That's total bullshit. Cops are allowed to do things during the course of their job that the average citizen is not.

Try pulling someone over with your car today. Really yell at them and honk your horn like crazy and see if they pull over. Then, when they don't, perform a nice PIT maneuver with your car. After all, cops are allowed to do it right? So shouldn't you?

Or how about this: Try carrying around a loaded, fully-automatic assault rifle. If anyone screws with you, tell them that SWAT team members are allowed to carry them, so you should be allowed to as well. Sound like crazy talk? It is.

How is this for a double-standard: if a cop sees someone committing a crime, they are required by law to stop it. Whereas you, a normal citizen, is not required by law to do anything. Is that unfair? Or is that because stopping criminals is part of a cop's job description?

Cops are allowed to do things that normal citizens are not. They can put up barricades. They can direct traffic. They can use "police only" radio channels.

It seems to me like this is equivalent to walking into a hospital and saying, "I'd like to perform some brain surgery, and if you don't let me, you're holding me and the actual brain surgeon up to different standards!" But they're not holding you up to different standards at all. Almost anyone can go to school to become a brain surgeon. But the school part is a requirement to actually practicing the work.

In the same way, almost anyone can go to a police academy or other training school and become a cop. So it's not a double-standard, it's two separate roles that individuals play in a society. Roles that are established by that same society. It's not that complicated.

Again, if the cop was using an illegal space to park in while he went and got a tic-tac or something, I could see the argument. But this isn't even an argument. It's crazy talk.

I never drive drunk unless I'm that special kind of drunk, that I'm a better driver because I know I'm drunk. You know the kinda drunk that you probably shouldn't drive but you do anyway, because... come on, you gotta get a car home, right, I mean what do they expect me to do? Take a bus? Is that what they want? For me to take a bus? Well screw that! You take a bus!

This article compared this oil spill to oil spills related to Hurricane Katrina in '05 and Exxon-Valdeez in '89:

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/04/long-term_impact_of_gulf_of_me.html

In reply to this comment by demon_ix:
I guess nature isn't done screwing with you, huh
I hope that thing gets contained in time, but there isn't much hope for that, is there
In reply to this comment by dotdude:
I've posted some links from our local paper concerning your oil spill video:

http://videosift.com/video/Gulf-Of-Mexico-Oil-Spill-Forecast?loadcomm=1#comment-987472

I guess nature isn't done screwing with you, huh
I hope that thing gets contained in time, but there isn't much hope for that, is there
In reply to this comment by dotdude:
I've posted some links from our local paper concerning your oil spill video:

http://videosift.com/video/Gulf-Of-Mexico-Oil-Spill-Forecast?loadcomm=1#comment-987472

I'm fairly sure they're talking about people going bankrupt because they had to pay an arm and a leg to get medical treatment.

>> ^Quboid:
Is he not as guilty of cherry-picking as she is? No bankruptcies because of illness in Switzerland, France or Germany? Really? The health care might be free (I assume) but if you are a entrepreneur or run a solo business, I'd think bankruptcies happen. If your business doesn't operate for 6 months while you're in a coma, that business might just be screwed. If you're paying a mortgage with the money earned from this business, you're screwed.
Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about. I assume the argument is to do with free health care but I don't know. Also, I assume it's fairly general and doesn't mean just bankruptcies directly caused by paying for health care (and if it does, it's rather meaningless). Nothing in this clip makes these clear. I don't know what I'm talking about but then how many people do?

>> ^Quboid:
Is he not as guilty of cherry-picking as she is? No bankruptcies because of illness in Switzerland, France or Germany? Really? The health care might be free (I assume) but if you are a entrepreneur or run a solo business, I'd think bankruptcies happen. If your business doesn't operate for 6 months while you're in a coma, that business might just be screwed. If you're paying a mortgage with the money earned from this business, you're screwed.
Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about. I assume the argument is to do with free health care but I don't know. Also, I assume it's fairly general and doesn't mean just bankruptcies directly caused by paying for health care (and if it does, it's rather meaningless). Nothing in this clip makes these clear. I don't know what I'm talking about but then how many people do?


i don't think they are referring to patient's bankruptcies.

>> ^Quboid:
Is he not as guilty of cherry-picking as she is? No bankruptcies because of illness in Switzerland, France or Germany? Really? The health care might be free (I assume) but if you are a entrepreneur or run a solo business, I'd think bankruptcies happen. If your business doesn't operate for 6 months while you're in a coma, that business might just be screwed. If you're paying a mortgage with the money earned from this business, you're screwed.
Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about. I assume the argument is to do with free health care but I don't know. Also, I assume it's fairly general and doesn't mean just bankruptcies directly caused by paying for health care (and if it does, it's rather meaningless). Nothing in this clip makes these clear. I don't know what I'm talking about but then how many people do?


I can assure you, that your disclaimer was correct, and the last sentence was also correct.. I think part of the problem in this American healthcare debate, is that politicians are talking about other countries like they know what's going on there, but they actually don't.. They are just pulling numbers, and missing the essence. Which is: people in western Europe have to be medically insured, if you are unable to pay for it, it will be paid by tax payers' money, because (wether you like it or not) some people can't really help being broke and some people actually need support and are not left on their own.. That's a not socialism, that's just social.

Is he not as guilty of cherry-picking as she is? No bankruptcies because of illness in Switzerland, France or Germany? Really? The health care might be free (I assume) but if you are a entrepreneur or run a solo business, I'd think bankruptcies happen. If your business doesn't operate for 6 months while you're in a coma, that business might just be screwed. If you're paying a mortgage with the money earned from this business, you're screwed.

Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about. I assume the argument is to do with free health care but I don't know. Also, I assume it's fairly general and doesn't mean just bankruptcies directly caused by paying for health care (and if it does, it's rather meaningless). Nothing in this clip makes these clear. I don't know what I'm talking about but then how many people do?

>> ^laura:
>> ^spoco2:
^ ... There are a class of parents who want to take no responsibility for their own children ...

I HAD to reply to that statement...in fact, the problem itself is that parents take ALL the responsibility for their own children...leaving NO room for the child to be accountable for his/her own actions. It makes for horrendous adults.
Dear Parents:
Please, for the love of all that is human and good, let your kids screw up, and let them take the consequences of their screw ups. You are not your kids, nor vice/versa.


I think I worded that badly. I definitely agree that kids should be allowed to try and fail at things, but there are a group of parents who refuse to accept that their kid may be doing the wrong thing, or not trying hard enough or are disruptive, but instead think that its all manner of other things that are at fault. It's not their kid, it's the teacher. It's not their kid, it's other kids in the class. And they get so worked up when their kid does poorly and demand explanation and why has the school failed them etc.

Sometimes the school is definitely at fault in these cases, BUT more often than not its the kid, and by extension, really the parent who is at fault.

>> ^spoco2:
^ ... There are a class of parents who want to take no responsibility for their own children ...


I HAD to reply to that statement...in fact, the problem itself is that parents take ALL the responsibility for their own children...leaving NO room for the child to be accountable for his/her own actions. It makes for horrendous adults.

Dear Parents:
Please, for the love of all that is human and good, let your kids screw up, and let them take the consequences of their screw ups. You are not your kids, nor vice/versa.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Statists like Fraken don't believe in individual liberty and the required risks that real freedom entails.
But you knew that when this never-funny clown stole the election.


Yeah heaven forbid that everyone be given the opportunities to succeed in life without being constantly terrified of getting sick and losing everything they've worked for.

Funny how Franken stole his election, but Bush won fair and square. Did you suffer a massive head trauma when you were young or were you born this stupid?

>> ^gtjwkq
Your definition of a "just society" seems mostly based on one person being forced to provide for another against their will.


That statement is exactly what's wrong with the teabaggers and conservative in general. You all seem to think that it's a one for one exchange, you get screwed because you're getting someone else's bills. Here's a simple analogy so you can understand the concept without straining too hard.

You have ten people going out to lunch. Lunch costs 5$. Occasionally someone forgets their wallet or is short, so the rest of the group pools their money, and picks up lunch for that person. So while everyone is out 60 cents extra, they can safely know that if they're short one day they'll get their lunch taken care of by the rest of the group.

Conservatives are happy to receive the free lunch as long as they don't have to pay the pittance to give someone else a meal.

The goals of a society should be betterment of the whole, through group effort; not individual accumulation of wealth. Conservatives need to get over their greed.

Big Deal, you should see some of the low-level flying I do in Battlefield 1943.


Yeah, but if you screw up, you don't die. If he farts at that altitude and airspeed they'll never find the body

Government doesn't care about you directly. Government is there for one reason - to perpetuate itself (re-election). They only 'care' about people insofar as they consider people to be population blocs that generate tax revenue and (occasionally) vote.

Private companies don't care about you directly either. They are there for one reason - to make a profit. They only 'care' about people insofar as they are engines that generate market share.

The THEORY is that both these entities (public/private) will ultimately behave themselves because they can't afford to antagonize the people that their 'market share' attitude so routinely dehumanizes. The real issue here is that government is FAR more insulated from the people than any private company. If you get a bum rap from a company you can sue them, or take your business to a different company, and (best) tell anyone/everyone what happened and cause lots of other people to not patronize the business.

But when you are oppressed by the GOVERNMENT you are far less able to hit them where it hurts. You can't stop paying taxes. You can't throw someone out of office except once every 4/6 years (and even THEN it isn't a given). Even if you do get ONE guy thrown out, there are hundreds or thousands of others still in that government who you have ZERO ability to influence (Senators from other states, cabinet members, appointees, judges).

Right now the polls show athat about 65% to over 70% of the people do NOT want Obamacare. If the Democrats just say, "screw you - you're getting Obamacare like it or not" then there is literally nothing that can be done about it. Even if the Dems lose the house/senate in the midterms it can't be undone. Even if Repubs take the House, PoTUS, and Senate in 2012 it is very unlikely they would repeal it. They'd just want to be the ones 'in charge' of it.

It is a FAR better choice to never let the government take over health care in the first place. They cannot be trusted with that kind of power, because they would never surrender it. American helath care is fine. People who need care get it. The problem is one of disproportionate costs. That problem can be handled far more effectively with a non-public solution that does not give over immense power to a goverment .

I wish that the other people on this website who agree with me would come in and comment instead of making private comments on my profile. That would be really nice.

Now that is a shame. If you are getting those then it is a shame that there are others on your side of the fence who don't have the conviction to stand out and say so.

That's a bit sad.

I have mentioned quite a lot on this site about my wonderings and such about porn, myself and my wife have discussed it quite a lot. We use it on occasion together, and find it to be great, although the actual number of films that are good to watch with a partner are severely limited.

There seems to be a seriously disturbing trend in degradation of women in porn these days which I do find disturbing. The prevalence of forcible deep throating, gagging, general treating women like objects is disgusting and absolutely wrong and gives men the wrong idea of how to treat a woman. And I for one wish it would just go away as a trend.

AND

I know that plenty of women who are in porn are not having a good time and are emotionally and physically screwed up. You only need to watch the movies The Girl Next Door (not the mainstream comedy, another one), or Sex, the Annabel Chong Story to see some people who have not been done well out of porn.

BUT

You can find terrible mainstream films, and actors and actresses who have been done very badly by in mainstream films too... does that mean I think they entire mainstream film business is evil and should be done away with? No.

And neither do I think that of the porn industry. There are some fantastic adult movies that are explicit and erotic and show respect to women and which can be wonderful to watch with a partner. There is no way in hell the entire genre should be gotten rid of, or considered evil just because there is bad in it.

You start getting on a really slippery slope if you do that anyway:
Video of people having sex - No
Photos of people having sex - No
Video of a woman naked - No.. oh, wait, there are plenty of wonderful 'mainstream' films with a naked woman or two in it, including ones I'm sure you like pinky... so... what criteria do you make for when it's art vs porn
Photos of a woman naked - No/Yes same deal

Video of a woman clothed but being erotic - ?
Video of a woman clothed by having sex with a man/woman - ?

I mean really, where are your lines drawn, and why are your lines right?

Personally, I think that if everyone is consenting and of age then almost anything goes... sometimes that line of 'consent' is nastily blurred thanks to desperate women and horrible men... but if two people are happy to be having sex, and happy to have people watching them have sex and can make a living from it... good on them.

I mean, there are actual couples who do films just with each other... so they are in a loving realationship, not cheating on each other, but just like having others watch, and you think that's wrong too?

In a nutshell:

Yes, porn CAN be horrible, degrading, addicting stuff
BUT
Porn can be wonderfully erotic entertainment for one or more parties
AND
Sex itself can be 'addictive', and I think I'd much rather have single guys get rid of their urges with a bit of porn rather than seeking out women to do so with, perhaps against their will.

It wasn't just "fudamentally bad advice" as McCain so flippantly says, they asked, and his advice was "Well...there IS a law against that... but ahhhh screw it you can get around that law with a bunch of fancy lawyer gibbledygook."
^THUMBS UP AMERICA!! YEAH!!^