livendive

Hate to break it to you pops, but that was indeed the point. But not reality, the Majority of gun owners do not want to put a gun in everyones hand, they just want that RIGHT protected, where as the majority of gun-o-phobes do want to remove guns from everyone (except criminals because they wont follow stricter laws anyways) Actually, I think the majority of people either quietly enjoy their right to own guns, or quietly find other things to do with their money. But whackjobs on both sides scream either "THEY'RE ALL TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS!" or "LET'S TAKE ALL THEIR GUNS!" I find such screeching simultaneously amusing and annoying, but Billvon was correct in that both will consider us quiet guys in the middle to be on the opposite end of the spectrum from them. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Who, the governement or the reporter? Anecdotally, there seems to be some recovery going on here. 100% of my friends that have been languishing in unemployment for close to two years (I have two such friends) have found full-time jobs in the past month, and I got a small raise this year after company-wide pay freezes in 3 of the last 4 years. Miniscule sample size, but from my perspective things are looking up. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

and is that not what this number represents? The add-on cost? We spent 2.6T in 2010 alone. This is the cost of the change, for better or worse. The fact that they tried to average down the costs with the first 3 dead years gives an indication that it's not cheap. It is difficult to project the future as-is, as our current systems is clearly untenable. But like SS, it's an open question as to when it will fall apart. I could be wrong, but I thought the number mentioned in the original post was how much the government spent. Presumably, before this legislation, the corresponding health care was either not given, or was given and charged to the individuals or written off by doctors. My guess would be that right now, treatment for arthritis (e.g.) doesn't cost much more than it used to, however now there are more people able to avail themselves of it rather than suffer without care, and there are fewer doctors writing off costs of treatment (i.e. passing the costs on to other patients who can pay). If the United States government paid 1.76 trillion for various healthcare services last year, how much of that would the American public have paid without this legislation. If that number is also somewhere near 1.76 trillion, than the real cost to the people is essentially the same. I have no idea if that is the case, and can't form an opinion on the original post without such a perspective. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

You seem to have neglected to mention how much the same amount of health care would have cost without the legislation. Without that number, we can't tell how much extra the population is spending. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

There are an approximately equal number of complete whackjobs on both sides of the gun debate, some phobic, others philiac, all of them mad as a bag of hammers. It seems to me that those of us who quietly sit around enjoying or uninterested in guns are the distinct minority. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Sure. He publicly associated a portion of the population with something incredibly disgusting, and they returned the favor in spades. Karma reigns. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Good on ya. I'm also an AFF instructor and will echo what Tim and Scott said. I once had the wonderful experience of dislocating a shoulder in freefall, due only to the wind, and it just so happened to wait right until pull time, and I can assure you it sucks. The most common position of instability for a shoulder is abducted and externally rotated, which is exactly the position your arm is in while arched in a classic boxman. Personally I opted for an arthroscopic repair and I had the doctor's clearance to jump again a couple days shy of 2 months post-op. That lasted about a year, then I really wrecked it botching a landing on a small, fast canopy, so I had an open repair where they built up the weak spot in the cup using bone from my pelvis. Recovery from the second surgery was longer, but I've made around 1300 jumps on it since then without any further instability. The fix is easy and the risk without it is high...you've made the right decision. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Any prospective student who threatened me with financial repurcussions if I didn't let him jump would be gladly accepted into and promptly flunked out of first jump course, not because of physical impairments, but rather his shockingly bad judgement. I've taken some students in the past that were certainly higher risk, but I've also declined many students, mostly due to weight issues, or medical problems, but also sometimes because I just wasn't communicating well with them, or they didn't seem to understand the instructions and/or risk. When you're the instructor putting your family's home and livelihood on the line with each and every student, then you can come tell us whether you think you should be required to say yes to any student physically capable of skydiving. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Being a cop shouldn't necessarily trigger extra scrutiny as a gun owner, but being unable to safely own a weapon should certainly cause doubts about his suitability for police work. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Is that before or after the Afghan public executes the persons that have shot six of our troops in the last two weeks? This bold brought to you by devil's advocate mode. That said, I could see a rational argument for allowing the local government to prosecute him. The concept of double-jeapordy is a long-time staple in the service. Screw up, off-base, and you'll face military charges after the civilians get done with you. I could see an argument being made that an arena of active conflict calls for separate rules, but it'd have to be pretty convincing to justify more lenient treatment of a mass murderer in Afghanistan than a rapist gets in Japan or a DUI in California. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Rather off topic, but the whole "gas prices" thing is retarded. It's almost as if the populace some sort of memory deficit. Gas prices go up EVERY spring, peaking shortly after Memorial Day, holding steady into August, then trend back down. Every year, something else gets blamed, missing infrastructure after a hurricane, an oil rig fire, environmental laws suffocating refineries, or the ever popular mid-east foreign policy slant. It's pretty freaking simple people...DEMAND goes up in the summer, and prices go up along with it...that's why our oil & gas companies are so profitable. Yet somehow our politicians (of both flavors) grasp on to it each year as proof that they are good and their opponents are bad and nation is going to collapse if something isn't done. I average 25,000 miles per year on my gas powered pickup truck. My daily commute is 70 miles roundtrip to work, approximately 20 days/month, and the closest dropzone is 85 miles away. I think its safe to say I burn a LOT more gas than the average American. That said, if the price of gas goes up a full two bucks over winter prices, the monthly impact on my budget is about two hundred dollars, which will probably last about 3 months. I can find that money in my grocery and entertainment allowances over a short duration, but even if I couldn't, it's not like I'm going to default on my mortgage over it or send kids to bed hungry. In fact, this year I'm trying to save up for a pretty expensive fall (wedding/honeymoon), so last week I started carpooling for the first time in my life. The net effect is my monthly transportation costs just got hundreds of dollars cheaper, rather than more expensive, and I'm contributing less pollution to our air. It does cost me an extra hour a day, which I'm not a fan of, but if I actually couldn't afford the gas to drive to work, I would have made the switch years ago. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Looks to me like most of the stories are plays on "real" news. That's what they do at the Onion...take popular subjects and put their own spin on them. The GOP primary is currently topping headlines on pretty much every news site, almost every day, so it makes sense that it woudl get the bulk of Onion treatment. They did manage a couple pokes at Obama, but the DNC isn't currently trying to cannibalize itself, thereby making it boring. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

So is cutting the baby's nails. I am assuming you would be opposed to that as well? Hair and nails grow back, foreskins don't, not to mention the rather glaring discrepancy in nerve endings. A painful procedure that results in irreparable damage or a painless procedure that produces temporary results, the difference is substantial. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

No, it's f'd in the head thinking. Says the person who thinks that what he does to his child's genitals is nobody else's business. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

An abortion is someone excising tissue from her own body, a circumcision is amputating part of someone else's body. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Should we also allow you to chop off your child's hands so he doesn't get carpal tunnel? Where do you draw the line on on what is society's business and what isn't? Also, you're still arguing about the risks of circumcision vs an appendectomy, but you haven't addressed the future risks of having a foreskin vs having an appendix. (Also, appendectomies are done laparoscopically these days, i.e. minimally invasive) Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Did you also remove his appendix at birth? Because that has a much higher chance of killing him some day. Blues, Dave I know, right? I'm sure the 3 hour surgery would be less invasive and more tolerable for a newborn to handle than a 10 minute snip n' clip...come on. I'm sure calling it a 10 minute snip and clip makes it sound much more pleasant than, you know, amputating part of his penis, but that doesn't make it reduce his risk of death more than a preventative appendectomy would. If risk management is what you're after, why start with his willy when other things are far more likely to kill him. I think the whole "its for his health" thing is just rationalization for a decision already made on the basis of other factors. Edit to add: Do you suppose the parents of the boy discussed in the original post of this thread thought it would be more hygienic and healthier than leaving it in its natural state? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

[reply Why don't you start a poll and see if most people associate "female circucission" with "an elective procedure that heightens sexual pleasure" or with the one done to young girls in some places to prevent them from having any sexual pleasure. I believe you'll find that "we" is everybody but you... I very specifically stated exactly what I'm talking about. You ignored that and told me I was actually talking about something else. I clarified that I did indeed mean exactly what I said, and provided you a link, which you again ignored and now imply that everyone else is equally incapable of reading what I actually wrote. I'm talking about removal of the skin surround a child's glans. I have very clearly NOT been talking about chopping off a clitoris or the head of a penis. If that's what yould like to discuss, why not start a thread on it? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Did you also remove his appendix at birth? Because that has a much higher chance of killing him some day. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Many of the studies that have indicated such protective effects were actually secondary evaluations of studies that concluded exactly the opposite. Regardless, castration would likely have a much stronger correlation with reduced STDs, and most, if not all potential benefits of male circumsion would likely have a similar effect for females. Yet we don't approve of castrating boys, or remove the skin encasing a clitoris. If the benefits aren't realized till a person becomes sexually active, the decision can wait till then too. Blues, Dave Disagree - the female urethra does not exit the body through the clitoris. Acknowledged, but largely irrelevant. The urethra is what, an inch away? An inch or two, yes - it's also not in the path of urine as the foreskin would be, which is why I disagreed with your equating the two. Your almost-point is working against your own argument. Once the child has elimination control, they can get the foreskin at least partially out of the way - the foreskin isn't fully retractable until somewhere around puberty, if I recall correctly. Perhaps I didn't clarify what I meant by bowel control. Urine is generally sterile, and regardless, the genitalia of ALL children will be in direct contact with much of the time. I'm not concerned about infections from urine. Baby poop on the other hand...that stuff goes everywhere, with no warning. It seems to me that intentionally opening the flesh a short distance away from the source, well if anything was going to cause an infection, I'd guess that could. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I have only known one man who was circumcised as an adult ( yes, a skydiver), he was left with scars from the surgery (yes, as an adult it is somewhat major), and he said it was the most painful thing he had had ever encountered. My son has no scars (physical or mental) and has never complained that it should have not been done. It seems to me that a majority of men are fine with whatever decision their parents made. However for those who disagree with their parent's choice, the intact men have an option, the altered men do not. Also, I suspect that if you chopped an infants pinky off, his reaction would be similar. I have no reason to believe that infants experience less pain, they just can't verbalize it. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

May be, but we were talking about the procedure preformed in some African and ME countries to young girls and the reason they do that is anything BUT to heighten sexual pleasure... What's this "we" business? You're the only one talking about that as far as I can tell. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Many of the studies that have indicated such protective effects were actually secondary evaluations of studies that concluded exactly the opposite. Regardless, castration would likely have a much stronger correlation with reduced STDs, and most, if not all potential benefits of male circumsion would likely have a similar effect for females. Yet we don't approve of castrating boys, or remove the skin encasing a clitoris. If the benefits aren't realized till a person becomes sexually active, the decision can wait till then too. Blues, Dave Disagree - the female urethra does not exit the body through the clitoris. Acknowledged, but largely irrelevant. The urethra is what, an inch away? And urine is generally sterile. More importantly, if all these proponents of hacking off part of their son's willy's are worried about possible infections, why not wait till the child has bowel control to circumcise them? Perhaps because by then they'd have to explain what they're going to do? Or worry that the child will remember it? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

No, you are wrong. and in many cases they remove much more. There is also a huge difference in the goal and reasoning, being mostly to prevent sexual pleasure from women. This conversation will be much easier to follow if you respond to what I actually write. Yes, there are more extreme forms of female genital mutilation, however those are not what I've referenced. A hoodectomy, aka clitorodotomy (NOT clitorodectomy) is removal of the prepuce surrounding the female glans. It is an elective procedure gaining in popularity among adult women for exactly the opposite reason you mention...its removal heightens sexual pleasure. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

That's your choice...nobody is forcing any decisions on how you should raise your child. What does that have to do with anything? That has do to with the thread itself. If it had anything to do with what we were talking about it's how the doctor is analogous to the anti-circumcision busy bodies in that they would both force their opinions on parents. Perhaps for once you'd like to express a substantive opinion? Do you favor people dictating how parents should raise their children? I think we can all agree that there should be certain limits one what a parent can do to their child. I'm of the opinion that mutilating the child's genitals is one such thing. Apparently you disagree. As for the question about the doctor, my point was simple. If you'd be angry about the doctor unilaterally making such a move, even though it's in the child's best interest, than your concern is not so much with the child's welfare as your own authority to make such decisions. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)