Ion01

Yes....and in a free society, as established by the constitution, the insurance companies would be free to establish thier rules and such however they want....which would ultimately be controlled by society and who is willing to pay for it. However, with government involved, government must either cover the whole family and thereby make it unaffordable for all, or restrict the freedom of people by not allow plural marriage. The answer is freedom and to keep the government out.

Its simple..... a marriage is a religious term so we have to consider that where the government is concerned we are not talking about marriage but a contract. In the case of a contract all the government is supposed to do is enforce the contract. That being said: if someone wants to contract with multiple people or one person of the same sex, constitutionally the federal government can have no say except to enforce the contract. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; This does not prohibit having a statue of the ten commandment in a government courtyard as there is no law in regards to in, particularly by congress (thus the reason church services were held in the first treasury building and the supreme court's building, as well as the white house. To not allow church services would to be prohibiting the free exercise.) To make a federal concerning the religious practice of marriage and thereby limit the type of contracting that may be conducted between persons is unconstitutional. On a state level however, this might vary. As for plural marriage, although religiously I beleive it too is wrong, once again, if there is a contract between to concenting persons then the government can only enforce the contract. In a truely free society I do not fear any moral issues as we would have the ability to pay or not pay people we want to (hire) which would ultimately result in societies being established which are not only tolerant but supportive of plural, gay, or single heterosexual marriages seperately. If you are gay then you could go where you would be supported by others. This however will not happen in our current society due to descrimination laws which ultimately result in reverse descrimination. In addition, I choose not to bind my beliefs on others so I would have no problem paying (employeeing) someone if they were gay or plural marriage or whatever. I am only concerned about thier job performance. Finally, in a truely free society as established by the founding fathers the power and responsibility falls on the free people. If the people don't like the fact that business Z is descriminating against gays then the people have the control to not purchase from business Z and put them out of business or stop the descrimination. This is about personal responsibility, not the governments. If the people don't put business Z out of business then the business can continue to descriminate. What happens then? Gay people have the freedom to move to where there are other gay people and be supported and have the control. I however, beleive that the first description would happen but does not due to the fact that law results in true descrimination being hidden, causes reverse descrimination, and when there is true descrimination no individual take action or responsibility for themselves because they beleive the government and law is there to handle it for them. These principle were why there was segregation began with Woodrow Wilson and the massive expansion of government under progressives in that era. The claim was that segregation would remove racial tension...... By making it law the free people could no longer effective fight back which is why it took so long to change things. Before Woodrow their were blacks in the military and such. There were no seperate fountains and such because freedom had prevailed and that is why freedom is the answer.

And the guy who was defending his property is now a convicted felon for protecting his property! How is it that this has become what "freedom" is? Its just sick!

That is most definitely not true.

The Contour and GoPro don't use a rolling shutter. Small cheap cameras like the ATC2K use a rolling shutter. You sure about that? Ever watched a propeller/rotor filmed with GoPro? Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh-T4ifPh4 from 0:10 onwards. Interesting. I bought an ATC2K a couple years ago. When using it on my bike, every bump causes the entire scene to wiggle like jello for a few moments. Some research turned up that the cause was the rolling shutter. This year I bought a Contour, and have never seen any such quirks. Perhaps the difference might be the rate at which the rolling shutter is operating. Edit to add: Some googling seems to indicate you are right. The video does not show any effects of rolling shutter. I think you are mistaking the rotors to appear curved due to a curved wide angle lense for a rolling shutter effect. The GOPRO is CMOS. From the GOPRO website: Sensor Type: 1/2.5" HD CMOS, 2.2µm-sized pixels Yes it has a CMOS sensor. No it does not mean it doesn't have a rolling shutter. Most CMOS sensors are using rolling shutters, it doesn't actually have a mechanical shutter its done electronically. Links for you to read: http://pointofviewcameras.com/blog/pov/article/dendrite-studios-pov-cameras-review-2010 http://www.eyeofmine.com/gopro/hd/prof/index.html Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5UuWp-lASI look @ 0:14 I think what you are getting at is progressive scan which is the P in 1080p for progressive scan. I think this becomes extremely evident in cases which very high vibration such as my 50cc remote control airplane I often mount the GoPro on. At certain RPM's you can see the progressive scan nature a whole lot. I don't have any video of it on youtube yet so I can't show it. On the other hand, are there any HD video cameras (1080) that are not progressive scan?

The Contour and GoPro don't use a rolling shutter. Small cheap cameras like the ATC2K use a rolling shutter. You sure about that? Ever watched a propeller/rotor filmed with GoPro? Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh-T4ifPh4 from 0:10 onwards. Interesting. I bought an ATC2K a couple years ago. When using it on my bike, every bump causes the entire scene to wiggle like jello for a few moments. Some research turned up that the cause was the rolling shutter. This year I bought a Contour, and have never seen any such quirks. Perhaps the difference might be the rate at which the rolling shutter is operating. Edit to add: Some googling seems to indicate you are right. The video does not show any effects of rolling shutter. I think you are mistaking the rotors to appear curved due to a curved wide angle lense for a rolling shutter effect. The GOPRO is CMOS. From the GOPRO website: Sensor Type: 1/2.5" HD CMOS, 2.2µm-sized pixels

I have great eyesight and can't see a rig from that far but I could tell when some guys were sitflying.

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd_9bcLhgH4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUpW6lM958M&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUpW6lM958M&feature=related http://www.newsmax.com/US/immigration-arizona-crime-kidnappings/2010/04/27/id/357099 I think this cartoon really says it all: http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/varv05012010a20100503030408.jpg Harry Reid- “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK?” Reid said. “Do I need to say more?” How is this not racist or at least pregidous by grouping a whole race of people into a single group or mindset? Lets not forget it was a progressive president Wilson who started segregation and he claimed he did it to remove racial tension. Lets also not forget the wonderful progressive interment camps of WW2 where germans and japanese were rounded up.

Education is the answer not regulation. And if some don't want to learn its their life and their choice. Ever heard of this word called freedom? Its pretty cool!

I agree! The real point is that a higher activation will result in a high success rate.

I didn't konw there was a difference between a master and senior rigger..... I just need a repack so I am looking for someone in OKC who is certified to repack a reserve.

I need a repack and don't want to drive an 3 hours just for a repack. Is there a list of master riggers and where they are or does anyone know any in the oklahoma city area? Thanks!

And for those who think that without government immorality would be rampant and unstoppable.....I, unlike you, think the vast majority of people are good and will therefore have control and be able to expell those that are bad from society. But thats the catch, you have to trust other people...........

Its quite simple actually. Both parties are adults for starters. Secondly, if the professors work is uneffected then the employer cannot do anything against the employee for what is done outside of work. Lastly, I think it is morally wrong but the government is not established to regulate morality and cannot. In regulating morality it keeps immoral people employeed and invovled in the world. The simple answer: The government shouldn't ge involved and if a school doesn't punish its professors when thier work is effected by such things then people would go elsewhere where the professors have self control and there are no professors running around having sex with students for whatever reason. In turn the first school either goes out of business or it has to change its policies in punish/fire the offending professors creating a truely moral environment. When things like this are regulated then the immoral keep it a secret and people still take their money to them because they feel no sense of responsibility because they don't have to think about where they are going with thier money.....the government is taking care of things for me.......and we all know the government is composed of only trustworthy and morally upright people...... Put the power back in the peoples hands by leaving government out and letting people make thier own decisions. If that means having sex with whomever for whatever reason then the people can chose whether or not to punish them by going else where or not.

I just continue to look for the day that individuals will have the freedom to make thier own choices............

Okay, so the honest people who take the time and effort to come across legally are basically punished while those who dishonestly cross the borders can stay if they have a sad enough sob story? Whats the point it doing it legally then?

considering other agents have been put in jail for doing their jobs, yeah. Me, with my current training... I'd have cut and run. AND I have the balls to say it. put me through their training, give me their resources, I might know more about what's available and my answer might change. Until then, yeah, I'd cut and run to my vehicle where a rock, or brick, or cinder block wouldn't injure me. Well, you do have a point there in that the US often prefers to protect non-citizens at the expense of its citizens. Many non-citizens know this and take advantage of it. Therein lies the true problem.

I've been discussing this in PM with the OP. I will amend my statement above by saying that given the incomplete picture of the situation that we all have, were I the officer in question, I believe I would have abandoned my suspect and sought refuge in my vehicle, or out of range of the rock-throwers. I also understand that I cannot know what was really going on there (nor can any of us here) nor what I really would have done had I been that officer. So you would quite doing your job of securing the borders of america and send the people trying to cross the border a message that if they all get together and throw rocks instead of using guns then you will have to retreat allowing them to come across? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. edited for miss spelled word...

I was in the gifted and talented program my whole life, including going to a public magnet school. I'm pretty sure we had access to a lot more stuff (and better teachers) than the "regular" kids. Not in the real world. AP students get better teachers, lower teacher to student ratios, and better facilities. Not that I'm arguing against that, I don't think it is necessarily a bad idea to tailor the educational experience to the students' abilities, but you can't really argue that the money distribution is equal. Really? You have a lot of misplaced anger issues. Do you go to a lot of banquets for students (all black in your world) who raised their GPA's from a high D to a low C? What was the last such banquet you attended? Please tell us about it. On the other hand, if the students actually improved from D's to B's or A's, don't you think they had to work hard to do that? Doesn't that make them part of the "hard workers"? And when's the last time a C/D student was named valledictorian, or put on the Dean's list? Students get rewarded for hard work, regardless of their abilities. And it has nothing to do with race. My AP classes didn't have access to anything other students didn't including the teachers. The teachers taught regular classes for part of the day and AP in another part of the day so the only thing different was what was taught. the moving from Ds to Cs was for anyone and I personally new a lot of these people when I was in school and the ones I new were all goof offs and they thought it was funny themselves. I also had more minority friends than non-minorty where I went to school and the majority of them had all C averaged except for one who was truely a genius but had no self control so when he got away from his parents all he did was party and lost his scholarship as a result. Almost all the others that were minorities got scholarships because they were minorities. Some even thought it was funny how they could get C and get college virtually payed for becuase of thier race. Others thought it was wrong but like they were going to refuse the money. I have no anger issue just stating whats going on. I am actually appreciative because it was my parents that made me a success because they taught me, not the schools even thought I went to school. I am appreciative because the rediculousness of the system taught me that life wasn't fair so the only way I could really get what I wanted was to do it myself and not expect something from some system. However, so many would rather not get what they really want and just get by with only doing what is necessary and systems like we have just makes what is necessary for these people even less and people like me must make up the difference..... so I get punished for being responsible with my house and car payments while others get my money through the government and get thier house payed for because they didn't keep up with the payments or so many other government programs because they learned in school to take the hand outs and that you will be rewarded for being irresponsible.

You have a really dim view of America. I can see how spending extra tax dollars to provide special services to one group of kids could be considered unfair. I don't think that the parents were advocating that everyone should be dumb. I'd bet that what they wanted was for money to be spent more evenly, but I'm just guessing. That is the reality of america. First, the advanced placement students don't get extra tax dollars. Rather than have the ones that try hard sped out into all the others they simply put them all in one classroom and put the ones that don't try so hard in the classroom the hardworkers were in. There is no extra teachers or classes or anything else. Second, what isn't fair is that the hard working students don't get rewarded for thier hard work whereas the ones who don't work hard but simply move a high D to a low C get extra tax dollars in the form of awards and banquets for the parents since they improved but the ones that always got A's never got awards or banquets or even a scholarship even if they graduated highschool with college credit because they were white.

On a slightly different note: ever heard of the paper bag test? Its something some black people use, typically in schools or in some organizations, to determine if you are black enough to date or be in the organization. If your skin isn't darker than the bag then you aren't black enough...... if that isn't racist then what is? Do you really think this kind of thing doesn't play into these figures? How about, one again, that our society teaches minorities that they don't have to work hard and that they deserve this or that or money due to thier skin color? Why is it racist to have an organization that only lets white people in but not one that only lets black people in? Why is it considered racist when a white person disagrees with our president (who is 1/8 black, mainly arab) but its not racist when the president says his grandmother is "a typical white person"? Do you not think this kind of thing plays into those figures and how the (and I don't like to use the term) black community thinks and operates? Why can't we just all be americans? Why does even the census have to ask what race we are? If we were all actually considered just americans and there was no decisions to be made, as required by law, regarding race then we would truely have equal opportunity.

While I agree with that sentiment, there is also the question of whether our laws are encouraging this problem. There are some very good and common sense arguments that our social programs encourage a permanent lower class with a racial bias to it. Some would argue that this is an indicator of that. Here is your answer. The laws are preventing equal opportunity. For example, the law requires that a company of a particular size higher a certain number of minorty employees. That doesn't mean people have an equal opportunity. What it means, and this does happen, is that the more qualified person is overlooked because they are not a minority. We also give all kinds of government money to minorities for college and such so when a student is a minority they get money for college even though they barely got by while the other student who has a high GPA gets nothing because he is not a minority. This teaches people that getting what you want out of life is not about hard work but who you are. It is actually racist because the government determines how much money you get based on race! In addition, why should they be given money anyways? I didn't have slaves, they are not slaves, none of my ancestors had slaves, there were more white slaves than black slaves before the civil war in the US (not indentured servants, actual white slaves) and the black slaves were mostly bought from other blacks. In a truely free society racism could not survive as it has. Our current government, as illustrated above, has become racist in order to eliminate racism. Obviously that cant work as its contradictory. In a truely free society racist business would fail as people would not shop thier or due business with them, however, with racist laws in place these people just meet the requirements of the law and society doesn't know the difference and the owner continues his racist behavoir feeling justified by saying the government is racist.....which it is. Lets face it, racism will always be around and in all directions, but in a free society the racists would be outcast and have to leave and isolate themselves with other racist thereby removing them from society and eliminating them and thier racism from the majority whereas the current system protects them and keeps them as a part of our society and forces people to be racist if they are going to be a law abiding citizen.

Same can be said for anyone of a number of politicians as well as a number of people in charge of enormous companies. That doesn't make them "bad people", just a bit out of touch with what the rest of us go through. For some jobs, I'm not even sure it bothers me all that much. For others, it's ridiculous. In the case of Geithner, I'm not really sure it matters all that much. He'd dealing with macro-economics that might not have much to do with being a dishwasher, waiter or whatever. Being in charge of a large company is a real job as its in the private and not public sector for one.

Apparently its illegal to fart in texas too! (3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place; (5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy; And I thought we lived in a free country.......

Anyone remember this? http://www.politics.com/video/zTXBOgPCh9w/tea-party-protestors-attacked-by-seiu-angry-mob/ So why didn't the president make some big statement about this and have a few beers with these guys or the guy that got beat up?