Bolas

I've been walking for close to 26 years and driving a car close to 10... never got hurt before until first tandem skydiving... and I've done a lot of walking and a heck of a lot more driving than most people. Skydiving safer than driving a car or crossing the street? Not for me it sure wasn't.. That statistic doesn't even seem logical. If everyone who was capable of crossing a street or driving a car were also compelled to skydive (which would be ending up like a majority of the population) we'd see death statistics left and right and the sport would be shutdown in less than a year. It would be interesting to compare AFF student vs driving school student injury/accident/death statistics... From a percentage standpoint I'm certain far fewer people got killed learning to walk across a street than skydiving. Your logic goes south when you indicate that skydiving would be shut down if more folks participated. Lots of people go play in the water, and every single holiday weekend in Kansas people die at the lake (I'm sure this is true of every state where folks boat and swim). By your logic, boating, swimming, and fishing would be shut down due to the obvious danger. Ironically, people let their small children boat, swim, and fish. Commercial fisherman is the most deadly occupation in the US, why do we allow people to fish?!?!?! The reason is is a combination of perception, and bull shit. There's lots of BS contained in my, and other posts above this one. I think that surely we can all agree on that point! Actually the logic is sound. If the number of people per 1000 died doing lake activities at the same rate that they do skydiving, watersports would be banned just for the fact they are considered relatively "safe.". The only reason our numbers are low is the number of people is low and the number of licensed jumpers and non tandem students is far lower. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

So because people from a cold climate believed that the apocalypse would be cold... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It's brilliant politics. By taking a stand, by default people will assume Romney feels the opposite. If Romney takes a stand either way, he either loses the moderate and independent voters or the fundamentalists. They won't vote for Obama, but they won't vote for Romney either. In essence he's turned the entire election into a single issue. I think government has no place in marriage period. They should all be civil unions. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It was originally there to allow the Federal Government to regulate transactions that crossed state borders. But that was in the 18th Century, when the United States was an agrarian economy. Back then, you didn't think of yourself as "an American", you thought of yourself as "a Vermonter", a "Virginian", etc. That's because the vast majority of commerce was local. (That changed with the Civil War, by the way.) Flash forward to the 21st century. Right now, you're engaged in interstate commerce (you're using the internet). I'd bet 95% to 99% of the property you own came from interstate commerce. We live in a different world. But more to the point, what really changed the Commerce Clause was the FDR's New Deal. From the mid 1930s through the early 1940s, there were a line of cases that determined that the Commerce Clause wasn't there "to make the states play nice", but described the power that the Congress had to regulate things that not only DID cross borders but COULD AFFECT things that crossed borders. For example, Court found in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government could could apply national quotas to wheat grown on one's own land, for one's own consumption, because the total of such local production and consumption could potentially be sufficiently large as to impact the overall national goal of stabilizing prices. Awfully close to an individual mandate, no? Close, but different as it's conditional. If one does not want to be subjected to a wheat restriction, they can chose to not grow wheat. If one does not want health insurance, they have no way of avoiding it without fines as the condition is life itself. Not even taxes have that power, one can simply not make nor spend money and they will pay no tax. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Agreed, unless the taxes they're forced to pay to support the lower tier, prevent them from the upper tier. That bar to upper tier ability will continuously be raised as more people fall below it. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

repeal the EMTALA. So you'd be happy to have sick people who can't prove that they have the capacity to pay left to die in the street. Nice guy you are. Not even rushmc goes that far. No, I'm for calling it the Emergency Room again and it used for Triage only. There are other options already. Prior to the EMTALA, people in critical condition weren't left dieing in the streets. Ummmm - wrong. So car accident victims were just left to die without getting ANY medical care? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

They were transferred to charity hospitals before they were ready, and did, in fact, die sometimes. Which caused newspaper stories, and which led to EMTALA. I'm all for more wards and fewer private rooms in hospitals, as well as more basic care. But the cost is that some people won't get top-tier care. We'll just be admitting it. Wendy P. No health coverage is going to help everybody, even universal care. Universal care limits top tier care to even fewer. We just need to come to the realization as a society, regardless of what path we choose, we're not going to be able to help everyone. Period. Most of the arguments for socialized medicine seem to be it prevents people "falling through the cracks." It has it's own cracks. As Obamacare has aspects of both, it has even more cracks. If allowed to choose between a government controlled and mandated solution or a free market one, I'll choose free market. I think everyone is in agreement that the system we have now has issues, we just disagree on which way to go and what we need to do to fix it. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

So, for the record, a state shouldn't have the ability to regulate the insurance products being sold in its territory? This should be governed by Federal and not State law? Interesting position, since I thought a lot of folks who are opposed to the federal mandate concept are pro-State's rights... Regulate, yes. Mandate, no. The issue of too much government interference and corruption is not limited to the federal level., they're just the worst offenders. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

repeal the EMTALA. So you'd be happy to have sick people who can't prove that they have the capacity to pay left to die in the street. Nice guy you are. Not even rushmc goes that far. No, I'm for calling it the Emergency Room again and it used for Triage only. There are other options already. Prior to the EMTALA, people in critical condition weren't left dieing in the streets. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Tort reform, repeal the EMTALA, regulation reform to allow standardized insurance products to be sold across state lines, etc. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Dropzones will all be on private land with private airstrips or jumpers shuttled to the airport. No landings will be done on airports except for demos. Separate disciplines will have separate dropzones as well. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

That can apply to just about anything: Food, shelter, transportation, any basic necessity of life. The end result will be a two tiered system. One that the government provides, and one that the rich people pay for. Given that wealthy people are generally the only ones who hold office, once they have everyone using these programs, what do you think they're going to do to the budgets of these programs? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

OK, so someone makes a poor decision, didn't buy health insurance, and now has severe chest pains. How are YOU going to make them responsible for their decision? Give them the same care any uninsured person gets, but send them the bill as they did. If she had to file bankruptcy, she likely already paid back far more than an insurance company would have paid for the same procedures A healthy person does not take the initiative to get a basic education or learn a trade. They made a poor decision, should they be allowed to get food stamps, welfare, and/or other government assistance? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

So your concern is not with assisting someone who had no options, more with people who had options and the means but made a bad decision. This we agree on, but eliminating the freedom to make the decision is not the answer, making people responsible for their decisions is. Also any program that's created for the benefit of the needy, has the possibility of being "gamed." The government created this mess through regulations that ranged from the good intentioned to the downright corrupt. Giving them more power is not the solution. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

How should they have responded to them? How about.....no response. Do you feel that they just HAD to respond? Why? Why not? It's not as if they had came to their event and this was retaliation. Sure the protestors have the right to protest but that's where their rights end. You can't be reasonable with unreasonable people. I thought simply pointing out how silly they were was genius and should be used for other fanatics such as Westboro. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

the real problem is this mentality of trying to reward or punish behavior instead of just expecting people to be responsible for themselves +1. Personal Accountability. Consequences. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It's really not a lack of data as very few incidents occur that are "new." The issue tends to be more in differences of opinion on response. It pretty much boils down to one or more of the following: * Mandate * Ban * Educate * Do Nothing Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

You avoid what's in fact a rather good question. And the protesters weren't empowered, it was the opposite in fact. Yes, it was a good question, and not avoided if you got my meaning. My answer was to simply ignore them. Yep. Cuz ignoring things makes them go away. It's sure worked great for the debt and bullying just to name two. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

That's not similar "Christianity is the Cancer, Atheism is the Answer" and "Die, Christians, Die" would be more like what the hate beards in the vid yell. True. But the point was that even if their signs weren't as strongly worded nor were they yelling, the response would still be far less rational. I do like that Christian cancer comment, would make a great t-shirt. :

How should they have responded to them? I thought they were supposed to be inside having meetings and listening to speakers ...like the adult attendees. Why empower the protesters? Not taking them seriously does not empower the protestors. That exchange was unlikely to shift anyone's point of view. If Athiests showed up at a religious convention with similar signage, (No Proof = No God, etc.) do you think the religious would have responded as peacefully and nonthreateningly? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

How should they have responded to them? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

And if it IS a person, should it pay tax at the same rates "natural" people do? Corps pay between 15 and 39 percent depending on their profit. Did you have a point? I'll freely admit I don't know corporate tax law, but are they taxed on profits only and then apply deductions from there or are they taxed on income and deduct from there? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Yes. If the officer is single or the spouse is unwilling/unable, the duties (unofficially of course) fall to the next spouse down the chain or back to the officer themselves. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

You hit the nail on the head. People take offense to being suspected versus just taking actions to eliminate themselves as a suspect either proactively or reactively. If you're Black don't walk the streets. Or you will be eliminated. Criminal thugs tend to dress a certain way, perhaps not wear the same things? They also act a certain way towards authority figures, perhaps not act that way? Bolas, You have been watching too many TV shows and movies. Criminals come in all sizes, shapes and clothing. Yes, most gangbangers, skin heads, bikers, etc. tend to dress a certain way. But many thugs, murderers, rapists, muggers,purse snatchers etc. are dressed in everyday clothing. Some of the worst crimes I have seen commited were by very ordinary looking folks. If hoodies are a sign of criminals, then most everyone at the World Series of Poker should be arrested. It's not one thing, it's the combination. Were TM at the mall or the WSP his outfit alone would be a nonissue. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It's not one thing, it's additional factors too. What else is she wearing? Where is the woman standing? What is she doing? Who is she with? [ Were that same woman standing on a street corner, surrounded by other women dressed similarly and a man in a fur coat standing nearby, evidence suggests that she may be one. This doesn't mean she is or isn't, just percentage of chance of likelihood is higher and may warrant additional suspicion/investigation to confirm. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.