Andy9o8

I hate to tempt the usual suspects to start lawyer bashing, but requiring standardized, accredited certification is one method of attenuating potential liability, which would be advised-upon by lawyers, and might be insisted-upon by insurance companies providing liability coverage for fire companies (and/or local govts if that's who's in charge of them).

__________________ Time for an education http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html Oh, I know RP's rationale for it. He's full of shit. My wife and I were discussing this today. No, we don't think RP is a classic racist, but we do each think that he's an oddball who's out of touch with reality about this issue (among others) and has bad, often weird, judgment. Sez my wife, "This guy seems crazier every day." Maybe the news networks were actually doing RP a favor by squelching his visibility; and now that what he says is finally he's getting more coverage, people are starting to realize what a nut (as in, "Koo-koo!") he is. In some ways RP reminds me of the protagonist Howard Beale in the movie "Network". I'm afraid that if he does become President, some day he'll fling open the doors to the Truman Balcony, lean over the edge, and scream "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!!" At which point, convinced he's the Second Coming of the Savior, he'll go back inside, unlock a little briefcase, and start pushing buttons, in the name of saving the world. No, I don't want someone like that in the White House.

Then for everyone's sake Calif. really needs to put out public service message ads educating the public that lane-splitting by bikes is legal there, and that closed-vehicle drivers should cooperate with this. The problem is that in our culture it's been socialized into most of us, ever since we were little kids standing in line at school, to resent (and punish!) "line breakers". Like when there's a traffic jam where, say, 2 lanes are merging into a single lane, and most drivers are waiting their turn in line, but there's always some dickhead who drives up the shoulder to break the line. I've seen some real road rage happen over that.

I urge you not to fall into the "my candidate is the Messiah" trap. From what I read in the tenor of your posts, I fear that you are. I speak from hard experience, for I've been there myself. Every time, I've been let down. Take a breath, step back, and slowly consider the entire canvas.

I made the foolish mistake of reading your post a second time. Still no compute.

What a valuable thread. I never would have guessed that ducks' quacks do not echo.

Skydive Arizona in Eloy, Arizona, USA, is in a desert climate, and is almost guaranteed to have jumpable weather pretty much 365 days/year. Plus, being one of the biggest DZs in the world, you'll get plenty of jumps in every day.

The biggest? I'd have to say it's Mississippi. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/07/us-usa-obesity-idUSTRE7663JD20110707

This is a "quality of site" comment from one member to another. You are starting new threads about Ron Paul, and then repeating the same lengthy posts, almost verbatim, in one thread after another. I'm not a moderator, but I object to the resulting clutter of the Forums. You'd be doing us all a favor if you'd simply have a single thread about Ron Paul (or at least fewer of them), and then keep it/them going (if you so choose) by adding to it/them as the case may be. With all due respect, how many nearly-identical threads about Ron Paul (and they really are about him, despite how they're titled) do you need to start in such a short space of time?

Ron Paul denounces, and openly says that he would have voted against, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Fuck him.

He's only been charged, and had the equivalent of a preliminary hearing thus far. Trial is still in the future.

(as an aside) ...the legality of which is very much a grey area. Here's the IRS's thumbnail definition of independent contractor: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179115,00.html ... and here's the IRS definition of common-law employee: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179112,00.html Note the distinction hinges on whether, and to what degree, the DZ retains to itself the right to "control what will be done and how it will be done" (employee), as opposed to controlling only the result of the work, but not how it's performed (contractor).

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/w/washington_redskins_quarterback-10157.jpg http://watermarked.cutcaster.com/cutcaster-photo-100566057-Indian-family.jpg

One more point to this particular point. This is the reason why, all other things being equal, I vote for Democratic presidents: because presidents appoint SCOTUS justices, most of whom are with us for decades. And execrable, Constitution- and liberty-savaging laws like this one, the Patriot Act, etc., etc. are far more likely to be upheld by Justices appointed by Republican presidents, and rejected by Justices appointed by Democratic presidents. To people who think it doesn't much matter which party's person gets to be president, this is an example of why it really does.

Define definition. Oh, I almost forgot. Define pushing. I mean, when we use our toggles and risers, aren't we really pulling? Why does the chicken swoop? He doesn't; he's a fucking chicken.

Define envelope. I guess I'm being a smart-ass. But it's like asking, "Is skydiving dangerous?" Yes. Well, no. Well, sort of. Well, it is, but it's OK if the risk is managed. Of course, one person's risk is another person's fun. Etc., etc. No offense, but the thread is really mostly about definitions. I never really found these "definitions" discussions about skydiving to be all that illuminating. Post #2 was a good ending point.

No. You clearly don't understand the difference between racism and dumb policy.

OK, I'll answer on thread topic. I agree it's unconstitutional and dangerous. But I predict that at least 4 SCOTUS justices, if it gets that far, will vote to uphold it. As to hostilities with Iran coming... yes, I see the familiar warning signs. The US has always had to have its boogey-man to justify the bloated military industrial complex that diverts money away from, for example, the universal national health coverage that every other modern, industrialized country in the world has. WE have a massive military; we have to USE it, goddammit! In fairness, it's not like the Iranians aren't double-dog daring us to use it against them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16377185

When you said that a few days ago, someone pointed out Bush,Sr's loss of the 1992 election to you. Why do you ignore that, just to repeat your talking point? If truth don't ail ya, look at it from strictly a marketing perspective: commercials that flop generally get pulled off the air by their sponsors.

Cite your sources sir. Not that I disagree with you out of hand, however far too often the narrative overwhelms the facts. For example it is a well established narrative that democrats are altruistic, enlightened, erudite intellectuals, while those who are right of center are knuckle dragging xenophobic, racists, homophobes that are the minions of big business. But as we all know the truth is a bit more nuanced. In my 50+ years, I've met my share of altruistic, enlightened, erudite intellectuals. Some of them have been conservatives. I've also met my share of knuckle dragging, xenophobic, racist homophobes. None of them have been liberals. There's your nuance.

OK, I found a little more breakdown. Here's a recent poll surveying people's beliefs in creationism / evolution around the world, by country: http://ncse.com/news/2011/04/polling-creationism-evolution-around-world-006634 From the article:

From Two and A Half Men (TV show): Kid: Dad, maybe we shouldn't leave Grandma alone. She seems depressed. Dad: That's OK; Grandma doesn't do suicide; she inspires it.

Be careful what you wish for; for if you get it, your DZ will be behind enemy lines.

More left-wing distortions. The truth is that 38% of those identifying themselves as Democrats believe humans were created in their present form 10,000 years ago by God. Another 39% believe that humans evolution was guided by God. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democrats-differ-creationism.aspx Interesting. A reasonable further analysis of that statistic would be to break-down that 38% by age and educational level. Off the top of my head, I'd guess - and who knows? - maybe I'm wrong - that most of those 38% are either over age 55 or have less education than a bachelor's degree. (Maybe I'll take the time to research it later; but right now I'm just cruisin' thru...)

Framing a scientific issue into a left/right debate is a fool's errand. I choose not to drink that Kool-aid, thank you.