yoink

But the majority of Trump supporters don't see that as a bad thing, and you'll never convince them otherwise.

hahahahhhaaahahaha Not in any way that matters.

I'm not convinced by this advice. A Dropzone will point out hazardous landing areas - lakes, shooting ranges, freeways etc, and tell you 'DON'T LAND THERE' but shouldn't ever bring the disposition of the land owner into the discussion unless they pose a direct hazard themselves. Once you have that information picking where you're going to land is up to you based on exactly where you are in the sky. Imagine these situations: By landing out you're already putting yourself in a more dangerous situation than normal. If at the back of your mind you've got a little voice saying 'I CAN land in this field but the owner is going to be cross... so I'll just make it over that barn to the one where the owner is a friend of the DZ.' then you're much more likely to make a bad decision. You have a mal and get your reserve out low. If a low experience jumper has been told that there are preferred outs then they may make a low turn or fly over hazards just to try and reach one of those. Once you decide that you're landing out your single priority is landing safely. Anything that happens after that you can deal with.

I agree, which is why I said it was a horrible solution. On reflection I think I'd prefer a covocation of judges from around the country to select the supreme court justices. If it was run the same way as selecting the Pope (closed door anonymous voting) it should at least limit the ability of politicians to influence votes. "Of COURSE I voted the way you paid me to my Politician. Just bad luck that your guy wasn't selected I guess... "

The Supreme Court were originally lifetime appointments (I think) to ensure that the justices didn’t need to get embroiled in partisan politics - They could be impartial without fear in their interpretation of the constitution. Does ANYONE think that this is true now? Anyone? I’m not interested in when it started happening, or who did what first. The reality is that the Supreme Court of the land is influenced by politics AGAINST the original intent. If that’s going to be the case going forward then there need to be controls placed on the justices just as there is for the president. Term limits and public voting... (Honestly I think this is a horrible solution but I’m not sure asking candidates ‘are you impartial?’ is a better one. This is one of those areas that is so complex and has so many ramifications that I’d much prefer the decision to be made by experts rather than Joe-down-the-pub, but what do you do when you can’t trust the experts?) There is very little more important than how the law is interpreted. I’ve said for a long time that I’d vote for any candidate regardless of party if they ran on dissolving the electoral college. I’m starting to think this issue is that important as well.

Like it or not that IS the society we live in. It's not desperation (although you can choose to see it like that), it's just a shitty tactic like diving in a soccer match. Voting for whoever you want isn't going to change that and it's only going to get worse I suspect. 40 or 50 years from now the attack adverts will be full of posts from ancient facebook groups, random comments made in Twitch TV streams and on forums exactly like this. It's a genuine concern of mine. Everyone has done something stupid when they were young and drunk. EVERYONE. That's going to be fair game in the future, even if it isn't as serious as sexual assault. I've thought about this for some time and don't see any particularly easy solution for it.

Demonstrable lies by a Supreme Court nominee are a deal breaker but there’re not worth mentioning if they’re by the president? Way to have a spine there,Flake.

About as well as a melon What sort of melon? One that bounces about 5 feet at terminal.

*** In either case, the 'noise' level has declined both noticeably and very pleasantly. . Excellent.

How the hell do you get banned from General skydiving and S&T, is the bigger question? If you're even remotely talking about skydiving you're generally good in there.

You need to be a little clearer what you're looking for. Is there a way for a civilian to just make a big freefall jump as their first jump? No. Not that I'm aware of. There are good reasons for that. Can you jump out of an aircraft on your own as part of a course that teaches you to skydive? Absolutely - it's called static line, BUT you're not going into freefall as such. Your parachute will be pulled automatically by a line that connects to the aircraft. Look at it this way: Tandem: An instructor is there to help you through freefall and canopy flight. AFF: Instructors will help you through freefall, but you're on your own under canopy. Static line: There's no freefall but you exit the plane on your own and under canopy.

As an fanatical, xenophobic racist I don’t give a fuck what you really think. And no. It’s not a personal attack that you get to feel all butt-hurt and persecuted about. Those are terms associated DIRECTLY with your posts.

The irony is that I’m pretty sure I remember an episode from my childhood of Gordon in blackface after hauling coal... Glad to see the NRA are spending their members cash wisely.

How do people describe Rushmc’s ability to parse facts and the idea of impartial reporting?

To be fair, he's technically right. 3000 people did NOT die in the hurricanes. Only about 60 or 70 did. The other 2900-odd died as a result of the lack of healthcare, fresh water and electricity in the aftermath. I'm surprised he didn't use his 'well it would have happened anyway' tariff excuse for that bit.

The problem is that most of the public have shock-fatigue. My ability to be shocked just isn't what it was. That's a real worry.

Ron, nobody here 'hates' America. In fact, that's a phrase that seems typically to only be used by extremely right-wing conservatives who are afraid of any opinions that don't match their own. Saying that people hate an entire country isn't only ignorant (how you profess to know the motivations of people you've never met is pretty arrogant, if you ask me), but it's also lazy because you're grouping an entire people by a single assumed emotion. The truth is that most people don't hate an entire country because of the actions or current stance of their government. The use of the word 'hate' is a transparent and deliberate hyperbole designed to inflame non-existent fears in others in order to rally them to your side. Secondly, you probably need to get over yourself with how you think of the US - America isn't so amazing that people from any other country are continually envious of you, particularly in the current political climate. Like any country there are good bits and bad bits. Again you seem incapable of drawing any spectrum of distinctions other than 'great' or bad', 'us' or 'them', 'liberal' (used as a pejorative) and 'conservative' etc. Try opening your eyes just a little to the subtleties of the world.

I've never seen that setting in 15 years on here, or if I did I had no idea what it does. I've been living with the default tiny window all this time! You're a genius! That fixes my problem nicely. Thanks!

Don't worry, typically that lasts for about another 100-ish jumps.

Your proof of that? Or if we’re into the realm of stating opinion as fact then it’s obviously Donald Trump himself who wrote it. He’s got split-brain personality and it is actually his own right-brain personality hiding these documents and writing the Op-Ed piece.

I've got to have SOME faith. Just, you know, not much.

I take it extremely seriously which is why I was horrified when the people elected a selfish, narcissistic child to the position. I still am. However, that doesn't change the legality of the situation and those laws are something we all have to abide by, whether we like it or not. To do otherwise is to invite anarchy. I don't believe the contract of working at the white house has an 'obey all orders given by the president unless you disagree with them, in that case feel free to stymie it however you can' clause... We, the people, have a responsibility to elect officials who we believe will do the best job they can. If we later decide we don't like the job our elected official is doing there are legal channels to remove them - as you pointed out, the 25th is one of them in the case of the President. If we don't take that responsibility seriously and elect a disaster then I believe we should live with the consequences. What is illegal and reprehensible is to take matters into your own hands unless the law is clearly being broken. It's fine to feel like your position is untenable as a staffer because you disagree with the policies being taken. The solution is to quit, not sabotage the system. I didn't elect these people who are now unilaterally and secretly defining policy by deciding what our president gets to see and what he doesn't. You didn't either. I not sure you take what they're doing seriously enough. I reiterate, I think Trump is an awful, awful president, but the reality is that any damage he's causing is temporary. International relations can be fixed. Edicts can be unwritten. I choose to believe that any real insanity (let's nuke the middle east!) would be met by the 25th. But the country needs a wake up call that voting is a serious business and that to elect a clown is to have your country turned into a circus... As someone who posts here you're already more involved in politics than 90% of Americans - it's going to take a serious event to wake those people up to their responsibility, otherwise we'll just run into the same problem a few presidents down the road.

Once more you prove that any thought more complex than a soundbite is completely beyond you. It doesn't matter if he's doing great. It doesn't matter if he's doing terribly... Both of those are subjective opinions and have no relevance on whether it is the in the purview of white house personnel to deliberately sabotage the President of the United States if they don't agree with him / her.

I still don't like it. Not one bit. The American public and the electoral system of the country put the Trump in the driving seat and they should bear the consequences of that. Successes and failures should be borne on the president's shoulders, not interfered with by people who's job it is to advise him then follow direction, regardless of if they agree with it or not. If they can't do that then they should quit. All of them should be fired for this type of behavior IMO, unless WW3 is literally on the line. Sabotaging your boss in a private company would be INSTANT dismissal. Mitigating damage is all very well, but what if they mitigate it far enough that we're stuck with Trump for another 4 years because traditional Republicans don't see the damage he's done? Anonymous resistance isn't useful to the country in general terms. No-one know's it's happening or what it's happening over. All of it is hearsay and 'confidential sources'. Think of it this way - what if your choice of president had won and white house staffers were deliberately sabotaging their policies? You'd be fucking furious, and rightly so.

Denying you called your boss a lying idiot in private isn’t the same as debunking it. What do you think? That the chief of staff is going to go ‘yeah, it’s all true. Can I have my pink slip now, please?’ when asked about it in public? You need to stop drinking the cool-aid, comrade.