuous, and unproductive, to pretend that collaborative efforts are inherently bad and individual efforts are inherently good. 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)

Thank you. I assume you were just not aware of his service, which is understandable as he does not flaunt it. I do understand how you discriminate between VA benefits and other things. I am still curious if you have refused to accept medicare and social security, refuse to do business with anyone educated through the public school/state university systems, refuse to buy USDA certified foods, etc? When you go on your Patriot Riders missions, do you somehow try to avoid driving on taxpayer built roads? More pertinently, do you really believe that all these things are un-American bad ideas? Do you believe that America would be better off if there was no public school system, no publicly built roads and highways, no mechanism to ensure clean safe food and drugs? If we had to just rely on the good will of manufacturers to ensure they didn't pollute our water and air? 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)

In other words, "don't try to convince me with facts, my mind's made up". I think your choice of the word "convicted" was quite ironic. I see you're refusing to withdraw your disrespecting of Dan's service to his country. Perhaps you can check out this thread to get an inkling of how far out of line you are. Hint: read post 13. I asked you already (as have Dan and jclalor in as many words): "I take it you have refused to partake of medicare and social security? Refuse to drive on the interstates? Refuse to hire or do business with anyone who was educated through the public school system or state universities? Refuse to buy food that has been inspected by the USDA? Refuse any medical treatment that is connected in any way to research funded through the NIH?" So have you renounced all those things, or are you just a hypocrite who likes to complain about "government intrusion" while enjoying the benefits of those "socialist programs" for yourself? Do you really believe public education, safe food, water, and air, public roads, medical research, air traffic control, the police, etc are all un-American bad ideas concocted by some evil "socialists"? 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 suggestions as to how to affect reduced population size? The only factors I am aware of that do this in an acceptable manner (that is, outside of some terrible pandemic, war, or mass genocide) is the demographic transition, coupled with education of women. Demographic transition is the relationship between economic development and family size within a population. As overall wealth increases, family size tends to decrease. This reflects the fact that in underdeveloped economies children are an economic asset, as they can provide cheap labor (think planting/weeding/harvesting crops) and they can take care of the parents in old age. On the other hand in developed economies children are a net expense: they are rarely useful for labor (how many of us are sustainance farmers?), they cost a lot to feed and educate, and we have pension plans for old age. This is why Europe, for example, has negative population growth while sub-Saharan Africa still has 7+ kids/family. If economic development is key to population control, doesn't it make sense to invest in technologies that reduce the adverse environmental impact of that development? Sure you may be "better off with 100 million people on the planet getting around in coal-fired locomotives", compared to "10 billion people on this planet who are all living lives devoted to avoiding Global Warming", but short of selecting 99 out of every 100 people for summary execution, on the way to reduced (or at least stabilized) population levels we need to make sure that economic development doesn't just recapitulate the environmental disasters of the past on an even larger scale. 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're saying that to Dan??? Seriously, is there no bottom to the ignorance you are willing to express?? Very few who post here have sacrificed more than Dan in the service of this country. You owe him a big apology. I take it you have refused to partake of medicare and social security? Refuse to drive on the interstates? Refuse to hire or do business with anyone who was educated through the public school system or state universities? Refuse to buy food that has been inspected by the USDA? Refuse any medical treatment that is connected in any way to research funded through the NIH? After all, those are all "socialist" programs. In fact, your postings indicate a complete and utter absence of any knowledge of the difference between "socialism" and "communism". 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)

Fair enough I guess, but the presence of the link on the USPA web site does imply their endorsement of the product. Anyway, I was responding to Popsjumper, and I was just pointing out that it would be unwise to assume that an insurance plan was appropriate for skydivers just because it is linked to the USPA site. 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, Krisanne, following the links you'll find.... http://uspa-benefits.org/ Hey Andy, I followed the links to the health insurance plans, entered my info to get a quote, and look what I found under "exclusions" for all the plans listed: Any Injury that is caused by flight or travel in, or upon: 1. An aircraft or other, craft designed for navigation above or beyond the earth's atmosphere except as a fare‑paying passenger; 2. An ultra light, hang-gliding, parachuting or bungi-cord jumping; 3. A snowmobile; 4. Any two or three wheeled motor vehicle; 5. Any off-road motorized vehicle not requiring licensing as a motor vehicle; 6. Any watercraft or other craft designed for water use above or beneath the water, except as a fare-paying passenger; Seems odd (and rather pointless) for the USPA to have negotiated to provide health insurance that does not cover parachuting related injuries. The caps on payouts seem kind of ridiculous too, eg $1,000/surgical procedure, and $2,500/emergency room visit for one of the middle-of-the-road cost plans. I'm fortunate to have a group policy that does not exclude skydiving. I do think that if anyone needs to purchase an individual plan that provides reasonable protection against financial devastation in the event of a serious injury, they will be paying quite a lot. 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)

It's pretty simple, really. You have the right to not incriminate yourself, which means the right to invoke your fifth amendment rights and then shut the fuck up. You do not have the right to lie so as to deliberately misdirect investigators. 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)