Lucky...

Nevermid that, did no one notice the student's left shoe was untied? That's a travesty!

I don't like many skydivers, sorry, just the way I feel. Too many skygods and other egotistical assholes and then there's Ash. He packed my chop and we did a hybrid 6 of us. That was the most memorable jump of all my jumps. They broke the mold after this guy was minted. I read the fatality section to learn, this time I read it to be sad and pissed. I knew he was in Hawaii, I hoped to cross paths with him again one day. Ash was a living legend in the sport but would genuinely never accept that title. Too many in this sport remind you of their status w/o being asked. Ash always wanted to help to make skydiving a better and more fun place, not to show off what he knew. This makes me love skydiving less.

This is the conservative version of what they call the Obama death panels. Under Obama this is covered, under conservatism this is the death panel we get.,

And I agree. I have none and we need to reduce the population by being responsible. At the same tome, it is what it is and do we need to put money before people? WHat if he had 2 kids and a crappy job w/o insurance? What if he had ins but lost it with his job? There are lots of responsible people on ACCESS, just poor. This is just one case and how will his kids grow up w/o a dad? Maybe as criminals? Disorganized, incomplete? At the same time, I'm sure teh military will use the kids in some proxy war, so we will get bang for our buck; it isn't the rich kids going to war.

http://www.620ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1340949 That the benefit of having such a rancid POS governor; Arizona has some real winners. As long as we can just keep putting money before people we will be doing well as a corpo-fascist fucking nation. Just keep doing this shit and soon people will bring in uni-care as they see teh faces of death all around them. Look at the 3 pigs, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover; 5 straight terms of D's. Why does it take the obvious to do the obvious?

Actaully it was a win, theefore it pissed off your heroes. Rememebr your heroes, they would arrest protestors wearing anti-GWB shirts? Yea, you party, the one of non-censorchip. Pull your head out of your ass. (A) Godwin's Law is an automatic loss. (B) They're not my heroes. Have I ever said they were? No. (prove me wrong, I dare you) I criticize morons in both big parties and in "third parties." If you could manage to stop defining everyone who disagrees with you as a fascist neo-con you might realize that I hardly fit the mold of a Republican. (C) Censorship reflects government's lack of trust in the people, negating the argument "of the people by the people for the people." I disagree with censorship and prior restraint type of laws that prohibit doing things that might lead to other crimes (censorship, prohibition, gun control, etc) (D) When is the last time a campaigning candidate for POTUS allowed disruptive protesters into one of their events? As well, you should pull your head out of your ass. Bill deleted it after I posted it; I call the lack of that knowledge, ignorance. When you show ultra-conservative leanings and refuse to post your voting record, favorite politicians or even political ideoligy then we have the right to draw out own conclusions based upon what you say. If you love Reagan's policies, you are a neo-con, as he was the true neo-con. It's not an insult by itself, just a defining term such as socialist. Oh, show me where I have. Of course you do that by chastising Clinton for perjury/obstruction (political trial acquittal) and then defending or acquiescing Libby for the same and GWB commuting him, certainly thinking he should have received a full pardon as did Cheney. Laughably, and pathetically, you can't even show me one major federal tax cut that has led to overall economic benefit, yet you clammer on as if you do even as I illustrate example after another where tax cuts are caustic. Just keep trying to draw in fans, cheerleaders while providing zero substance. Says the guy who can't address my tax cut question.

This forum caters to the sponsors. They need hits to sustain interest from the sponsors, but the sponsors pay the bills. If that's not the reason for the unpredictable moderating, then explaion it because no one else has. And no, that's not a complaint, it's an observation. Isn't Sangrio out of the picture as far as ownership? The new media company calls the shot now, right? Explain then why Kennedy can tell me to pull my head out of my ass, yet when I tell him to do the same the post gets deleted. I'm just trying to understand the rules and what to expect so I can act accordingly. So far I've not been shown consistency. This is SC, I think that is the norm. Show me who acted out of line first; who pushed buttons first. Oh, was it Kennedy? Yet I'm being chastised and blamed by you. Who, Kennedy for telling me to pull my head out of my ass or me for daring to defend myself? I thought you weren't the moderator of this forum.

You like the concept of tax cuts and think they benefit the economy. You and everyone who thinks like that are unable to constructively show me when, in the last 100 years, esp since FDR, when tax cuts have helped. Again, one area *may* improve, as when Reagan cut taxes and deficit spent, but then there is a backlash where another area went down the dumper. So I'm looking for an overallbetterment or a tax increase where tehre was an overall worsening. It's counter-intuitive to think raising taxes works, but the data supports that tax increases do work, whether accross the board or on the upper class. The important thing is that the upper class, the class that holds virtually all the money, pays more if they fail to reinvest for the writeoff. I think that attitude was born in the 80's under the, "Me generation." It was exacted in the 90's and failed in the 2000's under both low taxes and lkow interest that led to runaway artificial appreciation. Good points. We're happiest, as a whole, building a lot of killing machines. But to mock any system in the US is a bad idea, as we are unique in ways as they are. We can borrow some aspects and keep some individual aspects. What we do know is that taxes in the 20's% and 30's% are not good. It worked under Clinton as we had such an active economy with the Dot.com boom that the tiny tax increase multiplied exponentially. Really taxes need to be 50-60% top brkt at a minimum; find where any other has worked.

No, the clones have been trying to come up with a tax cut that has led to ecomic benefit for quite a while, a few good attempts. Now that they and you cannot find one, it's down to insults.

As well, you should pull your head out of your ass. You first . . . then you could see that the rest of us already have. Dark isn't it? Well, as long as you have, that's what matters.

As well, you should pull your head out of your ass.

That's why we like you so much.

Well, I have to at least offer the reciprocal, "Pull your head out of your ass, copper!!!"

I like his replies and think he makes very good points unlike some posters. Sure, an ultra-conservative citing ultra conservatives as supporting evidence would be viewed as very good poiints by other ultra-conservatives. Just don't ask him to post 1 major federal tax cut that has actually helped the economy, he'll run from that. Uh, you are, obviously. I've yet to read anything, esp anything substantive from you in SC, you ought to go back to Bonfire. So what's you purpose here? Cheerleading? That's not uselful. Right, conservatives love to censor any other opinion that their own. That I do believe, you would censor me and then go to your tea bagger rally decrying the libs for revoling your freedoms. I address all who adress me, I know, a lib thing. Why do you get annoyed? It's not like you have EVER added anthing substantive, EVER. I've addressed this issue to death, the closest I have come is the 97 cap gains tax cuts from 28% to 20%. My counter is that per the CBO cap gains taxes account for 2-3% of all income tax revs, cap gains taxes were cut by < 1/3rd so at most the diff was 1% change to the fed revs. Mike and Lawrocket both brought this in, since I established that the 97 cap gains cut meant nothing to fed rev picture, they both went away on that issue. Not to mention the economy and deficit reduction were well under way with the 5 years Clinton was president before the 97 CG cut. I realize you know very little about tax policy history, but I have posted copius data on this. If you want some data, I will be glad to post it for the 1000th time. As for read it first, kid I read and interpret well, I don't post rhetoric and claims that I do have gone unsubstantiated.

Cite examples. Talk about unqualified, list some. And this is mutually exclusive to homosexualioty in your world. I imagine it is. The byproduct to this self control is no gopvernment assistance. Conservatives hate that until they need it. As many RWers suck the gov tit as do libes, the former is juts in denial. All you have to do is ignore your federal right to organize and call it crime and you're in. Redefinition is a fun tool to use, only certain people then try to see it as legitimate. Riiiiiight. We all saw how clumbsy they looked throwing Michael Steele in as RNC Chair after Obama was elected. Also, these southerners were the conservatives as Dems until the 1964 Civil Rts Act, then they switched. As usual, no supporting data/evidence/amything, yet I'm disqualified.

Exactly, truth isn't even on the radar screen. Moderation can mold who is here and what attitude the forum takes on. This is why they get pissed when people question moderation; it exposes the purpose for moderators. DZ.COM is a legitimate forum but they are alos a business, so they have to cater to who pays the bills. Forums with no moderation tend to lean toward the general populous to decide what kind of behavior to allow or ban.

When they're one-sided they can create an atmosphere desireable by the mods/management. Letting one entity slam the others while over-pursuing others draws a certain genre of viewers. If an injustice appears but is loved by a certain demographic, it draws them near. I believe most moderation is done to cater to sponsors; remember, just follow the money.

He likes tax cuts like you, but neither can support their benefit to the overall economy, of course you like him. As for spot on, the conservative Kennedy cited wants to dispell the Nazi identification as GWB fits that most closely and his rationaliztion camee at the end of GWB's term. Comparisons between the current Republican and former Nazi Party are present in teh substantive sense.

I like his replies and think he makes very good points unlike some posters. Sure, an ultra-conservative citing ultra conservatives as supporting evidence would be viewed as very good poiints by other ultra-conservatives. Just don't ask him to post 1 major federal tax cut that has actually helped the economy, he'll run from that.

OK, Bill has been on the forum, I Pm'd him, he's done nothing on the forum or in PM, so apparently, "get your head out of your ass" is in. Let's see if it's a one-way street or there is actually fair moderation. Everytime I read your posts I see a kid with his head fully lodged up his ass, I just never said anything as I was under the apparent understanding it was against the rules so I refrained. Well, again, I was under the conception that the proud guy would, "Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. " I guess refering to people the way you did/do is considered honorable. See, honor is independent of anyone else; you establish your own honor, yet now you defer to other's behavior, not real objectively honorable. I don't get hurt, I just have to try to figure out the rules to avoid these violations. How much ya wanna bet Bill will ding me for saying the same thing you did? See, some of the sponsors are RW maggots, so he does that for them, not for other reasons; don't get a big head if he tosses my post and leaves yours. As for your cite, I hope you haven't slammed someone for citing Wikipedia, I'm sure you have. Mike Goodwin is a bit of a conservative maggot himself: http://www.sjgames.com/SS/godwin-CMU.html In particular, conservatives should insist that CMU not alter its principles in the face of pressure from what may well be a paternalistic government. http://www.utexas.edu/law/magazine/2010/02/16/godwin%E2%80%99s-laws/ Godwin also credits the late Professor Charles Alan Wright, a staunch conservative, with helping shape him as a rigorous constitutionalist. So let's see, you cite Wikipedia (something I suspect you have slammed others for) and cite a RW maggot as a reason to suggest the term, "Nazi" is a loss when referring to RWers. When I use, Nazi" to refer to conservatives/Repubs, I use it as a metaphore. Republicans: - Hate gays/marriage - Love control - Hate organized labor - Tend to be racist See the comparison between Nazis and Repubs? Yea. That's why I refer to conservatives as Nazis; don't get butt-hurt. So why would your new Texan hero, Goodwin denouce the term, "Nazi" in these discussions? Easy, it aims at his party, his ideology so he finds himslef trying to water it down. It's simple, metaphorically Dems are the Commies and Repubs are the Nazis. Quit looking for somnething more into it and quit bringing in other Texan Nazis like Goodwin for support. Yes, an automatic loss as it refers to Goodwin's fellow Texan Nazi, GWB so he tries to neutralize the word. Ooooow, I double dare you. WHat a joke. Conservative leaders are your heroes. See, you keep telling us what you're not, never tell us what you do, I believe you're a cop, you seem to have those leanings, yet slam people for, in your idea, not guessing right. We know you're a pro-tax cutter, even tho you can't defend your position. I can't think of anything about your ideology that is other than somewhere between Republican and Libertarian. Limits are needed, for example child porno. You might call this ridiculous as we all know that MUST be illegal and prosecuted. But if you do, that rejects your claim about censorship. These things as well as the 2nd and other elements that have freedoms must also have limits, you infer that these things should be limitless. Probably never, but I wasn't refering to a campaign event and wearing an anti-GWB shirt isn't considered disruptive. Actually was it VP Biden or another who had some conservative nut disrupt and allow him to blather? Maybe ot was another, but it was a conservative protestor and the offended was allowed to speak his mind. Nice to see you defending conservatives, even tho you aren't one I guess . It appears most of the disruptive nuts are conservative politicians, as in Joe, "you lie" Wilson. Unfortunately they are allowed to stay.

Bill, is there a way we can warn/ban this guy? He does this shit and then apoligizes to do it again.

Actaully it was a win, theefore it pissed off your heroes. Rememebr your heroes, they would arrest protestors wearing anti-GWB shirts? Yea, you party, the one of non-censorchip.

I think this is appropriate in some cases, but I'm curious how'd that work across state lines. As long as we're talking about state, and not federal, law: The very short answer is: that would be a matter of each individual state's laws and body of state court caselaw - in this case, California. If California law provides that an act committed outside of California that has a criminal effect inside California is a violation of California law, then California can enforce it, as long as they can get physical jurisdiction over the defendant. This concept pre-dated the existence of the online world. More often than not, challenges to this on grounds of federal unconstitutionality tend to fail. What if both parties are outside the state, but one has the wherewithal to bring suit because he feels as if he's been harmed inside it? Well this is a criminal statute, so civil lawsuits don't come into play - here. But the general rule in civil cases (subject to each individual state's respective peculiarities) is that in order for a state to have jurisdiction over a civil lawsuit, there must be some sort of connection between the state and the facts of the lawsuit, in order to give the state jurisdiction over (a) the subject-matter of the lawsuit, and (b) at least one of the parties to the lawsuit. Sometimes, the facts fall into a grey area, and jurisdiction is disputed, whereupon the procedural issue is litigated, and the courts have to make the call. That and in order for a civil court to have venue jurisdiction that defendant must reside or have been damaged in that venue jurisdiction.

I think this is appropriate in some cases, but I'm curious how'd that work across state lines. If it's a state law, they could only punish the offender that broke the law from Cali. I guess they could extradite, but that would get tough. Jurisdiction would be a boundary here, I imagine that they could only prosecute a person writing from Cali.

What do you figure my chances are? I was kicked off Hannity's site for referring to GWB as a Nazi, so I assume the moderation would be similar with you there, so do the math.