dorkitup

Harlan Crow also paid tuition for Thomas's grandnephew to go to expensive private schools.  Thomas is bought and paid for.  He needs to resign.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

Anyone else have one of these pamphlets (see pic)?  Copyright 1975 by Donald Beck (of DJ Associates, founder of PIA).  Interestingly, photo credit on the front provided by Strong.  Mine is in pristine shape and I was lucky enough to be gifted it about 12 years ago, so it sits next to my other parachuting books/pamphlets/etc.  Just curious if others have seen it.  Thanks!

Nick!  Glad to see you're still kickin' around.  Love your work!  Still have your 2005 history video in my archive!  classic gold!

On 9/29/2019 at 8:23 AM, RonD1120 said:

Not many have even considered the possibility of enlightenment much less pursued it.

I call complete BS on that.  What do you think millions of people study religious texts for?  Listen to religious leaders for? Again, your ego and your delusion that you're "special" clouds your outlook and judgement.  This has been apparent since your first post on this site.  News flash!  You're just as ordinary and insignificant as the rest of us (including me, of course).

Its an undeniable fact that you've traded one addiction for another.  Surely you know this and can admit it to yourself.  Is addiction to church/religion better than drugs/debauchery?  Sure.  But don't kid yourself.  Weakness is weakness and the ability to stand without a crutch isn't something everyone can do.  Own your weakness and insecurity.  You will be saved!

Jesus said love your enemy.  Do you REALLY love your enemy?  Have your posts on this site represented that?  Those fighters in foreign lands who oppose US soldiers?  Obama? Are you a REAL follower of the New Testament?  Because I (and I'm sure others) are not convinced by your posts.  Are you good with that if you die tomorrow?  Do you consider others' opinions?  Are you really after "enlightenment?" 

Love your posts and can't wait for the next rationalization you come up with! Haha! 

Obviously trade wars are "easy to win," as we were told.  That's why they've been going on for so long (and no end in sight).  Super easy!

In new developments, the big beneficiaries (in terms of job creation) on this side of the Atlantic and Pacific are...wait for it... Mexico and Canada.  

Not that I'm surprised...

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-trump-tariffs-are-creating-jobs-for-canadians

Having a trillion $ deficit is obviously good too, of course.  I mean, what could possibly be wrong with record deficits?  Thats how the US wins, right?  Good times...

Hooknswoop

I don't know if currently owned bump stocks will be grand-fathered in, but they should be (even if I don't see the point of them).

90 days from publication of the final rule to turn them in or destroy them. Otherwise, owners are in violation of the law (criminals).

For those interested in actual truth, link to letter of intent signed by Trump. Not Cohen, not another Trump company associate. Trump. Obviously Giuliani is now a confirmed enormous liar, just like the old trump lawyer he says can't be trusted because.....he's a liar. How many times have we heard "I have nothing to do with Russia."

Its also been reported the penthouse was to be given, free of charge, to Putin. This looks very bad.
Let the spin begin!!

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/12/18/attachment.1.pdf

In case you hadn't see today's article: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/18/658509261/trump-intervened-in-fbi-hq-project-to-protect-his-hotel-democrats-allege

Quote

"GSA press secretary Pamela Dixon said Cummings and the Democrats are putting the blame in the wrong place: The FBI made the decisions about the headquarters project, not the president.
"As previously testified by GSA and the FBI, the leadership team at the FBI made the decision to keep its headquarters at the current Pennsylvania Avenue location," Dixon said.

She continued: "A number of emails referenced in today's congressional letter are taken out of context and refer to the project's funding approach, not the location decision. Suggestions that those emails indicate presidential involvement in the location decision are inaccurate."

Remember, GSA hasn't been exactly nice to Trump.

In fact, according to the article, the Democrats that brought up the issue did so because their districts would have made money if the HQ was relocated there. I don't blame them. It sucks to lose potential money when an opportunity like this arises, but I'm still not convinced Trump did anything nefarious. It sounds more like they're mad from loss of potential income in their districts. You certainly haven't presented any evidence to the contrary. But I did like this gem:

Quote

If you own a hotel across from the FBI building you will do very, very well - people who visit the FBI (and many people do, from all over the country) tend to stay there.

Please provide a source for this subjective comment, and quantify "many" if you would (and "very, very well"). To me, it just doesn't seem like you know the area very well with that kind of statement.

I AM curious why they are focusing on FBI. Its strange considering a number of agencies in DC (with similar sized buildings) all looked at the option of moving to the suburbs but there's no mention of them in the press. The numbers just didn't make sense. As I said before, I think FBI made even less sense given DOJ (who they work for) is across the street.

SkyDekker

Quote

Anyone occupying that office is allowed (by law) to "insert" himself into these discussions. Just a fact.

The emoluments clause says different. Just a fact.

Ok. I'm willing to listen. How is deciding where a federal agency is located violating the aforementioned clause? And please remember, exploring relocation of DC agencies didn't start with the current president. Please provide something to support your position. I love to learn.

Now do I think the Trump hotel is violating the clause? I think there's a very good case for it. But (imho) that is a separate issue.

Fantastic read. Thanks!

SkyDekker

So let me get this straight. Trump owning real estate across the building and inserting himself into the negotiations and telling people to keep his interactions on this matter secret is a non-story.

Wives of FBI or DOJ staff being democrats or working for a company that once worked for a democrat is a clear indicator of bias and conflict of interest.

I don't think I said anything like that. But thanks for the jump to conclusions. Very entertaining! FBI is under DOJ, which is under the executive branch. Chief executive is the president. Anyone occupying that office is allowed (by law) to "insert" himself into these discussions. Just a fact.

On a side note, FBI is directly across the street from DOJ. To me, it makes sense to have them next to each other, operationally, seeing as how FBI needs to report to superiors at DOJ all the time. Yes, they do walk across the street for meetings (according to "some people I know").

Now is there more to the story involving shady real estate deals? I'm willing to admit, maybe. I haven't seen anything about that (yet), but sure, possible.

billvon

If it becomes a shopping center or a condo complex, fewer people will stay in your hotel.

Billvon, with all due respect, it doesn't sound like you're all that familiar with this part of DC. Whether it becomes something else or not will not have that much effect on the Trump hotel or prices there (my opinion, of course).

That's very much, almost exclusively, a tourist area and that's who is predominantly walking around that area most days and who is staying in those hotels. If someone were to build a hotel there, again, I don't think it would have much effect. All the hotel prices in the area didn't change when the Trump hotel opened. Why would they change when an additional one appeared? What makes you think Trump would want to build one there (if thats what you're insinuating)? I'm all for additional information I haven't heard yet. Please educate me.

I don't think anyone with a brain would open a condo complex, but again, I could be wrong. There are some apartments nearby that rich people can afford. But go a few blocks to the north and east and there would be way better deals, with similar access to important areas. I would think a hotel would make way more money (check out prices, seriously). I also think a shopping area might help hotel prices (although gallery place, with lots of shopping, is already just a few blocks away).

So please explain in more detail so I can understand. I don't want to pretend I know what anyone is thinking nor do I think I have all the answers or know everything. Thanks!

Um, not sure I get your point with this one. Please explain.

The FBI building is currently "across the street" from the Trump hotel and has been there for quite a while (since the 1970s when the hotel was a post office). Personally, I don't have a problem with its location and prefer it to be in DC (i.e., close to congress and the white house). Obviously there are reported issues re: age of the building, its capabilities in the modern world, etc. that need to be dealt with, but who cares about location?

Additionally, fyi, many Federal agencies in DC have been looking at moving locations for a number of years (before Trump was even a candidate). Either to the suburbs or other buildings (not owned by the govt) and paying rent. There are, of course, a number of questions that arise when doing that, such as security, evolving capabilities, employee commute times, etc. that must be taken into account when looking for a new location. To my knowledge, a number of agencies have decided against moving from their dated building after full assessments.

Again, personally, I don't think it makes sense for the govt not to own the real estate. Yes, you can pay another building rent, but eventually, you end up paying everything you sold the old building for. Is tearing down the old building and building a whole new one the answer? Maybe, maybe not. I think it depends on costs, both current and future.

I think this might be a non-story...

After all perspectives.

Cannot disagree with your comments.

No worries, thanks for the comment.
ETA: And I am well aware of your comments on this site and your desire to uphold your reputation on this site.

Some of us have to use anonymous names because we are fearful of repercussions in our real lives. Some of us work in places and have sensitive positions (maybe I do, and maybe I don't) and certain jobs that we can't take the chance of wackos on this website becoming aggressive.

Do me a favor and do some research on this site of some of the people in the early 2000s that don't post here any more because of crazy people and those posters getting fired. I've been here for a while.

All the best!

Is there an hypocrisy in the US? A lot of times you hear talk that certain factions within the US profess that the county is the most "moral" in the history of the world.

The US seems to me to generally believes in rituals of justice (rule of law), yet treat some citizens unjustly (look at all overturned convictions). The country claims to be moral, yet exploits resources, kills life and habitat of defenseless animals (excluding humans in this instance), corrupts the earth (habitat), air (pollution), and water (fish, coral, etc.) (regardless of whether you believe in AGW or not) to make a dollar (again, I'm talking about corruption as things naturally occurring in that environment). Is the human ego so big that it disregards the Creator of all these resources and establishes that business is more important than those landscapes and resources created by the Creator? What is moral here? What is important to you?

Do you like the water in the stream to be uncontaminated, and thus the fish? Do you like the deer in the wood to be safe for consumption? Do you like the fish in the sea to not have hepatitis and carbon contamination? Or f*ck all that, businesses making money is more important?

Is the US a moral country? To what degree?
Is real truth important to you, regardless of political affiliation?

Thank you for your thoughts and dialogue.

OMG.
Honestly, its been over 8 years since I've ordered a new PC for a skydiving main. Normally, there's not a lot of reason to get a new one. As a rigger, I normally just replace old kill lines. So why did the price jump exponentially? A PC costs $200 now? Really? You feel good about that manufacturers? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Enjoy fuckin people over. I guess a sucker will pay no matter what...

Where did my favorite option (with no work) Jim Cazer go? He made such an amazing PC at such a reasonable cost. Time to sew my own I guess. Have fun out there!! And enjoy getting fucked over. Happens to the best of yuppies. Hahahahahaha!

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486
Remember when Trump said everyone will be taken care of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6inQmf96SYQ
Hahahahaha! Can't wait for all those republicans who railed on Obama for basically saying the same thing. What??? Crickets.....

On the plus side, it will reduce the deficit by $337 billion over 10 years, which is basically a drop in the bucket. I can't believe people think republicans are fiscally conservative. Not since well before Reagan my friend. I sure wish someone would be. I would vote for them in a heartbeat. But I haven't seen any run in my district for a long, long time. So might as well vote on social issues. At least that way as the ship sinks, people think they're all equal.

Another plus of TrumpCare is for people who are rich as shit: You're getting a tax break! Wooooo! $197,000 for the top 0.1% according to John Oilver (via CNN). Did Trump just give himself a tax break? You decide! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifi9M7DRazI&t=0s
Just what those billionaires needed to keep themselves afloat. Whew! That was a close one!

So SICK of both parties lying straight to the face of the American people. I used to have some respect for Paul Ryan. Now he's become apPAULling. Sorry that people fall for this every election... Even more sorry for people who will lose health coverage.

What a joke. Luckily for me, I wasn't born into poverty.

So Trump got rid of the stream protection rule, which apparently prohibited coal mining facilities from dumping waste into streams.

How does not polluting waterways save jobs?
How does this affect sportsmen and fishermen downstream that fish and hunt on these waterways? Or eat meat from animals that drank from these waterways? Or for people whose water comes from these waterways?

photognat

Nice to see the shout about Yaru's bridle pocket.

Sweet. When did he come out with it? I know morpheus offered it 13-15 years ago. I had always thought it was a Rob Jones creation. Learn something new every day...

Quote

Last year Obama passed 81,611 pages of new rules saying what we can and can’t do.

False.

I think you should do a little research into the Federal Register and its purpose. You also may want to do a little research into how federal agencies actually work.

Let me ask you a question: Of all these "new rules" that were published, which ones did you participate in? If you didn't participate, why not? The reason rules are published in the Federal Register is to notify the public and to solicit public comment. These Agencies want your input and ask for it before any rule becomes law. Are you getting involved? If not, why not? Anyone can. There are a large number of people that do get involved. One person can make a difference. I've seen it. Stop whining and get involved.

In my opinion, the main point of the article you linked is in the last sentence:

Quote

“If Congress isn’t willing to force Obama to explain why unelected should make laws, it must be because the Republican Congress isn’t willing to end over-delegation."

Obviously (if you have any clue) there's nothing for Obama (or any other previous POTUS) to explain. Congress delegated authority to all of these agencies to make laws. Additionally, in my opinion, the congress absolutely does not want to end so-called (according to the interviewee) "over-delegation." Especially republicans (edit: in fairness, democrats do the same thing with a R president, just target different agencies, though I do think its less in that scenario). Then they wouldn't have a boogey-man to blame (EPA is a favorite) when business or their constituents get mad about some rule from some agency. The article should be seen for exactly what it is: politicking.

On a side note - I'm continuously amazed at the number of people I talk to in the US who are citizens and have no clue on how their govt works. (Honestly, immigrants who have become citizens are better informed.) If you don't know how this particular part of govt works (executive agencies), call up one of these agencies and ask them to explain the process. Really. Do it. In my experience, they are more than happy to explain and are happy that people are showing an interest and want to get involved. The vast majority are genuinely interested in making the US what the people want.

Or don't. Whatever. I guess its also fun to just whine...

Hello All,
So the other month I was visiting a DZ that flies a super otter. At this dz, the pilot refused to extend/put down the flaps on jump run. I know there were several requests from jumpers to put the flaps down for jump run, but the pilot still refused. I didn't talk to the pilot myself or ask why he refused, as many people said he was really moody/grumpy and not to bother him. Obviously, with the increased air speed, climbing out was a little more challenging than usual for me when I jumped, but not that big a deal.

I've been jumping for 10+ years and have never had a jump pilot NOT put the flaps down on jump run. I'm wondering if this is a common practice and what the safety issues are -- for and against putting flaps down. As a jumper, my concern would be increased likelihood of a tail strike. I have talked to a few other pilots since then (who I consider skilled) and they all put the flaps down and have said its no problem, so I'm just not sure what the issue was.

Thoughts?

I think travelling freeflyers from California going to big-ways should now get t-shirts that say "Cali-prick" on the front. We need to know who you are.

Edit: Or even better, the organizers of the new Texas state record should get everyone on the new record a Cali-pricks shirt.

Yeah. Go in and start in a regular belly position at belly speed, start the motion, and then slowly start tucking your head and dropping your knees.

Also, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ojQLorWZY

Quote

Then why does it feel like you've been here before and fully understand how things operate?

Oh my god. You're a super-sleuth. Where can I get one of your decoder rings?

I guess I somehow missed the point or question. Oops! Its kind of hard to follow things in here.

From my experience visiting a number of federal buildings (and bases) over the last 15 years in DC, most security operations are done by outside security contractors (which is a whole 'nother discussion on "cost savings"). They have guns and do a decent job.

At this particular base there is a museum that allows regular civilian entrance. That's publicly available information. Also available publicly, the rest of the base has two levels of security.

At this point, I don't even know what we're arguing about. But I hear that's pretty common in SC. My friends warned me about this... Ha!