Gravitymaster

Members
  • Content

    13,097
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Gravitymaster

  1. Well, let's be honest here - anyone could have predicted 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2008. 2004 wasn't too difficult to call either. Only 2000 was a challenge. If we were being honest, we could admit that months before the elections in 1980 and 1992 that it was pretty clear the incumbent would win. But, I know how hard it is to admit mistakes for some.
  2. I conclude you have no meaningful rebuttal at this time. Think it over the weekend and see if you can do better. How the hell can you call yourself a Republican yet insist that you know how I should live my life? Speed limits are easy - traffic safety is maximized by orderly, consistent flow of cars. Speed limits - effectively speed targets, accomplish this. You choosing to shoot up crack has no direct bearing on my well being, and pretty marginal second order effects. But your choosing to drive past a school at 60 or on the freeway at 100 in rush hour certainly compromises the safety of others. First of all I have never smoked crack or "shot it up". Had you any knowledge of what you are tallying about, you would know that. Secondly, I consider that a personal attack. My example of speed limits was only to point out that certain laws are necessary to allow people to live together in a society. An idea that is lost on some.
  3. http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says Here you go.
  4. I think you may have already disqualified yourself by claiming proceeds and profits are the same thing. Plus, have you even been to a book club meeting? I did sleep in a Holiday Inn once.
  5. I love watching left wingers get desperate. Did you read the article from the University of Colorado that they have correctly picked the President since 1980? They are predicting Romney wins with 315 electoral votes. Time to get the turbo charged back ho's out. You guys aren't heaping enough dirt on those molehills. Let's get crackin.
  6. Bullshit. If we go by yours and SD claims, we should get rid of speed limits too.
  7. Deciding to smoke crack is an incredibly poor decision in my book. If you have been to NA meetings, I doubt you could label it any other way. Who is asking them to make decisions? I said you could learn something about how devastating crack use is from them. I guess I'm done here, too.
  8. Here come the back ho's to make a mountain out of a molehill. I predicted this would happen after the latest polls showed Obama losing ground like LA in an earthquake.
  9. Except that they have already shown to have incredibly poor decision making skills. WTF are you talking about?
  10. Now you and Jakee have just gotten downright pathetic. I guess I'm done here since you and Jakee are just incapable of keeping up.
  11. This. I'd wager that someone who's lived with a crack addict understands better than someone who spent several dozen hours with some trying to beat it. And past users likely have a pretty solid perspective of the drug too. Blues, Dave I agree. How many who have that experience also think crack should be easily available, I wonder? I would also say that talking to dozens of former crack addict would give someone a more rounded perspective than just one.
  12. I never said that. I simply suggested it to those who think they know how devastating the effects are. But if you think you know about skydiving but have never stepped on a DZ, then more power to you. But, excuse me if I question your experience.
  13. No corner. The claim was that the author was donating the "proceeds" to the families. Skydekker contends he is not doing so. i simply asked for proof. It's not up to me to prove the author isn't doing something. That is not what Skydekker contends. But what about you - do you think the author is financially benefiting from the book? Sure it is. Don't know what's so hard for you to understand about that> I understand that you are incorrectly, and intentionally for the purpose of trolling, confusing making money with not donating anything. Same as in the other thread, it's a good play but pretty obvious. Which is precisely why I'm asking. Do you think the author is making any money from the book? I have no idea. I haven't made any claims. I just asked Skydekker to back up his statement. Odd that you cannot seem to understand something so simple.
  14. I will once you prove the author is making money. There's nothing slanderous about such a statement either way. I go to work and make money, and I assume you do as well. Why would that be a source of shame? Blues, Dave It's not. It's Skydekker that has a problem with it.
  15. Except Jakee. He doesn't need to listen to them and what they have to say first.
  16. Not sure of your point. Are you saying that going to an N.A. meeting is not a good learning tool to find out about addictions and the people who become addicted? If not, what would be a better way? Read a book by some pointy headed professor looking to make money off the "proceeds"?
  17. There is even people berating the conduct of politicians, even though they have never been a politician. Next thing you know people will start posting opinions on the internet.... Good point. At least the people berating politicians have at least listened to what they have to say. Unlike those who have never even been to an N.A. meeting thinking they know anything about how crack devastates people lives. Thanks for making my point.
  18. Oh, now you are going to redefine "proceeds"? Proceeds means profits by most people's standards. You ever watch the Jerry Lewis telethons? Did you think all those people answering the phones, the TV airtime, the camerapeople, producers etc. all worked for free? Proceed means profits, which is what's left over after expenses. I think this guy deserves credit for donating the proceeds to the families affected instead of being torn down on DZ.com by a Canadian.
  19. And many people who have never used illegal drugs feel perfectly justified in discussing the dangers of using illegal drugs. Of course, it's possible to learn about the dangers of something without actually trying it or even being around it. But I think too many people use very limited information to think they know enough to have an authoritative opinion. That's exactly what wuffos say about skydiving. I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you a crack cocaine whuffo who is trying to discuss the dangers of crack cocaine? Nope, but at least I have been around "those people" enough to know what I'm talking about. I'm gonna guess that I have far more experience with "those people" than you do. And, no offense, but you sound like you have pretty limited information. I must have missed it when you were describing your experience with people addicted to crack. How many N.A. meetings have you attended, again?
  20. So... you're saying that you're being even more petty than I said you were? Nope, I'm saying I wasn't the one who caused the conversation to turn. However, I do believe one good turn deserves another, don't you?
  21. And many people who have never used illegal drugs feel perfectly justified in discussing the dangers of using illegal drugs. Of course, it's possible to learn about the dangers of something without actually trying it or even being around it. But I think too many people use very limited information to think they know enough to have an authoritative opinion. That's exactly what wuffos say about skydiving. I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you a crack cocaine whuffo who is trying to discuss the dangers of crack cocaine? Nope, but at least I have been around "those people" enough to know what I'm talking about.
  22. How addictive it is is not really relevant. Due to advancements in technology and modern society, it is readily available. Despite our best efforts, people still use it. Heroin as well. So I would rather regulate it and treat it for what it is, an ADDICTION, which you apparently agree with. Social programs/healthcare programs to treat it is WAY cheaper that judicial/prison programs to punish it. And it could be sold by private enterprise, creating jobs, taxed to pay for the treatment programs. Cigarettes do the same - they are addictive and they kill. Alcohol is addictive and it kills, neither is illegal. 99.9% of the sales are above board, and they are easily taxed and controlled. Open it ALL up. ALL drugs. What we are doing today is NOT working and is bankrupting the country, s well as destroying our social fabric already. Prisons are revolving doors and the punishment is not working either. Keep doing the same things? You will keep seeing the same results. So you are prepared to use society as a guinea pig to satisfy your ideology? Didn't we learn enough from China when opium was legal? Do you think China outlawed it just because they wanted to be mean? http://www.historywiz.com/downfall.htm
  23. And many people who have never used illegal drugs feel perfectly justified in discussing the dangers of using illegal drugs. Of course, it's possible to learn about the dangers of something without actually trying it or even being around it. But I think too many people use very limited information to think they know enough to have an authoritative opinion. That's exactly what wuffos say about skydiving.
  24. No corner. The claim was that the author was donating the "proceeds" to the families. Skydekker contends he is not doing so. i simply asked for proof. It's not up to me to prove the author isn't doing something. That is not what Skydekker contends. But what about you - do you think the author is financially benefiting from the book? Sure it is. Don't know what's so hard for you to understand about that> I haven't made a claim one way or the other. I've simply asked him to prove the above statement.
  25. No corner. The claim was that the author was donating the "proceeds" to the families. Skydekker contends he is not doing so. i simply asked for proof. It's not up to me to prove the author isn't doing something.