Jump to content
Roy Fokker

Roy Fokker

Emergency Department

Activity Wall

  • Roy Fokker last visited:
  • 7,789


  • 0


  • 32,380


  • 0


  • 0


  1. Roy Fokker

    The great debate - over or under

    What is this 'toilet paper' that you speak of?? Neither does operating the toilet seat :p cheers,
  2. Roy Fokker

    'Intactivists' to San Francisco: Ban circumcision

    When a girl is 13, she can't decide between 16 billion thin.... oh wait! Sorry, I'm not a girl. Wouldn't have the faintest idea and wouldn't dare to presume so. (really?!) Carpal Tunnel is so much a bigger problem than say.... I dunno. What's the topic of this thread again? It's a valid question. Let me phrase it a different way: Islamic Shari'a Law allows the "stoning" of "adulterers". Technically, so does Judaic law in terms of idolatry (for example). Are you saying that it's ok to mutilate baby boys just so not to **** off a religious faction? If your answer to the above is "yes", then you have no standing in refuting the 'custom' of certain tribes in practicing "female circumcision" (wouldn't want to alienate an entire race/religion, yes?) In any case: how does your argument apply to "non-religious circumcision"? - Roy
  3. Roy Fokker

    'Intactivists' to San Francisco: Ban circumcision

    Either I'm missing your point or you didn't understand mine... :confused: cheers,
  4. Roy Fokker

    'Intactivists' to San Francisco: Ban circumcision

    Bottom line: It's the parent decisions. The goverment should butt OUT of our personal business. If you're for it, do it. Circumcise your daughters. Done and done. cheers,
  5. Roy Fokker

    Wow! - gun control

    Yes, because you're completely innocent of the same. Good for you. You obviously know what you want :) Yes, there are valid "concerns" on both sides of the issue. But please don't pretend with the accusation that I'm biased when you are not... cheers,
  6. Roy Fokker

    Wow! - gun control

    well, they don't. you mean like the cops who waited around at columbine and at va tech? by the way: why doesn't "armed for a living" also include ordinary citizens? i guess "don't taze me bro" didn't get much airplay in your area.... "grandpa, wasn't the tazer supposed to be a non-lethal alternative to pulling a gun and shooting someone?" "yes sweetheart, that's what the theory was. but ultimately, it degenerated as usual into a method of 'compliance'. i can't shoot the bastard but i sure can taze his ass and make him comply!" youtube - ‪university of florida student tasered at kerry forum‬‏ so the bystander didn't shoot and nothing untoward happened. and even if he did, he'd be "held responsible" in accordance with your earlier post, right? "hold gun owners responsible for actions"? so this is an issue because? "a license to drive does not reassure me that you have any competence at all in a chaotic real-life crisis involving driving an 18-wheeler in a blinding snowstorm when faced with loss of traction in traffic." by the way: you'd doubt my "license to carry" but you'd trust the local police officer and his/her qualifications with a firearm? why? i don't mind disagreeing. i'd like to know "why" we're disagreeing but 'agree to disagree' is something i choose to honor, always. forgive me for being forthright - but i'm not convinced. *mutters under breath* wish someone would tell the army that. if my gun were ever stolen - by your argument, i should be held responsible for the crimes that were undertaken using that weapon. sooo, never mind the fact that my property was stolen from me and said "property" was used in the commission of a crime ... my ass is responsible. i wonder what the denizens of nyc or la would say if the law "charged the victims of car theft" with the fruits of the crimes committed using their "stolen" vehicles? among other things... yeah...
  7. Roy Fokker

    Wow! - gun control

    I don't believe that is true. Guns are used plenty of times every single day to help prevent crime and to save lives. It just doesn't get the mass media attention that "gun related crime" does. Home*|*The Armed Citizen Who arrived AFTER the incident had already started. AND bungled the situation totally. What does that tell you? I'll never understand the automatic deference to authority. Just because they're cops or wear fancy uniforms doesn't negate the fact that they're human too. Or is the argument more along the lines of "cops are better than Joe Citizen"? Why? Because they're "trained more"? How many of you know how often a police officer has to qualify with his/her weapon and what are the accepted standards for qualification? In any case, why the implicit assumption that "there are trained cops ergo YOU citizen donot need personal protection"? Despite the fact that the courts have decided that you have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime? That the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations? I'm not saying that all cops are bumbling idiots. Nor are they callous slackers. Most officers really do want to protect people, save lives, deter crime. But that doesn't change the fact that they police have zero legal requirement to do so. I have ZERO problems with this. Would you also agree then that in such a case, just because one individual violates the law; the rest of us peaceful, conscientious gun owners must not be punished for no fault of our own (i.e. hold the violator responsible and not punish the rest of us who've done nothing wrong) ? Not true. "One of the driving forces behind LEAA’s founding was to dispel the false impression that America’s police favor more gun control." Cops Versus Gun Control Main Most cops don't expect Joe Sixpack to be able to draw down on a criminal and make an arrest pending arrival of the cavalry - but they do want to give Joe Sixpack a fighting chance if and when he's about to become a victim. Most cops also know that more often than not, the mere "presence of a firearm" deters criminals. Would you attempt to rob someone who you know is armed? In any case, none of this still invalidates what the lady said at the end of that video. The purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't so that the Government gives me "permission" (if someone gives you permission to do something, is that a "right" or a "privilege"?) to shoot moose and hunt geese - the purpose is to maintain an armed populace to prevent the growth of a tyrannical government. All this noise against "assault weapons" is nothing but a smoke screen. When the Constitution was ratified, "arms" meant everything from an axe to the musket. The musket, incidentally was the "assault weapon" of the day (used quite well to defeat the most powerful empire at the time). The founders, who'd just fought a war in their own backyards, not only saw no harm in citizens owning arms... they actually encouraged it ("assault weapons" including). Lastly - my life, my liberty, my family and my property are not up for bids based on the whims of a two-bit hoodlum or a power-drunk government flunky. The Constitution doesn't "give" me my rights ("constitutional rights" - how I loathe that term!) - my rights exists by virtue of birth; the book merely affirms this. I will NOT surrender my ability to defend myself or my loved ones. Dum spiro, Pugno!
  8. Roy Fokker

    Dating a nurse

    Yes, I'm a nurse. But I'm an individual person too - with my own tastes, likes, dislikes and quirks. I don't date professions - I date people. And all I ask is a similar, reciprocal interest and respect. cheers,
  9. Roy Fokker

    'Intactivists' to San Francisco: Ban circumcision

    * It's "genital mutilation" that is in question. If the female variety is banned, so should the male variety. * Penises are made with a foreskin for a reason. If they are 'vestigial', then so are ears and pinkie-toes - lop 'em off too for good measure. * A good chunk of people on this planet are not circumcised (only about a billion or so are actually circumcised according to the WHO. Fine, let us even call it 2 billion. Still only a 1/3rd of humanity). There is no explosion of cancer or STDs amongst their population. Co-relation isn't causation. * It's not "torture", it's "enhanced interrogation". It's not "prisoner of war", it's "enemy combatant". It's not "kidnapping", it's "extraordinary rendition". It's not "genital mutilation", it's "circumcision". It's not "theft", it's "taxation". So on and so forth. Calling a "tail" a "leg" doesn't make it so. Manipulation of language has long been the preferred tactic to make distasteful concepts more palatable to people. Newspeak is alive and well... And if it's ok to cut a boy for "culturo/religio" reasons - why not the same standard for a girl? My :twocents:
  10. Roy Fokker

    Starting to get tired of the unnecessary snark

    I usually take a few days off from AN from time to time (I believe my last "few days off" lasted a few months! LOL). Helps clear the mind. Deal with enough stress offline - don't need to add on to it online. But hey, it's not a bad thing to strive for. "Politeness is like the air inside tires. It's free of charge and makes the ride a lot less bumpy". I agree. I've posted this several times before: "Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it. - George Orwell" To provide contrast: The "good old days" also had segregation and the draft. I suppose it's quite human to be wistful and long for certain things (like men wearing hats for example). I'm just not completely sold on the 'world is going to hell in a handbasket' theory. Oh and if this generation is filled with a bunch of uncouth hooligans - whose fault is that? Surely not the parents (i.e. previous generation?) You're not alone. It's the equivalent of biting the tongue - only less painful :) cheers,
  11. Roy Fokker

    Any Nurses registered as a Libertarian?

    I agree with you. Live and let live is a great philosophy. What's more: At no point does the Constitution ever say "citizen".... Yes! Yes! AND Yes! "Government should leave US AND EVERYBODY ELSE alone!" Sounds like a "wing nut radical concept" - except for the fact that it was endorsed by our Founding Fathers! Not just "backed by a gold standard" but also how about Article I, Sec 8 :: "Constitutional Money"?? Is that a 'radical concept' ?? Aye! "Constitutional" or otherwise - each and every individual enjoys "rights". The Right to Life, Liberty and (justly acquired) Property.... No harm. No Foul. No shame. You just identified with your heart... There is nothing to be "weirded out" about. cheers,
  12. Roy Fokker

    Any Nurses registered as a Libertarian?

    I guess the 'label' applies. Yeah, I'm pretty much a libertarian. According to family physician Kenneth Bisson of Angola, Ind., "Libertarianism is what your mom taught you: 'Behave yourself and don't hit your sister."' I very much agree with Mr. Bisson - libertarianism rests on property rights. I'm VERY much in favor of people taking care of themselves. And I'm also a HUGE fan of "charity" - the kind where everyday Americans freely give a part of their property in order to aid or better their fellow man. No, I'm not talking about "Government Foreign Aid" (which mostly goes to the elites/rulers anyway!... makes you think huh?) I'm talking about private charity. Despite our troubles - the American people are still amongst the most generous people on this planet. We've raised billions in support of everything from drilling water wells in Africa to saving whales off the Pacific coast... But, our "Government" pursues policies that are clearly detrimental to our 'health' as a nation... It matters not "which party" is in power: Democrats or Republicans - how many of 'em "actually voted against" the 'Stimulus Bill"? How many of 'em voted to be against... AGAINST an Audit of the Federal Reserve System?? Isn't it strange that on the EVE of the Republicans capturing power in Government, the Federal Reserve unleashes another Trillion+ "dollars" in it's desperate attempt to 'jump start the economy as Keynes said it would work' ???? Yeah, the previous "print money as needed" job worked so well that .... we need ANOTHER round of it!!!! This is absolutely insane. I'm not all that enthralled about the election results - save for the re-election of Dr. Ron Paul and the election of Sen. Rand Paul. Unless you hold your candidates to 'sound money' policies .... this "election" remains a "charade"....
  13. Roy Fokker

    So, I'm starting P90x...

    A good buddy said that he did the program "half a**ed" but he still lost 15 lbs. 'Half a**ed' and still lose 15 lbs? I'll take that any day! :-) cheers,
  14. So.... Saddam Hussein fighting Iran = good. Saddam Hussein fighting US = bad. Radical muslim fighters battling the Soviets = good. Radical muslim fighters battling the US = bad. I think I've seen the light. Speaking of which - why is the President only stopping at such a low number? Wouldn't a million man army in Afghanistan work better? How about 2 million? 5 million? Surely we can afford that - there's enough lazy, roustabouts wandering our streets from the depression. Put 'em to good use... But then again, Obama IS continuing the Bush Doctrine. I fail to see why so many folks are so upset. Did y'all actually think that things would change just because "some else was elected President" ??? - Roy

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.