likearock
-
Content
2,275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by likearock
-
I have. I poop out of it. I think his rig is fine. A rig that comes off the back just a tad on the bottom allows more use of the shoulders for flying and don't really see how it presents a problem if the legstraps don't do the climb up the leg. There are dozens of people who have completely floating rigs. Let's be honest, how many of those were in any fatality reports in any recent years? Tandems don't count. You're rig is fine. Move on. Simple question: if you bought a custom fit container and it came off your back that way, would you feel the same way or would you maybe have a few words with the manufacturer?
-
If you saw other freefliers with that kind of air between them and the backpad, they probably had rigs that weren't custom fitted. It shouldn't be that way and it will affect your aerodynamic profile and ultimately your flight.
-
The coverage I saw of Obama and Hillary ditching the press was far from negative. It was more a fascination that came from not being able to get information about it. Everyone understood the reasons behind why any amount of press coverage would deflect from the personal nature of that meeting after so many months of animosity between the parties. If McCain is ditching the press for some arbitrary reason, that's another story, but it's incorrect to draw any equivalence between the two events.
-
Amen to that. But neither hold a candle to Negra Modelo.
-
What are these constitutional issues?
-
I already see the difference. Seems pretty basic to me, but it might be pretty complicated after too much tequila. Total bullshit. Some people in Congress are more active than others, just like in any other line of work. And that activity can be measured. Taking initiative to sponsor and draft bills is one commonly accepted measure. So is the ability to work across the aisle in order to get things done. The fact that the resulting legislation requires everyone to participate doesn't minimize the efforts of those who took the initiative to begin the process. In short, yes there's group effort but there's individual effort required as well to get legislation passed.
-
Perhaps not many, but there are some. For example, he co-sponsored the Lugar-Obama non-proliferation bill, which Bush signed into law. That showed leadership on Obama's part as well as the ability to reach across the aisle. Granted, he won't have as wide a resume as McCain given the short time he's been in Congress.
-
Sounds to me that Casas may also be in the same category as the Perris jet. Can anyone confirm one way or the other?
-
Back to High School Civics class for you... Things an individual US Senator can point to as legislative accomplishments include their actions and influence on committees, sponsoring bills, diplomatic work, particularly influential speeches in support or opposition to legislative debate, on and on... So the Congressman being interviewed by Matthews was supposed to list a bunch of intangibles? When you sponsor a bill and get your name on it, that's not an intangible. No one would have a problem with John McCain or Russ Feingold claiming the drafting of the campaign finance reform bill as part of their accomplishments.
-
What I was thinking. How is this not a criminal case? To say the least, it's assault.
-
I'm still trying to figure out why this is in the Incidents forum? I had a off heading opening on my wingsuit last yesterday, maybe I'll post something about it........ I think the mods should give guidance here. I expected both this thread and the one on horseshoes to be moved to Safety and Training. Incidents has traditionally been for skydiving accidents resulting in some kind of injury. If that's no longer the criterion, what is?
-
The difference you still aren't grasping is that scientists try to disprove their hypotheses. They subject them to testing designed specifically to find flaws. Religion and faith don't do that. Exactly. That's really all you have to say to disprove this bogus "parallel" between science and religion.
-
In the name of religion - a novel way to cheat people
likearock replied to quade's topic in Speakers Corner
Definitely a scam. Everyone knows that any half decent Rapture would be accompanied by a massive EMP, thereby knocking out all computers on a global scale. -
I think you failed to detect the sarcasm, since "bastion of commie-pinko-liberal-socialism" was too subtle for you. I think you don't see the irony of using a source you complained about being partisan once it agrees with you...as I said - more situational ethics, but nothing unusual. You are really misusing the term, situational ethics here. Situational ethics has to do with applying a given moral imperative differently in different situations. It has nothing to do with whether you blindly follow or blindly disagree with a certain media source. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that the sources you usually disagree with get it right once in a while.
-
Probably, but Obama could make it a lot closer by going after the Hispanic vote in a big way (which should be a priority item on his agenda). You should vote, you never know.
-
Right. This from the patron saint of thread hijacking. Whatever, you don't think you're judging us non-believers by constantly preaching to us and trying to get us to believe in your point of view? Enjoy your delusion.
-
Kind of hard to get rid of all that "sinful" judgment and still maintain a criminal justice system. Or do you make some kind of exception for that? If someone is guilty of something, they are guilty. The criminal justice system is of the world and it has been around for a very long time, that is after all what allowed Jesus to be crucified. What I am telling you is of the spirit and you cannot understand things of the spirit while peering through the lens of the world, becasue all you see is what is in front of you. Very Christian of you to avoid answering my question. Let's make it simple. Is the criminal justice system, which does exactly what you say is bad (judging people), acceptable to you or not?
-
Kind of hard to get rid of all that "sinful" judgment and still maintain a criminal justice system. Or do you make some kind of exception for that?
-
Absolutely. Let's keep this in perspective. I would never have even heard the Fox clip if it wasn't for this thread. The Hillary comment, on the other, was distributed world-wide. If we're going to mass call someone, it should be her (you know, that's not a bad idea).
-
If that's the case, and I'm inclined to agree that it is, what she should do is admit that she misspoke. Because the literal meaning of what she said is that she has never been proud of her country before.
-
I don't think it's ALL about race, but percentages like that are pretty curious to me... Almost 80% of Catholics voted for JFK in 1960. Would you assume that they did so out of prejudice against non-Catholics? There's a different dynamic when people of an ethnic, gender, or religious group want to vote for someone that would be a first for their group. Skydivers understand and celebrate the importance of firsts. I suggest that a lot of the skewed percentage of black vote towards Obama should be looked at in that light rather than as a form of prejudice.
-
I don't. I would never vote for someone only because he was white. Any way I look at it, it's someone putting race above all else. It's not a comparable situation because every president we've ever had has been white. In fact, every one has been a white man. A better comparison would be a woman who votes for Hillary simply because she's a woman and we've never had a woman before. Would you say that exhibits the same level of sexism as a man who would never vote for any woman simply because of her gender?
-
He seems to. That's your favorite candidate!! What's his name again? Would you think there's more black people voting for Obama because he's black than white people voting against him because he's black? Be honest. Here's my take FWIW. You're right, there are more black people voting for Obama because he's black than whites voting against him because he's black. It's definitely true on a percentage basis. I believe it's also true on an absolute basis as well. However, There are more black people voting for Obama because he's black than black people voting against Hillary or McCain because they're white. There are more white people voting against Obama because he's black than black people voting against Hillary or McCain because they're white. I think when you're talking about racism, there is a difference between voting for someone because of their color and voting against someone because of color.
-
So? Two months later and still no data? You'll have to do better than that if you want to convince us that relative wind somehow violates the rules of physics and blows at different orientations depending on your body position.
-
The sick thing is its not even the first time she brought it up: http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/hillarys_bizarre_rfk_comment.html Don't you just love those politicos who try to make hay off of other people's tragedies? It was bad enough before, you'd think she would catch a clue about how inappropriate it would be now.