yobnoc

I get where this is coming from, but there are a lot of the old guard who despise how monetized skydiving has become. What you're advocating is to never teach anybody anything for free. Not necessarily an evil idea, just a different ideology and one that not everyone is going to share. I'm new to the sport, and I'm looking to obtain both my C license and a coach rating before the end of next season. While I fully intend to use my coach rating to help others get current, and to teach basic belly skills, I have no desire to monetize that rating in any way. That would put me at odds with you though, because I'm also metaphorically kicking you in the balls by not being part of the union-style mentality you're advocating. This sport is supposed to be fun, not a financially crippling money racket. If your coaching is superior, then the free market can decide. People will be lining up behind each other to get a piece of your knowledge. If not, they'll take the Skydivers over Sixty guy who just wants to spread the joy and knowledge of the sport in exchange for some companionship and a few beers before he can't jump anymore.

You've got Ron's full support. Think about that for a minute. You're on that side of the fence on this.

The point is that it's not making anything up. Certainly that's not the case for every evangelical (obviously not your stated position, and you're an evangelical) but I think the point is that it's a pretty common sentiment among evangelicals. Of course it's only ever implied - not spoken aloud. That would damage their brand. But, the neat little trick that Evangelicals have is that if you don't like the teachings of the First Baptist Church of Podunkville, or the First Methodist, or Presbyterian - you can always branch off and start the Second Baptist/Methodist/Presbyterian church, thus allowing for seemingly plausible deniability that sounds a lot like "Hey, that's bigoted - they don't teach that at MY church! Stop denigrating evangelicals!"

If your specific flavor of Christianity doesn't follow this - great. Problem is, I'm very aware of this idea; I grew up in a church where this was the unspoken purpose of Israel. Christianity is a buffet - people like to pick out the things they like. But to pretend like this isn't on the menu is pretty naive.

Hi Jerry, It was my idea to boycott turtle. Just sayin...credit where it's due But apparently @ryoder was the O.G. here; I just made the campaign.

The - and I cannot stress this enough - BIGGEST eye-roll just happened by the entire SC crowd.

Of course - only the rich get substantial handouts in my 'Murica! /s

Exactly right. That was so powerful and to be honest, it caught me off guard. They've been so effective at keeping him out of situations where he isn't set up to look as unpopular as he is, I hadn't even noticed it until he showed his ass in an event like that. It gave me goosebumps to see that. In a good and a bad way. Even though I've been on guard against all the propaganda being pumped out of this White House, I fell prey to forgetting just how deeply unpopular he is. They've done an excellent job at staging everything to make it look like he has more support than he does. There - I've praised something this Administration has done well.

I have a 5 year old like that.

The staging was sooooooo bad.

.

I just can't anymore. I had to ignore Turtle. It was so nice while he was on whatever sabbatical he took; I forgot how much of a troll he is. I won't feed it anymore. I backed him into a corner with the Biden thing and he simply moved on to trolling others because he has no substance to his remarks - it's simply spreading propaganda and trolling, plain and simple. Join me in boycotting Trollspeed!

I wouldn't say wrong, but he's a bit outdated. I have no problem with his age, but his positions are too old. Plus, he weirdly came unglued at Liz in the last debate and it was a really bad and telling optic: shouting down a woman in a fit of rage and then giving her the most meek compliment afterward. I think that kind of treatment exacerbates his perception problem. Ultimately, I think it might not just be a perception problem, but an actual problem.

Occam's razor here. Wouldn't it make sense for a board of directors to hire someone for a negligible amount of money (for a company that size) with the hopes that it gains them influence, without that being an actual brokered deal? Ex-politicians get hired all the time to sit on boards of companies they have no experience in. Fuck, trump wants to hire fox news actors to be fucking diplomats. What crazy world are you living in where you think any of this is on equal footing with a company gambling on trying to buy influence and failing? You can't point to one benefit Burisma got from hiring Hunter when it comes to US policy. I already pointed out the major flaw with your conspiracy theory about Shokin, but I'll reiterate it again: Burisma was only "under investigation" on paper under Shokin (i.e. it was dormant). Hunter Biden was never a subject of that investigation. When the US, EU, and IMF all teamed up to put pressure on Ukraine to fire Shokin (with Joe Biden as the mouthpiece of that policy), it made it more, not less likely for that investigation into Burisma to be reinvigorated. And it advanced the common goals of those nations and entities to bolster a free and independent Ukraine, which is good for America's global interests. You're adding in unnecessary layers of rubbish to try to paint it to fit your bias.

There's the Tu Quoque fallacy you love to wield so well. What action should I condemn? And Javanka made $87M last year. That's pretty gross. Ivanka's patents are all streamline-approved (rubber-stamped) in China, and her business ventures there are conspicuously exempt from the tariffs. Trump self-deals with his family business at the expense of the taxpayer and you somehow think that's on equal footing with a company hiring a Biden for sitting on a business board? Get real.

Your solid observation skills suck. I support Pete Buttigieg as a first choice, Elizabeth Warren 2nd, Bernie 3rd, and Biden is pretty much last on my list slightly above Tulsi and Marianne. What I don't support is seeking election interference from foreign governments or entities. Because it's against the law and the framers made it perfectly clear. Hunter Biden probably got the job with Burisma because his last name is Biden. Just like every President's kid will have the world as their oyster because their daddy was President, so did Hunter benefit from his surname. It's gross, but it's also human nature. I don't buy that Joe did anything to help Hunter get that job. And when I say Hannity/Rush I'm not referring to RushMC, I'm referring to Limbaugh. And again: I'm gonna call you out on what appears to be a...how does the media say it so it doesn't sound so bad...falsehood?... Your posts ooze with conservative media talking points, devoid of any evidentiary backup.

Dude...nobody believes your milquetoast claim. You spout Hannity/Rush talking points and conspiracy theories, and give credence to trump's craziness as if it's on equal footing with reality. I haven't seen you once mention that you want to see Javanka and the two idiots investigated for profiteering off their daddy's presidency - which is WIDELY known as fact - yet you cling to the shittiest conspiracy theory about Joe Biden without being able to provide any solid evidence to support your case. Of course, when you get called out on your blatant hypocrisy, you come back with "oh I've held that position (about Javanka, etc.) the whole time." It's not believable though, because you spend all your time flaming about "the left," and only give the faintest of squeaks of dissent about any conservative scandal. Flame on, trumper. Flame on.

The motive is that Ukraine's security directly affects the security of the EU, and if left to the devices of pro-Putin corrupt influences (re: Viktor Shokin), our national security interest and that of our allies (Ukraine, the EU, and even our Middle East partners) becomes jeopardized by Russian aggression. And if Canada, in coordination with Mexico and the EU closed their borders to us due to our AG being corrupt as fuck (btw: he is [and he's a member of Opus Dei, which is absolutely horrifying as well]), then I think that would say much more about our AG than it does the entities banding together to influence that decision to fire him. I don't even know why I'm bothering to explain this. I guess I just have an unshakeable hope that trumpers can be rehabilitated.

The courts certainly don't agree with your position thus far.

In true typical fashion, you have your facts completely wrong. Viktor Shokin was a corrupt prosecutor who, while there was an open investigation into Burisma, had not pursued that investigation for over a year prior to his ouster. That investigation's scope did not include Hunter Biden in any way whatsoever. His name was not mentioned in any of it. Either way, that investigation had been laying dormant - cold - for over a year. If anything, forcing Shokin out would increase the likelihood that a new, non-corrupt prosecutor general might pick that investigation back up. Also, this was not Joe Biden's idea, nor was it a policy that he himself pursued. He acted only as the voice of the Obama administration, in conjunction with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. This was a big deal to a lot of people, that Shokin was standing in the way of anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine. Seriously, do some research. I can get your entire set of talking points on my own just by watching reruns of Hannity.

I give you full permission to subpoena my taxes. Oh wait: you can't. Because you lack the investigative authority or reasonable suspicion that I've committed some sort of financial fraud. Congress doesn't have either of those problems. Try harder. Do better.

I prefer to refer to it as what it actually was - manufacturing dirt. Not digging it up...making it up.

Try Billions. With a "B."