Royreader8812

Either way, it is the message of the quote that is relevant. Someone coined it.

Bill, your Trump quotes serve to prove my assertions correct. Do those sound like words of a man that will let this continue unnoticed. I am not saying I think he should do anything, I am suggesting what I think he will do. He will not be dragged into the trap they're making. He will use strategists to work out a way to calm the situation and shut the media up. I think jailing a prominent figure for inciting violence would do the trick. There are plenty doing so. These people are pussies, everyone feels empowered because they feel a majority with them. That is how people with no integrity work. Chuck a couple of people in jail for inciting violence, throw the book at them. Most will shut up and Ivanka can sell her stuff again. Easy. Don't you think?

Lol, So you think Trump is going to either sit back.and let this get worse or? Inflammatory? You are trying to suggest the Democrats willfully released their slaves? What was the inflammatory part? Just trying to make sense out of the madness.

Meanwhile the left are in meltdown mode and the last time the Democrats were this pissed off, was when president Lincoln took their slaves away. And what was that saying that Winston Churchill said... Something along the lines of, "The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-facists" Stores will be removing Trump products not to distance themselves from Trump, but to protect themselves from Soros' goons in balaclavas. America is being torn apart by butthurt idiots and those in prominent positions acting as provocateurs, had better be careful. It is obvious Trump is being provoked into a negative reaction. The strategy to calm the situation is no doubt being concocted now, and idiots calling for violence will be made an example of. You just watch. After it all calms down, I am sure Ivanka will enjoy reasonable sales and the regular stores will stock her products and or her Father's again. I would imagine at least a couple of prominent figures inciting violence will be incarcerated to the extent of the law as an example. Who will it be? Take your pick.it seems.

Simple, Big parachute, more parasitic drag. And vice versa. Other actions are in play as well and I'm sure others will chime in with a differing position. Personally I like to do accuracy on a smaller wing with lazier turn. Because it is easy lose speed than gain it. Others like the extra shut down of a bigger canopy and a bigger turn... either way, you have to go 70 metres to win. There are many quite technical forces and actions at play in canopy piloting. I'm pretty sure nobody understands them all, let alone their correlations enough, to say what the absolute best way to do something is. That is why swoopers can tech talk for hours and come to different conclusions and all be right, or wrong. This is probably the most attractive thing about the discipline. Who knows what is 'correct'. One might have a better understanding of physics, but another might be more consistent at applying their less technical approach. At the end of the day the one that goes fastest, farthest or stands up in the box wins. Like the old saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Yes and no. As explained above, a smaller canopy flies different to a bigger canopy of the same wingloading. Twitchy and less forgiving. That said, a bigger canopy loaded the same as a smaller canopy of the same type will 'easily' fly further in nil or downwind conditions and will provide a better shut down. Smaller wings have an advantage in head winds. I say easily because Nick Batsh proved the old, 'bigger canopies of the same wingload go further' argument wrong, when he soared 20 metres past everyone on a Petra 57 in light consistent winds in comp. On another jump he came short of everyone else. So the smaller you go, the more precise you must be, to actually get the benefits. If competition swooping is your aim, then the best thing is to add the weight now to your max allowance. Or work up to that if you are tiny and need more than 8 kg. The OP is allowed over 12kg. 12kg is a lot to add in one go, so splitting it in half and doing a few with 6kg and add 6 more later is probably a good idea. Because you are going to have to do that at some stage anyway and it is easier and better to work all that out earlier. If swooping further after a freely jump is the aim, then get a smaller canopy. But only when you are actually ready. Not only in a safety sense, but in your ability to squeeze every bit out of your swoop consistently. Downsizing does make a longer swoop, as does a bigger turn, but skipping the details only limits your progress in the long run. Going back and doing a season of 90's after already being what I thought was proficient at 270's, was probably the best thing that could have happened to my progression. My 810's are better at the bottom end, because of those 90's. Even though I didn't realise that at the time. Leaning to milk everything out of your turn is key. You are going to do both anyway, so get the weights out of the way now,If you are in fact ready. VC75 were seldom used in comp, 79 seems to be the best size of those. After that, newer designs are needed to get more performance. Just an observation. Be safe and swoop far.

Just imagine if a guy said this in reference to a woman... Whether they be a rug muncher, or not.

? You actually said that. Sounding like a disgruntled feminist. One might say the the opposite to be true, especially when feminists have stooped to defending a Islam because they are so tolerant and just because they hate Trump. Makes a lot of sense.

Yeah how dare he, a gay guy with a black boyfriend having a different point of view to most.

You are actually comparing safety requirements in skydiving, to federal laws...?

? Well I didn't do my homework enough and posted some misleading ones that I came across on a website. . This is not to say many laws exist that do not need to. The order will no.doubt be retracted when the point comes that there are no more stupid laws to.repeal. probably before.

USC §§333, 352 & 21 CFR §332.30(b) make it a federal crime to sell anti-flatulent drugs without noting flatulence is "referred to as gas" USC §1011(f) & 36 CFR §261.4(b) make it a crime to say something so annoying to someone that it makes them hit you in a national forest. U.S.C. §207, §205(e) & 27 C.F.R. §4.39(a)(9) make it a federal crime to sell wine with a brand name including the word "zombie." USC §333 & 21 CFR §102.39 make it a crime to sell onion rings resembling normal onion rings, but made from diced onion, without saying so U.S.C. §8103(b)(4) makes it a federal crime to injure a government-owned lamp. USC §1865 & 36 CFR §7.96(b)(3) make it a federal crime to harass a golfer in any national park in Washington, DC. Who needs skydiving organisations when.you have federal laws; U.S.C. §46316(a) & 14 C.F.R. §105.7(a) make it a federal crime to skydive while drunk. Lol. There are many.many stupid laws. Get rid of them.

So you are saying.that all regulations passed, are worth while, cost effective and relevant. Repealing laws should be a full storytime job for someone. I'm sure we will get details as this evolved.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/30/trump-orders-two--one-repeal-all-new-regulations/97237870/ Great idea.

Well unless you were in transit at the time the order was implemented, or work with people that are deemed hostile to the USA, there would be no reason to do anything differently. The process might change slightly, but I very much doubt Australia will be affected much, if at all by this in the medium or long term. In the short term yes there are some inconvenient ramifications, but they will not have the same lasting effect on the Nations involved, as the examples I provided earlier. Which were what the last administration thought were good reactions to problems. A storm in a teacup.

But I guess 10 trillion $ deeper in the hole in the past 10 years, migrant crisis, more countries at war and millions dead, was a better way to go about it. Just so long as it doesn't inconvenience you personally, huh.

Hypocrisy eludes the left. From the centre is is embarrassing to watch.

You know why China and California are so positive about renewables energy... because they are choking with pollution. While I am a huge fan of renewables I strongly opposed carbon tax because carbon in itself is essential to life. Pollution tax would make more sense but hey, what do I know as a carbon based life form. Making bureaucrats rich doesn't save the environment, making water and air clean does. The shift to renewables has passed the point of return. EV's had a good start in the 90's but died of infant mortality from progressive laws. While California meaned well by bpassing legislation requiring a certain percentage of vehicles sold in the state to be emission free writhin a certain time frame... While the EV1 was still in development. In doing so, they inadvertently fucked the US EV industry prompting the vehicle companies to destroy the project. Why? Because they would have to lose money to reach this target. Idiots. Had they have just let nature take its course, Detroit may still be booming, the US EV market thriving... Who killed the electric car? California's legislative bureaucrats did. So carbon tax can go suck the big fat one, and China and California do whatever they do out of desperation, not mortality. Thanks to Elon Musk, his vision has prompted the industry once again and in turn has got the major players in on the action. Musk can't take all the credit through, Nissan and Toyota are also at the forefront of the technology. Along with the associated electronics companies. Fuck legislation, the market is well on its way to sorting this out on its own.

But you glazed over the bit where the countries were named by the Obama administration and placed into legislation by them... Quite convenient. I suppose you condemn this order by trump, but supported Obama illegally bombing the said countries? Amidst all this hysteria, we have billions of dollars of weapons going to kill people and that is ok... but inconvenienced travellers is abhorrent. Makes sense.

You might want to consider your sources. If you read the article I linked up a coupled posts, you will find 'the list' was conjured up by the previous administration, and the word Muslim or Islamic does not appear on the order anywhere. This whole thing is going t prove quite embarrassing to many when they come to realize this. But they will just move to the next meltdown.

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/ Who selected the Nations? hint... It wasn't trump, I knew there had to be a reason why they were the same countries Obama illegally bombed... But try telling the hysterical snowflakes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Obama bomb all 7 of those countries in conflict with the constitution he swore to uphold? A 90 day ban.gets more outrage than illegal military intervention... What is wrong here?

For every butthurt outspoken liberal on Facebook, there are 10 hard working people working 3 jobs to make ends meet and support the said liberals entitlements... I am enjoying watching the meltdown. Change at last. I would rather it was Bernie, but the status quo lost and that is the main thing. Once people tire of being told how to react, or simply work out the futile nature of acting that way, things will return to relative normality. In the meantime, enjoy the show.

We will see. The state department has been drained.

Lol, No that us not the same. It is safe to say that if Trump campaigned on raping people, he wouldn't have won. But he campaigned on promises, won and is keeping those promises amid stark opposition. The results will be interesting. I personally don't think he is being as strategic as he could be, but at least he is not giving hundreds of billions away to bankers, like the last chump did. Trump will have his financial crisis, because Obama did nothing to liquidate the toxic debt 8 years ago. What trump.does in the middle east and with the looming crisis... will be guys big test. Obama failed on both subjects, because he did what he was told to do. Trump is calling his own shots which is something I can respect. Whether I like the oucome or not.