Leaderboard

No what the Ds say about Trump's Tax cuts is that they lowered revenues and increased the deficit and that only absolute morons would believe in "trickle down economics."

Also, don't forget about all the political ads, particularly by the right wing 'influence groups' that scream "THE LIBERALS ARE ALLOWING CRIMINALS TO DESTROY YOUR CITIES AND THE LIBERAL JUDGES LET THEM GO FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!" in the ads.

Is that like using “woke?” Wendy P.

But it's understandable, right? After all, their parents were taught that hiding under a school desk was useful during a nuclear attack. To your larger point, the problem is the illusion that these things are manageable as a matter of societal policy that promotes more personal protection over mitigating the risk. We do not need bullet proof school back packs or school bus windows, we need bullet proof policies that promote an ethos that guns are the problem. We do not need to vilify guns; we need to not glorify guns. Perhaps, following the lead of cigarettes advertising, the box should have pictures of shooting victims not smiling hunters. True or not, we've allowed ourselves to be trained that cars aren't the problem, speeding in school zones is the problem. As far as I know there is no mention of either in the Constitution but we've worked that out reasonably. We can do the same with guns if the never give an inch crowd could just see giving an inch before it's their kid.

Brent's idea of trickle down:

Well, you are certainly not paying your fair share!

Hi Sky, Uh, that would be 'morans.' Jerry Baumchen

Are you trying to argue that there is no concept that suggests prosperity in upper classes flows down to lower classes?

No.

It is getting to be an all around catchall. Almost the equivalent but opposite of nazi.

All good points, Joe. The above portion resonates with me. IMO, we lost this battle when we settled for teaching children how to be sheep in active shooter drills.

As is the stupidity of the MAGA morons.

I'm rapidly approaching the point where I can assume that anyone using "woke" as a pejorative is not a serious person at all and can be safely ignored. It's so embarrassingly lazy.

There is no reason to get pissed off, generally, the sane understand the problem: the glorification of guns in America. Guy's like Brent with his silly non-points, like posting a picture of AR-15's and Ammo and observing that they don't auto load and kill kids, are the problem. The Second Amendment isn't the problem, either. Again, it's where we are at culturally. The First Amendment is not perfectly worded either but no one is claiming that screaming fire in a theater is protected speech. No. Our American gun problem is caused by our media, mostly, which preys on some people's selfishness and ignorance. If you believe the world is inherently dangerous then you likely think being armed is critical to survival. If you think the world is mostly a decent place to live if you just avoid some dangerous spots then you probably think it's dumb to carry a gun. In either case, you ought to scrutinize why you think the world is as you believe it is when so many others see it differently. And then honestly test your view.

Brother, between 2001 and the end of the war, there were more children killed in the U.S. by gunfire, than our own military killed in Iraq/Afghanistan. In fact, roughly 7,000 children were killed by gunfire in the five years after Sandy Hook (2012-2017) than the 6,900 U.S. military killed during the war. Think about that for awhile. Then get pissed off.

True. We would lose our well paying jobs if we didn't have more work to do.

On the topic of "why don't you just ban all the trolls?" A few reasons. 1) We have a warning/ban system that works and is more consistent than the judgment of several moderators, so we are going to use it. It accomplishes the same thing. It bans people after several warnings, and it bans them for longer and longer periods of time as they get more warnings. 2) We are careful to not ban people who are just annoying, either to us or to the people reading the forum. If we do that we run the risk of the forum turning into one big homogenous opinion, since anyone with (strongly) differing opinions get removed. 3) For people who are annoying, we now have the "hide" feature, which is provided for exactly that reason. So if someone annoys you, just hide them and don't read their posts. (And really hide them, and don't regularly post "oh I see PutinLover is back, but all I can see is 'you have hidden this content' because I have hidden them and thus never even notice them any more, or whatever they are posting!") 4) Underlying all this is the question "what is trolling?" We have a handy definition in the rules - it's "posting inflammatory material specifically to provoke a negative response from someone." But what is that exactly? Is a troll someone who posts 50 times a year on the "sacrifices to the second amendment" thread, constantly complaining about basically the same thing in order to annoy conservatives? (innocent lives lost via gun violence) 100 times a year? How about someone who constantly posts "I hate Biden" or "I hate Trump" to annoy others? Or who always denies climate change is happening, or always supports climate change science? Because a few regular posters who most people would not consider trolls fall into those categories. We can (and do) go after people who are obviously trolling, but we also err on the side of not warning/banning people if it's unclear whether they are doing it to annoy people or because they believe their own woo.

I find it interesting that the "well regulated" portion is continually dismissed, refused, misconstrued, or flat out ignored and argued over.

That's the fallacy. Regulation != Infringing on Rights. One can still own guns; but rights and ownership come with responsibility. It would be nice if we didn't have to regulate people regarding guns, but as long as they're going to be irresponsible, then regulations will need to be emplaced. Somehow, I'm of the opinion that killing kids in schools is not equal to responsible.

Like I said, seeing this forum today felt like it should be renamed. Or simply closed, ignored, and forgotten. Peace.

This guy doesn't complain he has been taking ivermectin either! https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3mb89/ivermectin-danny-lemoi-death?utm_source=vice_facebook&utm_medium=social

Based on about 5-8 jumps on a Storm 170. Previous experience about 200 jumps on a Sabre 1 - 190 and about 5-8 on a Sabre 2- 170. I tried both the Sabre 2 and the Storm the same week. Conditions ranged from windy and turbulent to calm with no wind. My windloading was perfect as the storm cut through thermals and turbulence beautifully (the main reason I was downsizing). Turns were very crisp with no hesitation, perhaps not as forgiving for a student but it really followed my input. Flat turns were, well, flat. I didn't try a full brake turn, half brake turns were very quick! Front risers in general were tough to pull with lots of pressure in both level and turns. Not too difficult, just tough. Rear risers were sweet for slowing, flaring or turns. Full speed straight and level flight semmed faster than the Sabre 2 and much steeper. Partial brakes leveled out the canopy and really offered comparable (Sabre 2) glide distance. A long spot would have you in partial brakes a long time but brake pressure was not unreasonable and glide was much shallower. Slow flight somewhere around half brakes was not mushy but maintained good cell pressure and felt fully controlled. Openings were actually faster than I expected but without the shaking and sometimes whomping I get from the Sabre 1. Openings seemed to be on heading for both my packjobs and packs by the pros...No tendency for end-cell closure which I did see on the Sabre 2 (to be fair, it didn't affect the openings on the Sabre 2 anyways). What did affect openings was body position, any reasonable change in the harness as the canopy was inflating affected heading. I like this as you can actually steer the thing as it's opening. Unstowing the brakes/collapsing the slider! What a suprise, reaching up for the toggles/collapse cords has to be done at the same time otherwise I was able to turn the canopy easily just by shifting body position. My Sabre 1 has a single cord to collapse the slider so I reach up with one hand while steering with both toggles in the other. Bad habit! On the Storm I had to collapse the slider with two hands then unstow the brakes. There is so much extra brake line stowed that the canopy really picks up speed as you release the brakes. I'd hate to inadvertently release one brake early! Not bad, just different. Now for the amazing part. FLARE!!! I flared early, I flared late, I flared twice, I think I even forgot to flare until it was too late. I swear this canopy actually went upwards when I pulled my stoppin ropes! The steep approach took some getting used to but once you decide to brake, there is so much energy left in the canopy to flare, it does just that. Flare slowly from too high, it keeps flying. Flare hard from too low, it keeps flying. Flare too high, goof and let up, pull again lower, it keeps flying. Even on no wind landings and higher wingloading (for me) the Storm levels out beautifully during flare, holds for a second or two, and let me down gently (all but one time, but that was my fault, and the grass stains are coming out just fine thanks.) My overall impression is that the Sabre 2-170 is a sweet stable canopy. The Storm-170 is a sports car that even I can handle! Last year my instructors suggested that I downsize to the Sabre 2. I don't think they had tried the Storm when they made that recommendation.