• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


okalb last won the day on August 4 2021

okalb had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

78 Good


  • Main Canopy Size
  • Reserve Canopy Size
  • AAD

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
  • Number of Jumps
  • Years in Sport
  • First Choice Discipline
    Formation Skydiving
  • Second Choice Discipline

Ratings and Rigging

  • AFF
  • USPA Coach
  • Pro Rating

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's not just the House...
  2. okalb


    Coffee prices have gone up substantially most of the increases can be directly attributed to climate change. The areas that have been growing coffee beans for years are having trouble keeping crops alive and thriving. There have been numerous studies over the last few years that show that current coffee-growing regions are dying and growers are moving to new areas in order to save the industry. If you are blaming Biden for climate change, I think you have things completely backward. But that seems to be par for the course with your posts. I live in Colombia and 3 of the local coffee plantations that I have been buying from for years have shut down because excessive rainfall has killed their crops. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/what-climate-change-means-for-future-of-coffee-cashew-avocado#:~:text=By 2050%2C in all three,For cashews%2C declines varied widely.
  3. okalb


    In my local dollar store, everything costs 16,000 Pesos. Thanks Biden!
  4. There is no chance that Steve Scalise is elected speaker. There is currently nobody in the GOP that has the votes to be speaker. It is complete chaos, they can't even pick a leader and you think they are qualified to govern the country.
  5. L@@KS like you have no understanding of how this works.
  6. As opposed to the current release by Hakeem Jeffries: In recent days, Democrats have tried to show our colleagues in the Republican majority a way out of the dysfunction and rancor they have allowed to engulf the House. That path to a better place is still there for the taking. Over the past several weeks, when it appeared likely that a motion to vacate the office of speaker was forthcoming, House Democrats repeatedly raised the issue of entering into a bipartisan governing coalition with our Republican counterparts, publicly as well as privately. It was my sincere hope that House Democrats and more traditional Republicans would be able to reach an enlightened arrangement to end the chaos in the House, allowing us to work together to make life better for everyday Americans while protecting our national security. Regrettably, at every turn, House Republicans have categorically rejected making changes to the rules designed to accomplish two objectives: encourage bipartisan governance and undermine the ability of extremists to hold Congress hostage. Indeed, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) publicly declared more than five hours before the motion to vacate was brought up for a vote that he would not work with House Democrats as a bipartisan coalition partner. That declaration mirrored the posture taken by House Republicans in the weeks leading up to the motion-to-vacate vote. It also ended the possibility of changing the House rules to facilitate a bipartisan governance structure. Things further deteriorated from there. Less than two hours after the speakership was vacated upon a motion brought by a member of the GOP conference, House Republicans ordered Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and former majority leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) to “vacate” their hideaway offices in the Capitol. The decision to strip Speaker Emerita Pelosi and Leader Hoyer of office space was petty, partisan and petulant. House Republicans have lashed out at historic public servants and tried to shift blame for the failed Republican strategy of appeasement. But what if they pursued a different path and confronted the extremism that has spread unchecked on the Republican side of the aisle? When that step has been taken in good faith, we can proceed together to reform the rules of the House in a manner that permits us to govern in a pragmatic fashion. The details would be subject to negotiation, though the principles are no secret: The House should be restructured to promote governance by consensus and facilitate up-or-down votes on bills that have strong bipartisan support. Under the current procedural landscape, a small handful of extreme members on the Rules Committee or in the House Republican conference can prevent common-sense legislation from ever seeing the light of day. That must change — perhaps in a manner consistent with bipartisan recommendations from the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. In short, the rules of the House should reflect the inescapable reality that Republicans are reliant on Democratic support to do the basic work of governing. A small band of extremists should not be capable of obstructing that cooperation. The need to change course is urgent. Congress is in the midst of a Republican civil war that undermines our ability to make life more affordable for American taxpayers, to keep communities safe and to strengthen democracy. Traditional Republicans need to break with the MAGA extremism that has poisoned the House of Representatives since the violent insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, and its aftermath — when the overwhelming majority of House Republicans continued to promote the “big lie” and voted not to certify the presidential election. House Democrats remain committed to a bipartisan path forward, as we have repeatedly demonstrated throughout this Congress by providing a majority of the votes to prevent a government shutdown this month and avoid a catastrophic default on America’s debt in June. At this point, we simply need Republican partners willing to break with MAGA extremism, reform the highly partisan House rules that were adopted at the beginning of this Congress and join us in finding common ground for the people.
  7. I know that facts mean nothing to you, but wire transfers don't go to a physical address. The address listed is usually the one associated with the bank account. I get wire transfers from all over the world. They go to an account that has my Mother's address on it. There is absolutely nothing illegal or suspicious about it. You have to either be oblivious or just looking for something to be outraged about, to believe anything nefarious is happening based on the fact that wire transfers listed his father's address. Did they go to his father's account? Of course, they didn't!
  8. okalb


    It's considered a feature in US courts.
  9. I have no comment on whether this would be a good or bad thing, as I haven't thought much about it. As someone who lives in SA, what I can say, is good luck with that. The organization that it would take to make that happen, is not something that exists even within countries, much less between countries. Also, there is a very serious mistrust of government overreach down here given the history of the region. Convincing the various populations that this would not somehow cause a government takeover of "everything" would be a difficult sell to say the least. The mentality is something that is hard to grasp if you haven't spent a fair amount of time down here.
  10. Those questions are only asked by people who care about the truth. He certainly wouldn't fall into that category.
  11. He will definitely never pay, but I don't think it was about the money for her anyway.
  12. Guilty of sexual assault - Battery charge award $2M Guilty of defamation - Award $3M
  13. Let me guess, you got this info from the same "high level backchannels" that you have gotten all the rest of your incorrect information and predictions from?
  14. Might want to re-read that one Mark :)
  15. My understanding is that in this case, if things work as they should, nobody will be funding the government's efforts long term. SVB put most of money in long term bonds. The money is still in those long term bonds. The money needed to pay investors is not available until those investments mature. The government is essentially making the bank's investors a loan to get their money now and the government will repay the loans by collecting on the bond investments when they mature. They need to do this because if the bank cashed the investments in before they mature, the amount of losses due to penalties and fees will cost so much that there would not be enough left to give the bank's investors their money back.