muff528

You forgot FDR and Wilson. I don't know him personally but I don't think he's that old!

Are you sure about that? I've been on a few jumps that ...Oh! wait! ....Those were not a single animal formation...those included the whole ZOO! My mistake. BTW - Congrats to everyone on the Phoenix jump! Pretty, pretty pretty!

News: "Libya rebels will receive $25M from U.S." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/libya-rebels-will-receive-25-million-from-us/ I'll bet there are U.S. Special Forces there on the ground too. But it's okay for a democratic president to help Al Queda. Just not a republican one. C'mon, now ...don't you believe your government? Obama said no boots on the ground in Libya.

"Hear the Musical Corruption!"

Yes! We (the US and China) are heading for the same destination ....but from opposite directions.

At these salaries I don't see how these companies can sustain themselves for long. It seems that the average monthly paycheck for these workers is now the equivalent of two pairs of low-end Nike shoes on the western retail market compared with the value of only one pair just a year ago. Well, at least the local Starbucks should do well with all that disposable income floating around.

Another oldie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejvcd-JeVCQ ...And one for the Southern Democrat Redneck Hippies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOyy_1IBeQ

Yes, Communism does seem to work pretty well for China. Is it also working well for all the Chinese and the not-so-Chinese who live there?

You and what army? Well, looking at item 2 in the list it looks like it wouldn't take much of an army to overcome a bunch of folks sitting at home on their technology in front of their computers tweeting and eating. ...unless you could make friends with a benevolent country that does spend a few bucks on their military.

Really? http://www.debtbombshell.com/ Get real! The counter is not even up to a single trillion yet. (That's only a billion in "oldspeak"). Nothing to worry about there.

I managed to pause the video and get this screen shot showing the slider "up" (but obviously on it's way down pretty quickly).

I think that, although the North did not go to war over slavery, the South did. I don't think the southern states would have seceded and gone to war over a lesser issue. For the South it was about slavery and it's proliferation. If the end of slavery was the end game for the North then that may have been more effectively accomplished by just letting the South secede and then begin applying sanctions, tariffs and other economic pressures to cause them to abandon slavery. It may have taken longer and it may or may not have led to war since the South could have (and did) form other trading relationships. But ending slavery was not the objective for the Union (especially since many Northern landholders were also slaveholders.) Lincoln, in spite of his personal beliefs and opinions about slavery, simply did not want to preside over the breakup of the United States. But back to the original topic ...the war may have done more to affirm and solidify some of the racial attitudes and the resentments towards the North in some populations than it did to change hearts about slavery and race relations.

This one's yours. We're sitting this one out until a clear winner is determined this time. Hope you pick the right side.

I live in a predominantly "minority" neighborhood. Probably 95% Hispanic and Black. (Does that make them the "majority"?) No problems here beyond the "normal" noise level of crime in the area in general. There is known "gang activity" nearby (and maybe even within this neighborhood) but nobody I know here participates. About half of the population here is transient and the rest are long time residents.

Never heard of any of these bands! Did they ever play on the Ed Sullivan Show?

Buffalo Springfield...oh, yeah! Didn't get to see BF but did get to see Stephen Stills when with Manassas. Jai Alai fronton, Tampa, 1973?. Kick-ass. Best part was they took a short break to set up for the second half of the show....Stills solo with, I guess, 12 guitars lined up behind him and he played solo and used all 12 at least once. 4 hour show...they just don't do that anymore. Side story: At the beginning of the show, Stills came out wearing the football jersey of one of the local high schools. Stills went to school in Tampa had this to say: "I just want my high school band teacher, who wouldn't let me conduct his band, to know that I've conducted the London Philharmonic Orchestra". LOLOLOL Never saw CSNY or Poco after Springfield break-up, but became a fan of both. (I actually prefer later Poco with Timothy B. Schmit and Paul Cotton - Rose of Cimarron live sample

Almost forgot my 1st concert: Beach Boys w/Buffalo Springfield and Strawberry Alarm Clock. Buffalo Springfield stole the show, IMO.

Oh! If you wanna include those concerts then I'll change my answer. The best concert I've ever seen was my son's 2nd grade chorus at a school function.

I wonder why Federal insurance reimbursment is "typically denied"? Is your insurance not provided through a private insurance company or is it "something else"?

Worth a mention for best: Humble Pie and Foghat at Big Surf in AZ around 71 or 72; Dylan Rolling Thunder in Lakeland, FL 1976 w/ Baez, McGuinn, Scarlet Rivera's Fiddle; BB King at Tampa Theatre. He just finished a tour with U2 and had voice problems but the concert was pretty good anyway. Also, Elton John in Lakeland about 10 years ago. If you ever get a chance to see him solo with no band and no prearranged program, DO IT! Can't remember a "worst" ...may be a reason for that. I dunno. Also, Chicago. ...And Pink Floyd in Tampa and ... and.....

Woodstock

20-way. Collision shortly after opening. The right few cells of my canopy brushed the right-side A-lines on the other canopy. (head-on) Small puffy clouds just at opening alt. The other jumper just appeared from behind a cloud and I am sure that is how I appeared to him. Both canopies momentarily collapsed and re-inflated. I was looking over my left shoulder at the DZ and I heard his yell just before the contact. No fun.

I have a manual for the original Swift, but I don't think it is the original manual. This one is p/n 827216, Revised May 1991, and it is packing instructions for the Swift, Swift Plus, Cirrus, Orion reserves. I also have p/n 801243, June 1991, "Ram-Air High Performance Emergency Parachute Owner's Manual". I ordered these directly from Para-Flite in 1993. If they are no longer available from the copyright holder I could scan them.

You expect the posters here to read and comprehend history? The knucklehead RWCs don't understand ANY of that at all. They spew their ignorant tripe, repeats of the talking points generated by the corporate mass media machine. Education and intellectual curiosity are NOT part of what they are. They are ignorant and extremely proud of it. Just like their hero Ronnie Rayguns. It used to be shameful to be an ignorant doofus. Now it is part and parcel of the Republican/RWC way of being. The three fifths compromise was necessary to get the Constitution passed. The founding fathers knew that they had set up the Civil War and hoped that future politicians could work out the SLAVERY issue without war. It didn't happen. Time magazine has an excellent article on the Civil War in the current issue. The facts are, and this comes from the leadership of the Confederacy, the issue that caused the Civil War was slavery. The bullshit about states rights and central government powers are tiny side issues. The commanding issue was slavery and the spread of the odious practice as the country expanded westward. Any argument to the contrary completely ignors the documented and historically accurate words of the leaders of the Confederacy. So, given your understanding of the facts ...was the compromise a good thing or a bad thing? What is your understanding of the reason for the compromise originally? Was it simply to assign the slaves 3/5 personhood to get the slaveholding states to ratify (because, after all, the slaveholders believed that the slaves were not wholly human!)? ...or was it to limit the electoral power of the slaveholders who derived power from greater numbers in population (therefore more representatives in congress). The slaves could not vote in their interests anyway so the greater population numbers allowed the landowners to carry more weight in congress. Was the "3/5 Compromise" included to mitigate that power or was it to put in there to codify the sub-person status of the slaves?

Well, it was just your standard Middle East protest movement and uprising until we (+NATO) started with the close air support and other military assistance. Then they got bold and started a full-scale revolution thinking they had their asses covered ..and then we pulled out. Likewise, we didn't start the counter-revolution in Cuba. There were still resistance fighters there. We trained some exiles here and planned an invasion in concert with the existing counter-revolutionaries. Part of what fucked-over the Cubano counter-revolutionaries was JFK's refusal to provide air cover. Eisenhower, from whom JFK inherited the plan, was furious at JFK for that. Still, the parallels & comparisons you point are interesting. Here is a rather complete timeline for the Bay of Pigs and the events leading up to it as well as things that happened afterwards. It seems to be simply the historical events without political commentary from either direction. What is most striking to me (other than the details themselves) is what seems to be the coherency of our Cuba policy before, during and after the 1960 election ...given that not only was a party change made but also a generational change in leadership.