DanG
-
Content
6,580 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by DanG
-
I have a friend who calls it "Global Nicening" - Dan G
-
No option for born right handed, now left handed due to loss of right hand? What kind of crappy poll is this? - Dan G
-
Not sure how that relates to your individual freedom. I agree that's fucked up. I thought that program started under Bush. Am I wrong? I'll have to look into that. I'm generally in favor of a strong EPA, but I agree they can overstep their bounds. ACA won't change that. Um no. That's patently ridiculous. - Dan G
-
I've asked this question before, and usually get a similar answer. I'd really like specific examples. Just one or two would be great. On top of what? You've provided no bottom to be on top of. Well, I suppose any law has this "potential" if you want to reach far enough. My understanding of the ACA is that it requires most people to have health insurance. If you don't have it, you pay a penalty. That's basically it in a nutshell. What parts of the ACA (not the made up parts like death panels, but real parts, please) do you think curtail your individual freedoms? Again, one or two specifics, please. Seriously, dude? Again, all "potential" decisions that really seem to have no basis in the actual law. Unless I'm missing something. If so, please clue me in. - Dan G
-
What has Obama done to curtail your individual freedom? Is it all about the healthcare law, or is there something else? I'm afraid of that as well. I don't see any politicians on either side of the fence who look like they want to do anything about it. Except Ron Paul, and his solutions would just make everything worse. - Dan G
-
Yes, but they're bad people. - Dan G
-
Not necessarily. It's all context. If I walked up to you and said, "What's up, asshole," you'd probably be offended. If your best friend said it, you'd probably laugh. I very much doubt any random black guy can walk up to another black guy and call him the "N" word and not get punched. Same thing. - Dan G
-
Nice try having a discussion. It's obviously pointless around here. Kinda sad, but not unexpected. - Dan G
-
So you trust the insurance companies and government more than your doctor? Why are you against the healthcare law? Did it not go far enough? - Dan G
-
Right here: You're proposing what many people feared about the healthcare law: death panels. - Dan G
-
I agree, but that's not what you said. You said you wanted doctors to prove the tests were needed. The flip side of the coin is that many labs are owned by doctors, so the doctors have a financial interest in ordering as many tests as possible. There's nothing illegal about this (unfortunately), but it's a huge ethical problem. - Dan G
-
To whom is he offering this proof, if not the government? Do you really thing healthcare costs will go down if doctors need to provide evidence for every test, and have that evidence reviewed? How much time will the doctor spend putting together his cases for the 20 strep tests he wants to order today? Who paying the person (not government employed, apparently) who reviews those 20 files every day? I think you need to review your cost saving plan a little. - Dan G
-
Stop stalking me. - Dan G
-
That's, in a nutshell, what "Obamacare" does. - Dan G
-
Mike, Sorry, but that's fucked up. There is absolutely no way the DZOs I know would turn this guy away because he's black. I already said I doubted they would turn him away because he's deaf. In fact, Jim Crouch, in the other thread about this in the Instructors forum, asked for Billy to put the guy in touch with him. Seems to me like he wasn't actually turned away from all the Virginia DZs in the first place, since Jim is one of the DZOs. I think this whole situation sounds (no pun intended) like a lot of miscommunication. - Dan G
-
Try reading what I wrote. I specifically said there's nothing wrong with a deaf person skydiving. Your post implied that anyone covered by the ADA should be allowed access to skydiving instruction. That's what bristled me. - Dan G
-
It's no skin off my nose...I mean penis. - Dan G
-
No, he hasn't. The OP refered to him as a "sort of" pilot. You're assuming a lot. Again, assuming. We don't know if they excluded him because of his hearing or not. I'd be surprised, knowing most of the people involved, if that were the case. Gosh, you're right! The glasses analogy really made it click for me. The almost 500 jumps I made with a prosthetic limb didn't help me understand disabilities at all. Like I said, skydiving is not for everyone. If a severely retarded man showed up at the DZ and wanted to do a static line, would you protest if the DZ turned him away? How about someone with uncontrolled epilepsy? Maybe there's something else going on with the guy mentioned in the OP, all we have to go on is the fact that at least 3 DZs turned him away. Do you think maybe they know something we don't? - Dan G
-
You've got to be kidding. Skydiving isn't for everyone. There's nothing wrong with a deaf person skydiving, but requiring DZs to take any customer, regardless of their physical or mental situation, is simply not what the ADA is for. - Dan G
-
Yeah, that's her. I thought she might have moved back since I saw her at at Christmas. A guy named Kelly used to jump regularly at Orange, and every now and again John Woo (I think that was his name) would pass through. Orange does not have a problem with disabled jumpers, believe me. Like I said, I'll ask around, but I suspect there may be more to the equation that is readily apparent. - Dan G
-
This kind of surprises me. I don't jump anymore, but I'm pretty sure Orange has a deaf regular jumper these days. At least I think she stills jumps there. Did the DZ's turn him down flat, or did they want him to do a couple tandems first, or something like that? I think it's unlikely they turned him down flat, unless there's something else going on. I'll ask around if I get a chance. - Dan G
-
I'm not complaining, nor making "the same argument". Please read the thread, and try to avoid the knee-jerking. GeorgiaDon asked an interesting question, and so far no one has really tried to answer it. "Go read the Federalist Papers," is not an answer. Rehashing the individual vs. collective rights argument is similarly non-responsive. This discussion is about the apparently accepted limitation to personal weapons. Do you have anything to add to that discussion? If not, allow me to give you some advice: - Dan G
-
I never said I believed that the 2nd was intended to be about the establishment of militias. I don't. I was merely commenting on the use of the Militia Act to show that the 2nd was intended to only apply to personal weapons. I don't believe that you can mke the "personal" weapons argument by citing the Militia Act, that is all. - Dan G
-
Again, my copy of the Constitution must be a misprint. The word "personal" does not appear. You've given no justification that it is implied except for a Jefferson letter on sports. You keep assuming the conclusion. GeogiaDon's question was why should the 2nd be limited to personal weapons. Please re-read the OP. This "red herring" is the whole point of the discussion. - Dan G
-
Hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd think you were making the argument that the 2nd relates to the establishment of militias, not an individual right to bear arms. Are you making that argument? If not, I fail to see where the Militia Act has any bearing on the 2nd. I'll admit it was trollish. On the other hand, I think it's an interesting question. Kallend seems to favor limiting who can have weapons, and you seem to favor limiting what weapons they can have. What's the difference? The 2nd says the right shall not be infringed. Why is your infringement okay, but not his? - Dan G