Butters

Where do you see the right to prohibit drugs in the constitution? One place I see the right is in regards to religious ceremonies ... that whole separation of church and state that you keep referring to. PS: There wasn't anything in the constitution giving the right to use alcohol and yet they had to create a constitutional amendment to prohibit it. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

You appear to be assuming that they weren't intentionally trying to do this. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Yes I do not think it is a constititional issue I agree with basic regulations (a better word than restrictions) I do not see HC as any business of the gov in any manner but, I do see states regulating HC insurance companies at a basic level Yes is not an answer to my question. I didn't ask yes or no, I asked why. I'll ask a yes or no. Do you believe that drug prohibition is constitutional? PS: I put restrictions, conditions, etc... so that you could choose your preferred definition (such as regulations). "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Okay, I believe that private and public business should both be subject to certain basic restrictions, conditions, etc... and that public businesses could also be subject to other restrictions, conditions, etc.. These basic restrictions, conditions, etc.. should be constitutional and limited to protecting (based on scientific documentation) the employer, employees, consumers, public, environment, and other business. Considering the documented relationship between work and health I believe a health care plan should be applied to public businesses. I consider churches (of the larger religions) to be public business and thus subject to restrictions, conditions, etc.. that should include a health care plan. I don't believe the separation of church (in regards to the larger religions) and state exists. Thus, until churches (of the larger religions) separate themselves from the state I do not consider the entanglement to be problematic. Your turn ... why do you consider drug prohibition (without a constitutional amendment) to be constitutional? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

From your posts you appear to be for the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and drug enforcement? Things that are against the constitution ... pick and choose, pick and choose. Fail again There are parts of the Patriot act that I think are unlawful National defense? ditto You really need to get your mind reading machine fixed dude I don't read minds, I read posts. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

From your posts you appear to be for the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and drug enforcement? Things that are against the constitution ... pick and choose, pick and choose. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Relationships are not based solely on whether you are for or against something. It appears from your posts (in this and other threads) that your stance on government involvement is directly related to whether you agree with the involvement and not to whether the involvement is constitutional. I see it as a constitutional issue Period Of course you do. You can go back to your hypocrisy/trolling now ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Relationships are not based solely on whether you are for or against something. It appears from your posts (in this and other threads) that your stance on government involvement is directly related to whether you agree with the involvement and not to whether the involvement is constitutional. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

They came for many reasons, some because of government intrusion into their religion, some because of government intrusion into their lack of religion, ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Sushi and wingsuiting ... delicious and awesome! "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Flying People in New York City "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

You're numbers don't work as well for wingsuiters. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

And you were wrong. I am not defending 2K as the gold standard. I am defending my right to choose ... Once again, what if they institute a rule against turns greater than 360's? You'll fight it. What if it passes and later they try to change it to 180's? You'll fight it again. Not because 360's is the gold standard but because you were against the old rule and the new rule will be more prohibitive than the old rule ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

You sure about that? You mean to tell me that with no outside influence, no reference point from which to work from, you think you would have come up with 2k all on your own? I'm not suggesting it was an active decision on your part, but I am 100% sure that your thinking was influenced by the fact that from the first day you started jumping, all of the 'expert' jumpers you met and were trained by, were permitted via the BSR to pull at 2k. To suggest otherwise is just being naive. Yes, I mean to tell you that my decision was based on the minimum altitude I'm allowed to deploy by "the rule", my gear choices, and my level of acceptable risk. Had "the rule" been different then it would have affected my decision only because it's "the rule" regarding how low I can deploy. Very few 'experts' that have been around me since the day I started jumping deploy at 2K ... in fact, most discourage it. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I stopped reading after this because it's wrong. The reason I deploy at 2K (instead of 1.5K, 1K, etc...) is because it's "the rule". The reason I feel that deploying at 2K is OK is based on my gear choices and level of acceptable risk ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I disagree with the mentality that because some people need to pull higher that everyone should have to pull higher. Is pulling at 2.5K safer than 2K? Yes. However, following that logic, pulling at 3K is safer than 2.5K and pulling at 3.5K is safer than 3K ... Skydiving is about understanding risks, understanding how to minimize risks, and then making a choice about the level of risk you're willing to accept. PS: Making turns over 90's is more dangerous than under 90's (more so in the present than past given most canopies). Should we make a rule against turns over 90's? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

It is part of the upcoming agenda ... ... and I don't like it. What do others think? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I want to know who is behind: I've got a couple guess who is behind: "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Are you being serious? An individual who is 6ft (1.83m) will have approximately 36sqft (3.35sqm) in the largest wingsuits ... that is pretty far from 107sqft (10sqm). "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Why play it on a small smartphone when you can play it on a large television. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

The Shadow is a gripperless Phantom and the Havok is a gripperless Ghost ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

As always ... completely enjoyed! "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I already own a Phantom 2 and am about to purchase another suit and am having trouble deciding between a Phantom 3 or Ghost 3. If anyone has flown both and can describe flight characteristics and performance (especially speeed, because I love speed) difference please let me know ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch