AndyBoyd

Is this a joke? Nope. I'm sure there are a few Lodi jumpers on here that will back this up. Since I've never been to Lodi, I'll have to take your word for it. Sounds a little uptight to me. No disrespect intended. I know lots of people love Bill and Lodi.

Is this a joke?

"In fact, I'm certain in his mind it's not only justified, but mandated." This is an important point to consider, I think. The pro-life movement believes that abortion is the murder of a person, if I understand the pro-life position properly. It seems that a hard-core pro-lifer might reason as follows. Abortion is murder. It is no different than the murder of a fully grown adult. Doctors who perform abortions are murderers, no different than the individual who shoots, stabs, or beats to death a fully grown adult. The laws of the USA permit the murder of millions of people - unborn children - every year. We (the pro-life movement) have tried to get the laws changed to stop the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies, but we have failed. Our other efforts, like picketing abortion clincs, have also failed to stop the slaughter. There is no other way to stop the mass murder of unborn babies than by eliminating abortion doctors. Therefore, it is my moral duty to kill these doctors, because doing so is the only way to save the lives of unborn children. Would that not be a rational line of thought for the seriously committed pro-life individual?

I prefer the other way. SC is not for coddling. BTW, North Korea certainly has motivation to get nukes, for the reason already provided. OK, I can play it that way, too. No more coddling. I sure as hell don't need your help understanding anything. What I do understand is a particularly American arrogance that says we can have as many of these weapons as we want, start wars whenever we feel like it, and when a country we don't like tries to defend itself, we run crying like babies to the UN and anyone else that will listen that so and so is not playing fair. You seem to represent the height of that sort of arrogance, and it's a crappy attitude. There is nothing so special about the USA that we should get to dictate to other countries how they can defend themselves. Oh, and yeah, moral principles do matter, whether you are smart enough to realize it or not.

Wow, a thoughtful answer without insults. Jason, are you paying attention?

Well, the question is stupid, you see. If you can't answer the question intelligently, attack the person who asked the question. That's a great way to respond. Why don't you try again.

There is a vast difference between the US, the largest economy in the world, and North Korea, a country that cannot sustain even a meager existence without ex-pats sending in hard currency. and the other answer - the US can't invade a country with nukes. Saddam was like Kim (minus the insanity and god complex), but we could take him out. Neither one of these claims helps to explain why it is that it's OK for the USA to have nukes, but not NK.

All I have to say is ... Korean War. The USA has started 2 wars recently, and we have lots of nuclear weapons. What's your point?

Is there any hard evidence that NK is planning a nuclear attack on anyone? Again, the only country that has every attacked another country with nuclear weapons is the USA.

I cannot understand why the world, and America in particular, is freaking out about this. The USA has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world a hundred times over. And we are the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons in anger. It makes no sense whatsoever for us toget all worked up about NK or any other country developing these weapons.

How dare she be attractive!! Burn her!! Is that your idea of attractive? Movie - Liar, Liar (Jim Carrey) "Daddy, my teacher says people are beautiful based on what's on the inside" "That's just something ugly people say, arrrrghhhh" admit it, you laughed at that line in the movie and sure, that woman is very pretty - but I'm sure you scored a lot of points with the PC crowd crowd here by belittling her physical looks....... Yep, that's what I'm shootin' for. Scoring points with the PC crowd has always been what I'm about.

How dare she be attractive!! Burn her!! Is that your idea of attractive? Yep, I think that this pic would qualify as attractive unless you hate her for her opinion or you are blind. I'm not blind, although my teammates might think so from time to time.

How dare she be attractive!! Burn her!! Is that your idea of attractive?

She is a beauty pageant bimbo. It blows me away that the press is so hysterical over her opinions. Who cares what this bleached-blonde, fake-boobed, too much face paint chick from California thinks about anything? Of course she has a right to express her opinions. What I can't figure out is why in the world anyone cares what they are.

Great question. You are correct -- people throw around the words "rights" all the time without really understanding what it is the word means. Lots of ink has been spilled over the years by folks trying to explain and/or understand what "rights" actually are. Here is a link to a great web page on the topic, with a fantastic bibliography if you are interested in doing some reading. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ I have never been able to quite figure out how to make links clicky on this forum. Sorry

I can think of one flaw with that method Yeah, I suppose I should have mentioned this -- be careful not to Shoe Goo your bootie to your shoe.

Make sure your shoe is in the bootie when you apply the Shoe Goo, or the bootie will be misshapen when the Goo dries.

This could certainly become a major problem, but it is not one yet. Remember when the bird flu was going to kill everyone? Before that it was SARS. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax right now. Yes, this could be a terrible pandemic. But now, very few people have contracted this disease, and, at least in the USA, symptoms have been mostly mild, with only 1 fatality I am aware of. IMHO, the media is blowing this way out of proportion. Example: last night, in Chicago, ABC local news started its 10:00 p.m. broadcast with a story about how 1 (!) girl in South Bend, Indiana (2 hours from Chicago) had swine flu, but symptoms were mild. They dispatched a reporter to South Bend, who interviewed some student wandering around the quadrangle at Notre Dame who claimed he had a sore throat. The story took nearly 10 minutes of a 30 minute broadcast.

On April 19, 1993, following a 51-day standoff, federal agents raided the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas. A fire, later determined to have been set by the Davidians, destroyed the compound and killed 57 of its residents. On April 19, 1995, a bomb inside a rental truck exploded at the Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, killing 168 people in what was then the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The killer turned out to be 27-year-old Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh’s ex-Army buddy, Terry Nichols, was also charged in the crime. On April 20, 1999, two armed highschool seniors, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, walked through Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. In the end, 12 students, one teacher and the two murderers were dead. From www.theoaklandpress.com

This incident was not due to any fault with Strong but rather a fault with the Intstructor. How I interpreted AndyBoyd´s post was that he ment that basically strong should have predicted a lawsuit in general is a high possibility in the industry and not being prepared for this was the "bad decision". I could have interpreted his post wrong though... Yes, that was what I meant. The poster who argued that Strong could or should have foreseen this particular sort of accident, and that this lack of foresight may cause Strong some problems in the lawsuit, interpreted my post in a way I hadn't anticipated. But, as far as I can tell (I am not a product liability attorney), this argument seems right on the money.

Folks, there is a great deal of speculation as to the law by non-lawyers on this Forum, and in particular, in this thread. Most of it, including the above blanket statement, is flat-out wrong. Take any legal advice or information on this Forum with a HUGE grain of salt. As to the OP's proposal to send money to Strong, any competent businessperson in a high-risk industry like skydiving has got to know that lawsuits, even frivolous ones, are eventually going to happen. I'm sorry Strong got sued, and I hope they prevail in the suit, or at least are able to negotiate a reasonable settlement. But the people who run Strong knew, or should have known, this could and would happen at some point, and if they didn't plan for this eventuality, it's their own fault. I'm not in the mood right now to bail out any more businesspeople who made bad decisions.

Get a good lawyer.

I'll miss the guy on Sundays. He was an icon.

I like that show alot, too. Other than 24, it's the only show I watch. Summer is hot.

Does anyone have any knowledge of police/SWAT team tactics in these situations? I admit that I have none whatsoever. Would it have been better to defuse the situation by simply waiting the guy out? Why charge in with guns blazing against some guy who is already crazy enough to have killed 2 cops?