chasteh

>The military admitted it and recreated it. I'd say that's good enough. Uh huh. And others wouldn't. The military's claiming responsibility does not provide us evidence with which to recreate the lights, nor to explain how they were able to hold formation, move, pause, and then relocate. Where is this re-creation?

>the reality is it was a set of training missions where the military was dropping flares. Uh oh... So you must have knowledge as to what type of flare they could be, how long those types of flares burn for, and for what were they burning in that location of the sky? Do you have some sort of information available to make us understand what kind of flares they were? Can we compare the activity of a flare to what was observed in Phoenix? UFO Conspirators vs. Military conspirators... (Ready!) Fight!

They already have the ammunition they need to hold Bush accountable. The funny thing is, it is hardly even mentioned by the democratic majority today that Bush or Cheney even committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. And they STILL have control of congress. >if they could prove it - then the democrats could contrloo congress and the house of Reps I know, huh! Instead they should convince the American public to support two wars (heres hoping to the third one in Iran!) and then use that to control the American population. Oh there is so much for the democrats to learn. "Silly you, social control is best learned from a Republican" - anonymous

Exactly what benefit does knowing that the WTC collapses were caused by explosives provide? What does it change? What extra ammunition (no pun intended) does it give you against the Bush administration?

>It's more likely that this was orchestrated by Rupert Murdock to boost ratings at Fox News and give a green light for Bush to invade Iraq. Ehhh.... Conspiracy theories... I think it is far more plausible to say that FOX news definitely took advantage of every Jingoistic platform it could from 9/11 forward to boost its ratings. "TERRORISTS? ON OUR TURF? KILL KILL KILL 'EM ALL!"

Can't we just go back to saying that the U.S. got fucked (again) for spending so much time pissing people off in other parts of the world? Couldn't we be far more constructive (and accurate) by sticking with that? It is no secret that George Bush and his cabinet had close ties to middle-eastern warlords and jihadists... why do we have to believe that he is responsible for blowing the buildings up? We already have evidence to say that he fucked up. And it doesn't depend on outrageous accusations of thermite explosives.

>I think that qualifies as sucking. Nope. I think attempting a swoop without the appropriate level of experience and training would qualify you for sucking. I have been on final approach in the jump plane and glanced over at a dust devil for a second or two and had a hard nose wheel landing. People are susceptible to being distracted man. Unfortunately for you, your body took the hit and your leg is broken. I consider that a lesson learned the hard way - even for those who watched you do it. You've got to focus and keep flying until your canopy isn't flying any more. Every time.

With seven jumps you can't really know if you suck at it yet. One thing I have noticed in my flight instructing days is that some people are more inclined to suck at things than others. The ones who become the badasses are typically very eager to learn how to do things precisely correct and are patient enough with themselves to not tell themselves that they suck at something that they haven't had much expierience with. I have seen some experienced guys who sucked big time and some students who did everything exactly correct. A big factor in how bad you will suck in skydiving includes aeronautical decision making principles: How is my health? Am I mentally ready to do this? Is this beyond my skill level? Are the factors here beyond anyone's skill level? (Weather is a big one. A lot of skydivers/pilots are STUPID (Repeat: STUPID) when it comes to decision making. Do you make a plan for your skydives? How often do you review your emergency procedures? (I think about this the whole way up. Reviewing the dive plan and your emergency procedures on the way up make it fresh enough to perform them on-time) I used to race motocross and loved dirt-jumping. The only way I would approach a jump is having hit the jump several times (i.e. not clearing the wholet hing, just hitting the face of it) beforehand and having gone through the whole jump several times in my head also. (The jumps often had a gap of 100 feet) Having not done this would have greatly made myself more prone to injury - and I have had my fair share of them

Skydiving.... a great sport to suck at. Right next to base jumping.

>Maybe it's best if I let him drown a little? I read a book once about how it takes a series of failures for a person to finally get themselves on track. Career failures. Love failures. Business failures. The failures show the person first hand that something undesirable occured as a result of their inputs, and that they need to change those behaviors. The trouble is, you only have so much motivation (or even so much self-control) available to find out what happened in each failure, and where to fix the problem. Relationships can be one of those fields, but it is super-difficult to keep on going after a failure in that respect. Skydiving is too. How many times are you allowed to fuck up in skydiving before you don't get any more chances?

>Think about it? What hot girl is going to go for a 30+ yo, shy, quiet, into death metal, engineer? Milfs dude. Milfs. a 40 y/o hotty will

>Hardy har har...wait till I bring to the DZ and introduce him to you and then he texts you non stop! Understood. I can see why people think simply saying "be yourself" were in any shape or form an adequate piece of advice. The problem is it is just so damn hard defining what "be yourself" actually means, or that we even mean that you should "be yourself" at all times. I mean... surely there are some situations in which you definitely do not want to "be yourself," aren't there? I think your engineering friend could do a little bit to get his game back in shape, (like brushing his teeth, wearing clothes on dates, and not belching at the table) but at the same time "be yourself" can't really be said because there are definitely behaviors of his that can't go unnoticed, even by cave women.

Unless hes on a fuckin boat yo!

Yep. I've done that too. I used to think it was this sick twisted little thing I would do to get some ass. And then, as I met more people and got more comfortable (if that really happened) I noticed that pretty much everyone does this. They put on a "I'm worth something in the personality market" face. I like to refer to this process as "dating in the Western World." That doesn't mean I like the process. I hate the notion of having to "sell" myself to another person to convince them to be my friend/go out/have sex with me. That is probably why I am so bad at it. (Wait... maybe that might be a reason other people look to online forums for companionship) edit: However, I can and do appreciate the end result of such a despicable means - you usually end up with sime prime-time ass that you usually wouldn't get by just "being yourself," at least for most of us non-Fabio types.

>When he committed to take out Hussein So the great military leader is the irrational one who ensures there are constant streams of conflicts to fight. Interesting. Someone should have told him that Saddam Hussein was one of his Secretary of Defense's buddies. Not that reason could be used to fool him. After all, he did use 9/11 as justification for the war in Iraq - and he very well knew that the 9/11 hijackers were from 1) Saudi Arabia and 2) Were trained in Afghanistan. So much for remaining consistent with holding countries who "harbored terrorists" responsible. Clearly what mattered had nothing to do with reason, only with what he could get away with - and oh did he ever. >Yes. Why? >The kind Bush was. Thus, irrational authority does it.

Yet at the same time you wouldn't be willing to accept the fines and privelege revocations were you to break a set of laws that pertain to you. Interesting. We call that a double-standard.

>But is not affirmative action an example of this? You mean an example of how democrats tell them they are helpless and require their help? No, because it doesn't necessarily mean that they absolutely need their help to get jobs. The Affirmative action, however effective or fair, doesn't necessarily indicate that they are helpless, just that they have a disasvantage to be removed. >Allow me to instruct you, young kid chasteh. I've given you a chance, but you lack the necessary skills to succeed in this system. Pay me first. Makin big bucks in this system, baby! Holla! >Why would you treat a poor person any differently from a wealthy person It can be said one has a societal disadvantage, that is why. Like for example, one is born into a more wealthy family. What are you gonna do to avoid this? Make it so that inheritance is illegal? Probably not. I'd say a fair game is a little bit better - wrt the total costs, of course. >This is the class system I'm hoping will go away. How are you going to do that based on a market-driven society? What do yo prefer, a situation where people have to be whores for wealthy people for the rest of their lives? to be stuck as employees? Why should rich people be treated more preferable to poor people? >The wealthy ones I know worked for it. Hahaaa. Good one. Well, ok, its possible that most of your wealthy buddies earned it on their own. (Well... not really.. when you consider the p ublic infrastructure they depend on. Close enough though.) >Poor adults are often poor adults because of decisions they made Yet not always... Hmm... I guess under your ideals we can just leave that percentage be. Or rely on self-interested persons to help other people to make themselves feel good. Do you really think even most people are raised with the thought that earning capital and employing people is the way to live, and that they know how to do that? Negative. I consider myself to be rather intelligent, but that does not mean even I had that set of information. It took me years of studying and working around scum and success alike to finally get it. And yet even I don't necessarily have the tools to become wealthy. >Why go hunt for food when somebody will bring it to you? I can see that as an incentive. Perhaps a welfare-for-work program would be far more preferable to just rewarding it to people. Well, actually, in my mothers case, I think she already deserved it. >That's nice. Kinda what it's for. I say "kinda" because food stamps shouldn't be supporting college aged adults. Shoulda coulda woulda. I received government assistance in the form of Pell grants and need-based loans. Tough shit. Not everyone has the means, man. >The several trillion spent in non-corporate welfare over the past 40 years is not miniscule Well thanks for totalling it for us over 40 years. What is it in terms of percentage of GDP, lawrocket? >Wh is your mom not getting unemployment benefits? They do not last forever, and private contractors don't get them. Sort of like I don't as a flight instructor! >On the other hand, it is also often used as a hammock by those who could be "self-sustaining" but are not Yet today it is false. Unemployment is rampant. >You'd think that government controlling 30% of the economy would prevent shocks and things right? I'm not looking for economic safety nets for the whole economy, only for those who can't even sustain themselves. Also, I think making 30% of the GDP is irresponsible, just like you do. Oh and look! How cute, adding 4 trillion dollars to the figure. "But, since governemental spending is gonna be, what $4 trillion" That isn't negating the importance of child welfare, that is negating all forms of socialism. Just for fun. lets look back at your other numbers for a second. So, you would have bout 9 million jobs at 8 bucks an hour, huh? (From the 1% of gdp figure given to you.) What is unemployment up to? 10 percent? Lets try 15 percent just for fun. .15 X 300 million people = 45 million people. 45 million people receiving 8 bucks an hour would turn out to 5% of GDP. That is far different than the additional percentage you brought in from corporate welfare and all the other forms. (tax-writeoffs and so on) We are left with a different story than you typically are opposed to. Interesting. >8.9 million $8.00 per hour jobs ain't chump change. Its a hell of a lot less than your Republican compadres want you to pay. Looks like you should really be putting most of your efforts against what they want, as opposed to what a democrat wants. (After all, the cost of your efforts is far greater were you to focus your effort in a democrat's welfare goals. Do the rational thing. Oppose them first. Tee hee) >And yes, since I am not an anarchist, government is necessary and revenues must be obtained. a $14 trillion national debt, though, makes me think that perhaps we've been spending a lot more than we've taken in. Absolutely. Don't just assume that I support all forms of socialism, either. The end result is employing people and giving them a chance to feed their children. I don't see justification in subsidizing giant businesses. I think the cost to benefit ratio is absurd. For child welfare, I think it is different. Perhaps there could be a cap on the percentage of GDP the government can use to fund things. Like WAY WAY below 30%. (That would mean maybe 10% or less, depending of course on the infrastructure that you wealthy bastards will depend on to build your businesses.) So, the end result is that you and I actually both sopport some forms of socialism. The difference is in terms of the degree. I am actually far closer to your mark than the 30% includes. Again, I think your objections thus far are a wasted effort. You also think smaller forms of socialism result in greater forms of socialism. The mechanisms by which you keep that from growing might even be the same, they just include a provision to aid those on the very, very bottom. >You are funny. That is often my goal. Sometimes people laugh. >I live in a small town. And work with a small firm. Well aren't you just a good little conservative boy! >My best friend works for the IRS as an economist/attorney and makes a LOT more than I do You socialist! Your benefitting from the government by having a friend who is sustained by the government! (Just kidding... or am I? My best friend works for TSA and makes a lot more than I do also) >Maybe it explains why I haven't had more than 4 days off in a row since I moved up hee in 2003. I havent either. I guess that is because i'm a worthless college student, though. >> Child welfare >I can support that. I thought so, considering you jumped to government control of markets up there as a defense of your position. >However, this is my suggestion: move the kids away from parents who cannot support them. Even while minimizing the role of big-scary government in peoples lives? >Once the parent demonstrates an ability to do so, then return unless the child was adopted. (Loosen adoption laws while we're at it. Isn't that called child protective services? >When it's easier and less expensive to go to Russia to get one it indicates a broken system Phew! Yea. Oh, and I think it is a misconception to say that democrats support turning the U.S. government into such an authoritarian system. I don't say socialist here because I do not consider Russia to be socialist. You might even be better off calling them one of the most Reactionary, conservative systems in existence.

>But I suppose many think the Washington Times, the Washington Post, CNN, ABC, Fox, NewMax and Drudge are all radical right wing sites. Yea. Fuckin liberals.

Mm yea. Your not exactly the poster-child for using real sources of information, either. In other news, CIA officials discover a Crow perched on a fence is a clear sign of impending doom! Shocking news! http://www.theonion.com/content/news/solitary_crow_on_fence_post?utm_source=a-section

>Extreme websites. Oh Rush.

>See the sections on housing, employment and health care. Things about 1 in 8 living in poverty, even though welfare programs really hit their stride 40 years ago. >And there are more poor now than in 65. How about that? That is evidence for the claim: there are increasing numbers of people on welfare. That is absolutely not evidence for the claim: Democrats tell people they are helpless and that they'll make sure someone else pays for it. So, you basically have defended a different claim than the one you originally made. Red Herring, or Straw-Man? Take your pick. >Sure. I encouraged them. I helped them. I guided them and rewarded them. Of course they got help. Wait a minute, so you say that it is possible for people to grow and succeed and get benefits from the outside world to help them do it? Blasphemy! >Here's another point - they aren't kids. Wait... are they are aren't they? If they were kids at one point in time, and they are adults now, they were still kids - and my statements apply to them. "We could learn so much from kids." - Lawrocket >The big point - treating an adult like a kid is generally a bad idea. Treating kids like kids? Great. Treat an adult like a kid? So wait... would you treat kids like adults? You said yo should treat kids like kids. SO, if you were using this as an analogy (otherwise, what the hell are you talking about this for dude?, lol) then poor people should be treated like poor people, not wealthy people. We generally consider (in your view) that wealthy people are self-sustaining. But it also seems like your analogy fits quite well with not treating poor people like wealthy people; thus, you would not always treat poor people like they are self-sustaining. Does that mean that you always treat them as if they cannot do anything themselves? OF course not, just like you don't treat your own kids that way. They take some guidance, but not always. edit: And wealthy people not treated like poor people - thus the socialist doesn't have justification for using welfare to benefit wealthy persons. Looks like you guys won't get to find loopholes to avoid paying taxes anymore, lawrocket. Do you see the difference? Yep. I think it works great as an analogy. Really. >40 plus years of the welfare state demonstrates that my theory has some merit. It demonstrates that the welfare state has stuck around for 40 years, and that it is still here. It does not, however, demonstrate that "You can't make it without our help," which is the statement you said to be true in post #20. Please prove this. Show how the statement is true. (You could maybe show how the democratic party's slogan says: We are here, because you are worthless) (Note: I laughed after typing that) >Admit it - welfare has failed. Try something else. Yeesh. Actually, some forms of it have been very helpful. Like when my mom went four years without being able to get a job. She went to school, earned a Bachelors degree in four years, had a job for 6 months, and now she does not have a job again. She does, however, have a $50,000 student loan bill to pay, however. Food stamps and any government assistance have 1) Allowed me to stay in college and 2) kept food in our mouths. I am FAR more willing to support miniscule forms of socialism than I am willing to support government bailout packages and raises for corporate-minded business executives. I'll take your money, whitey. Thanks for caring. Wanna show how my mom isn't trying hard enough, please? Will you show me her extravagent welfare-queen lifestyle, please? >White men are allowed to think for themselves. Neat. Do you see the Red Herring you have created? You responded to this: "Look! It's the black republican guy! Hell, now we can tell other people we really do care about ethnic minorities, and have real evidence to prove it! Hooray!" Just out of curiosity: What history, if there is one, shows that the Republican party is the poster-child of Racial, Ethnic, and Religious tolerance? I will admit the democratic party is guilty of not being consistent here, but will you show me, in the meantime, how conservativism leads the way in terms of social equality? >You look at ends. I look at means. They both took my money and spent it on what they wanted to spend it on. Well, you look at means, for now, because they don't align with your ends. "Stupid assholes, judging things by their end results. They should be more like me, and just do something despite the consequences!" >The taking and spending is the part I have the most trouble with. Yea that makes sense. 1% of GDP for Child welfare is a far-cry from what you need to be worried about. Are you still acting like child welfare takes a major part of your income, or are you just venting? >Sure. What's a little socialism and what's a lot? Is Mount Everest as high as the Nile is long? Yea yea I know, the definition of "little" is ambigious. Damn you for bringing the word "arbiter" into this forum. You use it nicely, but some of your followers don't. I consider 1% of anything to be small. Do you make A hundred thousand a year, lawrocket? A thousand dollars is not much. And here you say: "Well if you do it a few hundred times like a good boy democrat then it ends up being a lot of money." In which case I say, good point. IF we can say: No taxation and government, we can say : ONLY this much. If we can say: Well, government intervention is acceptable as long as it is minimal, then I will say: File child welfare under "minimal." There is a reason, I think, you crazy libertarians are still here. However, I think a small amount of taxation (probably slightly more than you libertarians are afraid of losing) is acceptable as a jump-start. Hey.. I like that. Jump-start taxation. That is different from: "Subsidize an entire industry" taxation. >Revelution against a government is one thing. Class warfare is another. So is racial warfare. Sure sure. Modern politics, however, tries to incorporate several forms of those arguments into one position. >"the government doesn't tax away money! Even if taxing was stopped altogether you still wouldn't have any more money than you have now." That one is tough to say. Well... except for the second part of it. If out of your extravagent lawyer paycheck there were only a tax supporting infrastructure (which you need and want, obviously) and child welfare, as it is, I would bet there would be exponentially less room for you to bitch about taxation on your income. >insurance companies are actually evil OOhh. Yea. Say it sista!

>No - I was simply, or not somuch since I took the long way around, showing that you think it is acceptable to break the law. I think there are more destructive ways of breaking the law than others. For example, I agree that it is illegal for someone to murder another person, outside of self-defense, and that such an act is wrong. However, showing that something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong. This has been illustrated numerous times for you in this thread. So, now that we are done, how many laws - outside the numerous laws you have broken in skydiving alone (you do, after all, have 1700 jumps and 5 years in the sport) - have you broken and at what point is is convenient for you to break the law? After all, you are holding me guilty of thinking some laws are worth breaking and others aren't, are you not? Are you exempt from this? Are you not exempt from this? If you are not exempt, then you have wasted a great deal of effort accusing me of something you are guilty of yourself. What do ya think, turtlespeed?

NO. Have you even read what the website says? Click on the link, and in the page that comes up, read the top of the page. The site you used is a list of the revisions to the fines that can be imposed, as adjusted per the person's income and payment capability - for some of the laws that can be broken. Let's review* what progress we have made thus far. >Show us, please, where it says that it is breaking a federal LAW to accidentally jump into a cloud. Did that. Actually, even you are ready to admit that there are fines and penalties for doing so. You, each time you violate an FAA regulation - including cloud clearance requirements - are breaking a law. Glad we settled that. >What are the fines and penalties? You know they are there. They can be quite large. >What court adjudicates the offences and charges? I'm still waiting for your response here. >The adjudicators are the NTSB - I would put them in WHOLE different >I showed you chapter and verse where it is detailed and spelled out what he penalties and fines associated with breaking a federal law by illegal immigration ARE. Did that. The fines and privelege/license revocations are very real. >It just means your action was or wasn't agreed upon by most - sort of like your defense of Illegal immigration laws. In this case, the FAA has created regulations that make your actions legal or illegal in the aviation realm. Were you going to show how this makes an action right or wrong? Who determines this? The FAA? How does the FAA's authority make something right or wrong? Why?

>Democrats tell people they are helpless and that they'll make sure someone else pays for it. Link this in the democratic platform files, then. >We could learn so much from kids. Uh huh. They also had a whole lot of assistance from Mommy and Daddy, didn't they? You didn't just stand around and tell them to feed themselves until they finally did, now did you? You didn't just tell them that their problems were a result of mommy and daddy trying to help them too much, either. It seems like were stuck with an ecclectic approach - help people, but also give them room to breathe. You assume that democrats only want to help them, not give them the opportunity to work it out on their own. > roundly hated on Palin She thinks for herself? Have you ever listened to the woman speak? She hasn't thought about ANY PART of what she says. She can't even remember what newspapers she uses as sources of information! >He does. So do Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell. Just like Dennis Kucinich does from the democrat party. Yet you are not ready to criticize him for not thinking, now are you? (Oh yea, he and Ron Paul are good friends - they both just so happen to be amongst the only politicians with brain matter remaining) >IT isn't. The democratic party and the Republican party are evil. Both seek to destroy individual wealth. Yes it is. You just so happened to include Republicans in your statement this time around. >the GOP has demonstrated it is more than willing to take peoples' money, as well Yep. They just use it to fund things like war. The democrats are fucking evil, in comparison to that, right? "Well a little bit of socialism adds up and eventually becomes a major form of it, Chasteh" Maybe. That seems pretty debatable at this point. >It is actually the fault of some other group that has all the money and resources and shits on them. And instead we will just blame the government for taking all of our money and resources and giving it to other people! Thats so different! Libertarians don't blame anybody for their issues. *Choke* >The best way to get people behind you is to lead to the perception of some enemy that it out there holding them down. It is far easier to get someone to hate someone else than to like you. That makes sense, because you frequently use this as a defense of the free-market.

Hey, kallend, can I have your wingsuit? Spectre 135? Bring it. With my rig on I weigh 260 pounds. My slowest fall rate (outside of a track-dive, of course) has been 150 mph. When was the last time you went 150 during deployment? Also, I am under a Nav 260 as my only main. PDR 253 as reserve. I have never jumped and landed at an elevation lower than 5,000 feet. I'm totally ready for a 135! Especially landing at a 9,000 foot density altitude!