Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/28/2021 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    Response to the nipply one: Your first jump will be a recurrency. To make sure that you obey your jumpmasters, you'll be required to wear eye shades along with the face mask. The instructors will pull off the eye shades when they deploy you. With a frap hat, the options are endless. I'd go with the standard little blue face shield, and just let freefall blow it off. Then you can wait for it to land and re-use it again. Make sure you weight it appropriately -- you do want it to come back down on the airport, after all. There's a whole new sport of mask accuracy, with people building special accuracy masks, studying the wind currents in detail, and adjusting the mask weight based on the exit altitude and direction. Wendy P.
  2. 7 points
    Hehe, this is so disingenuous that it's embarrassing for the reader. Trump throws our Kurd allies into a meat grinder and that's no problem. Biden abides by a shit show deal engineered by Trump, which included the release of thousands on enemy combatants, to end Bush's Afghanistan disaster and it's evidence of his incompetence on every level. Sinema and Manchin back stab him, along with every R Senator that used to be for voting rights equality and he couldn't get the deal done because he sucks. Trump and his team do worse than zero to assist the transition to a new administration, foment insurrection and further divide the nation by continuing the year long lie of a stolen election and, to the chagrin of any thinking person, that hobbling has nothing to do with any supposed hot messes. The list goes on and on. This isn't a meaningless schoolyard game of dodgeball; this is the fate of our nation. Some people need to wake up.
  3. 7 points
    I think this thread should be renamed to "old man yells at cloud".
  4. 6 points
    People have a long history of repackaging repugnant policies to make them more palatable, and even to fool the unwary into supporting those policies. Slavery was repackaged as "states rights". It's a lot easier to convince people that states should be free to enact policies they decide is in the best interests of their citizens, than it is to convince them to support slavery. So you create a couple of degrees of separation; now you're not talking about buying and selling people, you're talking about states being free from Washington bullying. Similarly, in the 1960s the California Realtor's Association found their practice of adding racial covenants to property deeds under attack from civil rights advocates (see this article for example). Realtors found that they could drive up property values by adding restrictions to deeds to make white-only developments and whole neighborhoods. It got to the point that in many communities there were literally no homes that non-whites were allowed to buy. This was supported by the courts; in one case the California Supreme Court ruled that a black family could not be blocked from buying a property, but they could not live on the property due to the covenants. When the Federal government moved to block racial covenants, the realtor's association responded by repackaging the issue as "freedom to do as you wished with your own property". Now they could talk about freedom and property rights, and leave segregation out of the conversation altogether. They pushed an amendment to the California constitution to protect the "right" to enforce racial covenants, which passed with over 60% of the vote pretty much because it was sold as a personal freedom issue not one of legally enforced segregation. Although the California amendment was later voided as in violation of Federal law, the many all-white communities established under the system remain almost entirely white to this day. The lesson was learned well by Regan as Governor, and persists strongly today in Republican Party tactics to fight efforts to combat Covid, poverty, voting rights, or anything else they decide to adopt as a wedge issue. Now we see censorship and efforts to "whitewash" (a perfect word to describe the effort) history repackaged as an effort to protect children from feeling badly about how various racial groups have been treated. Never mind that doing that robs students of any hope of being able to understand why the country has many of the problems that it has. If you can't talk about slavery or Jim Crow or the California Realtor's Association, how do you explain the vast differences in average wealth between white and black (or hispanic) families, or incarceration rates, or any of the other structural issues that fall along racial lines? All you are left with is that non-whites have less wealth, or are more likely to be incarcerated, because they are lazy, or stupid. I see evidence that the same repackaging is happening for religious issues. In the Supreme Court both Thomas and Alito have written about same sex marriage and abortion as being offensive to people with strongly held religious (IOW fundamentalist Christian) beliefs. They seem to be setting up a new constitutional right: the right to never be offended by other people "living in sin". "Freedom of religion", I fear, will soon be twisted to mean that no-one can do anything that might offend someone else's religious scruples. You don't have to pass laws that say everyone has to believe in fundamentalist Christianity, if you can pass laws that say that everyone has to behave just like fundamentalist Christians.
  5. 6 points
    I agree that that is one of the functions of the electoral college, but not the only one, at least at the start of the country. The 3/5ths compromise was put forward to address concerns of the southern colonies that they would be dominated by non-slave states because they would only count votes of white males, making their population much smaller than it actually was. For non-American readers, the 3/5ths compromise was an agreement to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person. Of course slaves still could not vote, so 3/5ths of nothing is still nothing. To go along with the 3/5ths arrangement, some mechanism had to be invented to turn that 3/5ths into presidential votes. The electoral college filled that role. Each state would be allocated some number of electoral college votes in proportion to their population, which in the case of slave-holding states was all the non-slave population plus 3/5ths of the total number of adult slaves. The electoral college allowed slave states to derive political power in proportion to the number of slaves, without actually allowing the slaves themselves any power. So I would say the electoral college had two functions: to keep power in the hands of the wealthy elite, and to allow southern slave owners to profit politically as well as financially from their slaves. Today the system may not favor slave owners, but it ensures that residents of some states have a disproportionally large voice in presidential elections, and other states have their voice diminished. For example, voters in Kansas have 3 electors, or about 1 for every 180,000 people. On the other hand, Texas has 1 elector for every 763,000 people. Are people who happen to live in Kansas really worth 4 times as much as people who happen to live in Texas? Texas has about the same population as Alaska, Colorado, North and South Dakota, Idaho, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah combined. Texas has 38 electoral votes, and all those states combined have 63. You could make similar comparisons if you substituted California for Texas. So much for one person/one vote! The electoral college serves no useful purpose, it was conceived in order to support evil and it is deeply undemocratic. It's past time for it to be abolished.
  6. 5 points
    Newt Gingrich is largely responsible for everything that is wrong about Congress and the Republican Party IMO. Even if he didn't start some of the pathology, he gave it a huge shot of steroids. He is a perfect example of the class of politicians who will pursue any course of action, no matter how destructive to the country, to secure his own power, again in my opinion. Trump would probably not have happened if Gingrich hadn't already degraded what used to be the Republican party so thoroughly. He orchestrated the Clinton impeachment, built around Clinton's (exceedingly ill-advised) affair with Lewinsky at the same time he was shagging his own mistress, which illustrates the degree of shameless hypocrisy he is effortlessly capable of. I would not waste piss on him if he was on fire. He is, to my mind, evil incarnate. If I had more time I'd tell you what I really think of him!
  7. 5 points
    Your raving against "wokeism" is so utterly meaningless that it is impossible to argue against. That is why you like the term so much. Instead of debating individual ideas which you could never defend you get to wrap up all your fears and hatreds into a bundle and give it a name. It is so vague that it is nothing more than a shadow.
  8. 5 points
    I’ve been lucky enough to work in quite a few different countries and right now I’m sitting in a pub in Turkey, headed back to DFW tomorrow after spending a week with a CM here who’s building a product I’m developing at work. Being over here reminded me a lot of my time in South America, as in both cases I was working with some amazingly smart and talented people, and I was cognizant of the fact that they’re at least every bit as capable as I am and in many cases much more so, but we’re accustomed to very different standards of living purely due to me having the dumb luck of being born in Canada. I don’t feel guilty for what I have as I’ve worked hard for every bit of it, but I’m sure as fuck not cocky about it either
  9. 4 points
    Só let me get this straight — it’s perfectly OK to question the qualifications and route to power or wealth of women and minorities — just in the interests of fact. But questioning the qualifications and route to power of the people already ensconced (lighter in skin and greater testosterone) is getting into CRT and “privilege.” Don’t you fucking understand that being born into a group that’s over-represented in the power structure is an advantage? Kind of like additional height if you’re a basketball player or political candidate. It’s completely unearned. That doesn’t mean you should deny it, just realize that it’s an advantage. Wendy P.
  10. 4 points
    You'll know you found one when they get up and leave.
  11. 4 points
  12. 4 points
    Today we celebrate Martin Luther King and all he did for racial equality. But it wasn't always this way. During his life he was vilified by most Americans. He was doing too much. He was a communist. He was hurting more than he was helping. He just wanted government handouts. MLK: "When we come to Washington in this campaign we’re coming to get our check." And polls backed this up. Just before his death, he had an "unfavorable" rating of 63%. In 1964 he was the second least respected man in America, losing out only to George Wallace the famous segregationist. Half of white Americans thought he was hurting the Civil Rights movement. A third said he had brought his assassination upon himself. Almost half felt no negative emotions about his death. And yet in hindsight it became clear what he did for the cause of civil rights, and is now rightly celebrated for his work. I think about this whenever anyone attacks BLM, or the woke movement, or John Lewis, or LGBT organizations, or defends the murder of George Floyd. Is it just that they don't have the necessary perspective yet on the importance of civil rights? Do they really see some difference in all those unpopular activists? Or is it just that they have not died yet and so society has not yet moved on? Does progress have more to do with the deaths of the people opposed to civil rights? I would like to think that's not true, that people can learn and change over the course of their lifetimes. But I have seen little evidence of that.
  13. 4 points
    Yup, and significantly hotter than 120 years ago. In life there are people who can see a big picture and there are those who can only handle one little moment at a time.
  14. 4 points
    Umm.. not really. It can fire as fast you can pull the trigger. Something has to keep the sere depressed or the sere filed down to make it truly automatic. Both of these done in your garage is a felony (and additional felonies for each weapon). Not something you want to entertain. So, let's define assault weapon properly not by the liberal definition - cause just about anything that "looks" tactical and military is the scary "assault rifle." An assault rifle is any weapon that has a gas-operated blowback and is full auto. Everything else is just a rifle. With regard to storage - if you can afford weapons, you can afford a safe. If you feel the need to have one or two pistols at quick disposal located in a couple of strategic locations in the house - get a biometric release safe. They run about $189. If you're going to carry in your vehicle; the same biometric release safe can be mounted in the vehicle. If you're going to carry on your person, know what the laws for state are regarding carry (open/concealed/constitutional) and be trained on using it - and go to the range and practice - frequently. Note: If you're going to carry, you may wish to consider a slide safety - not that bullshit Glock or Springfield Arms - just have to squeeze safety. Give yourself that one split nanosecond to have to flip the safety lever down to ensure that you really really want to shoot this person AND look pass the shot. To Joe's point - THE BEST home defense you can have is a 12 gauge "automatic" or "pump" Not automatic fire - automatic reload the cartridge from the chamber, whereas, the pump needs to be wracked after each round - with alternating rounds of 00 Buck and deer slugs. And, if you do this - you need to put it in the safe when you leave the house. When you're in the house, put it up high in the bedroom over the closet door on a couple of rifle hooks, so wee people can't inadvertently get to it. NOTE: Not necessarily directed to you - but the group.
  15. 4 points
  16. 3 points
    Kallend made a joke. You reply with "Please. Try that. Thanks." Why? Is what is happening to our nation that funny for you? Get things straight, the right is splitting the republic. The damage done by the election of Trump, his refusal to concede peacefully, his attempted coup by insurrection, his year plus long lie about a stolen election and the inability of people like you and Brent to see that you are not a part of the solution are what is dividing the nation.
  17. 3 points
  18. 3 points
    The bill in Texas alone for plugging and remediating orphan oil wills is calculated at $117 Billion. Which is enough to give a free new Prius to every second household in the entire state. Of course the GOP economists like Brent will never admit that. Admit that that unfunded liability even exists.FOXonomics tells them everything they need to know on to F#%k the country while lining their pockets.
  19. 3 points
    But, that's completely different! Dr Seuss depicted black people as apes, which is just free speech and sort of true. Except that they vote just like Americans do (but we're fixing that). Those smut books depict LGBTQ people as humans, and that's just communism, or woke-ism, or pervert-ism. /sarcasm (just in case anyone doesn't get it). Once again I am reminded that these days Republicanism=rank hypocrisy.
  20. 3 points
    Ok, that makes this make more sense. Seen on FB: M&M Mars has relented. They're now going to produce a "Tucker Carlson" M&M. White, bitter and sold in pack of only that one because they will melt down when placed near multi colored M&Ms.
  21. 3 points
    If you ever get a chance study the history of the Apollo program. It was one massive compromise. Weight was the enemy; too heavy and the vehicle would never get to the moon. Too light and the rocket would collapse due to the tremendous thrust trying to compress the empty tanks between the first stage engines and the fully fueled second stage. They found a compromise that worked. There was no way with existing technology to get the entire vehicle to the Moon and back; the required rocket didn't exist (and still doesn't.) So they compromised. The heavy re-entry vehicle stayed in lunar orbit, and the very light LEM descended to the Moon then re-ascended. It required an extra docking step - but the compromise worked. (And arguably saved all their lives during the Apollo 13 disaster.) The right way to pressurize the oxidizer tanks of the first stage (to provide both pressure and structural integrity) was via endogenous pressurization; using the heat of the engine to boil off some of the LOX and use it to provide that pressure. But time was critical, so they compromised by using compressed helium, an inert gas, to provide that pressure. That required helium tanks which took up space and added weight and complexity. But the compromise worked. These (and many others) made it possible to get humans to the Moon with a remarkably low fatality rate for a program that pushed the limits of existing technology that hard. You can call that project "mediocre" if you like, but most would disagree. Compromise is what makes projects like that possible. Good thing you weren't working on it, I guess.
  22. 3 points
    Maybe these words connote different things to different people. The power-as-goal crowd seems to consider compromise to be a dirty word, and the whatever-they-want-is-what-we-don't-want crowd can't see any pathway for cooperation or collaboration. Gotta start with goals, which means pissing off some people whose primary purpose is to piss off other people. But that's why local politics is so much better than national -- it's much easier to find goals in your own city or town, even if it's that potholes need to be filled and the property taxes are too high. Then you have to choose which, because if the property taxes go too far down, then there's no money to fill potholes, right? Wendy P.
  23. 3 points
    Acknowledging privilege doesn't mean giving up things you need. It doesn't mean giving up most of what you want but don't need. But that smug sense of satisfaction that you did it all? Yeah, that has to go. As does the feeling that others could do just as well as you did, if you can. Back in the 70's I put myself through a private college for the last two years. Yes, private. And came out with minimal loans. My level of sympathy for anyone not either disabled or raising a family who said they couldn't afford college was zero. However, the advantages that I did have didn't occur to me: I'd already started, had a guarantee of being able to return and was familiar with the atmosphere and how to navigate financial aid in a much easier climate I came from a family with a strong sense of college, and knew that if things didn't work out it'd be OK and they'd support me Finding a good-paying job was easy. Through no hard work of my own, I was an intelligent, good-looking 19-year-old woman with bilingual skills in Houston. Not to mention that I was a student at the name school in town I still think that too many people are unwilling to return to college-level living standards for things they care about, but then what's considered standard now is so much more than I had when I was a kid it's not even funny. And we were relatively well off (especially when we were overseas). Wendy P.
  24. 3 points
    You have not been vaccinated, I am sorry, the beds and waiting room are full. Please wait in your car and we will come get you when there is room. Here is a free air freshener for your car.
  25. 3 points
    If you can't dazzle them with brilliance; baffle them with bullshit?
  26. 3 points
    Hi Tri, Re: HRC was one of the best in high school, one of the best in college, and one of the best in law school. Honors and recognition by faculty and peers at all three. From what I have read, she was also quite excellent US senator. Also, IMO she was a very good Sec of State; she worked her butt off in that job. She may be a polarizing person, but one should never discount her abilities. Jerry Baumchen
  27. 3 points
    To continue this topic — Bill Clinton had the magnetic personality, but would never have gotten to the levels he did without Hillary’s counsel and guidance. If anything, he rode her coattails.
  28. 3 points
    Can we just rename this the Blevins Facebook page...
  29. 3 points
    You're the one who spews hate. You're the one who keeps throwing around old laundry. You're the one who keeps trying to manipulate others' behavior. You're the one who throws petulant fits like you did yesterday. What goes on in the comments section of Bruce's site - I don't think that's hate. I think that's mockery. Most of these people have long since given up on trying to convince you to be rational.
  30. 3 points
    I've said this before. Here where I live people regularly complain the first nations peoples are given too many advantages for free. I have never once heard anyone say that they would prefer to change places with them though.
  31. 3 points
    Wow! Novak Djokovic exited the Australian Open after missing only 2 shots!
  32. 3 points
    Hi folks, IMO the right decision: Novak Djokovic ousted from Australia over lack of COVID-19 vaccination - oregonlive.com Jerry Baumchen
  33. 3 points
    At the time the Constitution was written there were no political parties (although they appeared soon after) and several of the "Founding Fathers" wrote against political parties in the Federalist Papers (although some of them later became founders/leaders of early parties). They hoped that those elected to public office would act as well-meaning individuals, concerned about good government and not about personal power. They hoped that ideas would be presented and debated, and legislators would then vote on positions that they believed were in the best interest of the country. I don't know if they were really so naive, or if they really believed that could become reality. At any rate I think they would be horrified to discover that one of the two biggest parties in the country has given itself over to grabbing power for itself, to the extent that they are quite willing to dump the spirit of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, just to install themselves and their pathologically narcissistic dictatorial leader into a permanent position of power. As far as the SCOTUS is concerned it's power has grown far beyond what the Founders imagined, or intended. Today most of the Justices are products of the Federalist Society, dedicated to (or at least strongly influenced by) ideas that favor putting political control in the hands of a few wealthy people. After all if they are rich it must be because they more qualified to govern than the unwashed masses! The judiciary may not write laws directly, but they can strike down anything that doesn't conform to their political leaning.
  34. 3 points
    I just wish he could do more to validate your world view than fumble his words. Personally, I am much happier with a President who has a speech impediment than a severe brain impediment.
  35. 3 points
    And to add to this question - is this actually a problem? What are the numbers on this? Without numbers this can be just like arguing for having triple reserves when skydiving. I've read (in the distant past, I'll admit) that the former Eastern Bloc countries had the largest proportion of repeat abortions. Here, since they cost money, and a significant amount if it's not the morning after pill, I have a feeling the number is fairly small. As far as the morning after pill, well, I'm for it. Regardless of how many times someone uses it. It shows they're thinking ahead. In fact, when my son was a little before likely sexually active age (12; I'm realistic), I told him this was possible, and told him how to look it up on the internet, since that was already a thing. I convinced him to listen by reminding him that it might be someone else who needed the information, not him. Wendy P.
  36. 3 points
    Yes. My source has recordings past the transcripts at 7:41 when 305 leaves Seatac. Stay tuned!
  37. 3 points
    Are there a lot of people who feel that? Do they support counting pregnant women as two (or more) people during a census. Are they in favour of allowing any child tax credits to start at pregnancy in stead of at birth? I will agree that a lot of people say they feel that fetuses are human beings, they just don't back up those feelings with actions other than actions to control women.
  38. 3 points
    Cari & I had lunch yesterday and the subject of this abortion thread came up. She is very religious and goes to church a couple of times a week. We are both of the mindset that we are personally opposed to abortion, but who are we to judge what others have to, want to, or need to do. Your question is the perfect example and we discussed that exact scenario (except it was any woman who had been raped). To make some law that she could not have an abortion would make her have to face that incident in a very different way than most rape victims. A law like that would be criminal in itself. We are both opposed to rescinding or modifying RvW in any way.
  39. 3 points
    Yep, which is true of everything else as you mentioned. For example, interracial marriage. It's not that the worst bigots of the 60's discovered that race wasn't all that important, and thus dropped their condemnation of interracial marriage. It's that most of them are dead. And their equivalent generation today grew up seeing interracial marriage in newspapers, on TV, in magazines and in movies. So even if they have the same basic level of intolerance, if someone bring up interracial marriage their first response is "but that's always been here; it's part of my cherished childhood memories. So that's fine. It's not like they are nonbinary freaks who don't know their own sex!" And in 30 years, those people will be dead, and we will have a new generation who grew up with genderfluid people and just don't care about it. I am sure they will have a new thing to refuse to tolerate - but at least they've been raised to be more tolerant to a few more things. And thus the cause of civil rights lurches and stumbles forward, driven more by human mortality than enlightenment.
  40. 3 points
    Bottom Line: One should treat race, creed, religion. gender, with respect. This country is going to shit for one reason and one reason only - we have lost our sense of decency towards others. We spend more time finding the minority of bad in a group, than we do the majority of good. Two valuable lessons: If you don't have anything nice to say; keep your mouth closed. If you're not willing to say it to their face; then don't say it at all.
  41. 3 points
  42. 3 points
    The one true religion is Dudeism. If you don't believe in it, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
  43. 3 points
    Happy New Year to all. Let's hope the world finds a way to get a little closer together this year.
  44. 3 points
    And a happy New Year to all as well. I hope that Omicron is the straw that broke the back of the pandemic, and that we are on the back side of it by Chinese New Year. To have family and friends together again for good food and good company will be lovely.
  45. 3 points
    I'm going to respectfully disagree. It gives an element of respect for someone's beliefs while acknowledging that you don't believe the same way.
  46. 3 points
    Every time he posts a new topic I hope that this will be the one that gets no replies. I've been disappointed every single time. While he sits back and laughs at those thinking that they are clever in calling out the bullshit and plots the next stage of his self amusement.
  47. 2 points
    So Florida just banned CRT, like several other states. But they didn't just ban CRT, they banned anything that can make "an individual . .feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin." Which means that: Teaching anyone about the Holocaust is now banned if there are German students in the class. After all, if a student is distantly related to the people who ran those concentration camps, they could feel discomfort or guilt by being reminded that their family participated in that. Now, there is an exception for "training or instruction" - it is allowed provided that "is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts." However, since pretty much all teachers describe the Holocaust as "bad" (and in fact endorsing its termination) that provision does not apply. Teaching about 9/11 is now banned if there are Muslims in the class. Muslims were targeted after 9/11 as the perpetrators, and thus they will feel discomfort by being reminded that they were blamed for the attack. And again, most teachers consider what the 9/11 terrorists did to be "bad" which is not objective at all. Teaching about the Vietnam War is now banned if there are Vietnamese in the class. After all, depictions of what the Viet Cong did could reasonably be assumed to cause Vietnamese students distress. Teaching about the Civil War is now banned if there are Southerners in the class. No one wants to hear about how their families were insurrectionists - and losing insurrectionists at that. What's left that is safe to teach in history class? What's left that will not offend the special snowflakes in Florida? Perhaps the history of sugar cane in . . nope, that doesn't work. The Revolutionary War? Nope. I know! The history of Star Wars. Since that's entirely fictional, no one could reasonably be affected.
  48. 2 points
    So then, nothing is different. You are still angry about the general lack of respect for religion that you feel is owed. And you still confuse the things that different posters here say with each other. I also have a hard time with that. After a while all the conservatives start to sound the same when really the thing most of them share the most is their deep anger.
  49. 2 points
    Watched it last night. Lots of fun. I thought it a great and accurate parody of the Trump administration and Fox News.
  50. 2 points
    Hi Lee, Re: I don't see manufacturers volunteering to produce unsightly rigs. My having now known of two rigs where the reserve risers were not completely stitched ( one in which all four risers were not stitched ), I think anything to ensure this does not happen again is very important. I see the contrasting stitching only needed on the reserve risers; and, possibly on the ring-to-harness attachment. This is covered by the 'mud flap' so is not normally seen. Here is a photo from the Javelin manual: Re: it makes less then perfect sewing blatantly obvious I would consider that a good thing. Jerry Baumchen
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up