muff528

Lakeland Dreadnaughts Gators FIT Panthers (new team this season) UCF Knights No real favorite NFL team. I'm more a fan of various individual players throughout the NFL. But, if I have to choose one, I suppose I'll go with the Bucs. (where's my paper bag?)

cap

Hey! I appreciate James Bond, Jackie Chan, LOTR, The Pink Panther, Crocodile Dundee, The Man from Snowy River, Harry Potter, Dr. Strangelove, King Soloman's Mines (the Stewart Granger one), and the Day the Earth Stood Still. Probably some others, too.

I'm wondering what is keeping it from sliding downslope.

Mine is an acronym + my favorite trifecta numbers at the dog track: My Username For Forums + 5 2 8

I don't know, why? Hell, I don't know, either! ...you'll have to ask Frank Zappa. It's just not quite the same as a salami, is it? I'm afraid I can't help with an answer to that, either.

I don't know, why? Hell, I don't know, either! ...you'll have to ask Frank Zappa.

Vegetables dream of responding to you. Why is a vegetable something to hide?

go figure......

Found the book. It is Poynter's "Parachuting, the Skydiver's Handbook", 5th Edition. It has this same picture but the caption says the jumper survived. http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=8126 says fatal.

I can't find my copy of Poynter's book (Skydiving Handbook), but I think there may be a pic of a 182 with that kind of damage in there. Maybe not ...might have been in a different publication. IIRC, I've seen pictures of at least 2 different Cessnas with the side ripped out by a jumper.

Of course we are. Major distractions are needed right about now. "They" will take them wherever they can get them. (Oh! Look! ...a unicorn!)

"Accusations of plagiarism are perennial in politics. Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a senator, ended his 1988 run for the presidency after he was accused of taking words from a speech by the British Labour Party leader, Neil Kinnock, without attribution and of plagiarizing an article while he was in law school. And in 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign accused Barack Obama, then a senator, of using language in his speeches that echoed Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts." ~Jeremy W. Peters, NY Times, 30 Oct. 2013 It seems that "hold(ing) Paul to the same standard" (~jclalor, dropzone dot com, 31 Oct. 2013) as Biden or Obama would be to elevate him to Vice President ...or even President.

Great story! Thanks! One small correction, though... From the story: "Both Zeamer and Sarnovski were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for the mission, the only time in World War II that two men from one plane ever received America’s highest medal for valor in combat." These two guys from my father's bomb group (452nd BG), Lt. Donald J. Gott, pilot and 2nd Lt. William E. Metzger, Jr., co-pilot, from the same plane also received the MOH, albeit posthumously.

I've always liked this one.

How fast are they flying? Seriously. There is exactly ZERO way to know looking at that video how far away anything is and there is exactly ZERO way to know how fast anything is moving. This is the issue with a LOT of UFO videos. Until someone can identify them, I think they are UFOs by definition.

Everyone is a centrist. Everyone else is either a wingnut or a wackadoodle.

Goat cheese!!

Strike a match.

You are still trying to make it into something it was not. The Constitution did not see slaves as people. As revolting as we can look at that today (and as some did even back then). The Constitution was written as it was written. It has since been amended to correct the errors... As it should have. But even the Supreme Court in Dredd agreed with the Constitution at the time. And NONE of this changes the reason for the civil war. You can claim it was because of slavery, but that is just not true... The Civil War was about States rights issues. Slavery was the catalyst, but not the reason. The southern States wanted to run the States the way they wanted and for the Federal Government to stay out of the States issues. If someone tried slavery NOW, the 13th Amendment would make it a Federal issue, but the 13th did not exist till AFTER the war. I fail to see how this is a difficult concept. I can only assume that slavery is so evil to us that we just assume it was THE reason and not just the issue that was rallied around. Well, I was only commenting on the South Carolina quote and how, IMO, it doesn't square with the Constitution. If the slave-holding states had any cause to secede it should have been because they did not agree with founding principles of the Constitution ...not because the Union was violating their Constitutional "states rights". (IMO, of course). But, the Constitution doesn't "see" squat. It is only a set of rules agreed upon by the founders ...and it can be interpreted in any way that those in power at any given time decide. The Constitution, prior to the 13th, does not even use the word "slave". However, if you are referring to Art.IV, Sect.2, the Constitution does say "person". I think that is the same as "people", but only one. So, even if you insist that Art.IV, Sect.2 necessarily refers to slaves, you have to agree that the Constitution does "see" slaves as people. Actually, I do agree with you that the Confederate States seceded for economic reasons ...but the Union's moves to halt the spread of slavery was the overwhelming economic issue for the South. Their entire economy was grounded in slave labor. Also, the North did not go to war over the issue of slavery, but over the secession of the Southern states. The Emancipation Proclamation showed, in writing, the hypocrisy of the North with regard to slavery. I support "states rights" as spelled out in the Constitution. But, I don't believe that gives any State the "right" to violate the Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights of any person.

No. This one looks legit.

Never mind that citizens of the slave (and non-slave!) states, south and north, frequently violated the Constitutional rights of actual people for most of a century. (...and beyond). The Rights of the People are unalienable ...not the rights of the states.

No. Do it in the middle of the day when they're sleeping.

So you say that no illegals are in this country? No voter fraud, either! ...can't be proven.

I seriously doubt that any young child has the capacity to understand and then "reject" any form of religion. I do think that if a child is not indoctrinated in religion, it's never given a second thought by them. Yes, in Obama's case, it's probably more accurate to say that he successfully resisted attempts by the Islamic school and by the Catholic Church to indoctrinate him in each of their theologies, although they each had 2 years to try. But, I disagree with the statement, "I seriously doubt that any young child has the capacity to understand and then "reject" any form of religion". ..Depends on the level or intensity of indoctrination.