yoink

I disagree with Bill on a couple, but we're largely on the same page. Prop 51 makes $9B to build and improve schools. YOINK -> No. There’s not enough specification of exactly how such a large amount of money would be spent. This should be subdivided into numerous smaller proposals. Prop 52 continues a mechanism that makes money for hospitals YOINK - > Yes. Prop 53 requires state infrastructure projects over $2B to be voter approved YOINK - > Absolutely not. Joe public shouldn’t have direct control over infrastructure projects. Prop 54 requires that before voting, bills be frozen and made public Seems simple, but those against it say it'll open it up for lobbyists. YOINK -> Yes. Prop 55 extends an income tax for high income earners Do you know what tax bracket you fall under? YOINK - > Yes. Prop 56 increases the tobacco tax by $2 This will also loop in the currently untaxed e-cigarettes. YOINK -> Yes. Prop 57 makes it easier for nonviolent offenders to get parole It's a thin line between violent and non-violent (and the Hamburglar straddles it) YOINK - >Uncertain, but probably No. I think the $8 to $10m saving could easier be found elsewhere. Prop 58 gives local control on how to teach English-learners 1.4 million students (1 in 5) aren't fluent in English. How should they learn English? YOINK - > Uncertain. I’m concerned it’d promote segregation. I need to think about this one some more. Prop 59 tells the state government what you think about Citizens United Pass or fail, this measure literally has no legal impact. YOINK - > Completely pointless. No. Prop 60 requires pornstars to wear condoms (during sex) Seems like a good idea, so why are many against it? YOINK - > No. This is a great example of putting unnecessary rules in place for the hell of it. Prop 61 might lower drug prices for state agencies This prop has the most campaign spending in CA history. YOINK -> No. But only because I want to see more research on it. I think I don’t understand it well enough. prop 62 & 66 either repeals or speeds up the death penalty If both pass, the one with the most votes determines the future of the death penalty. YOINK - > No and No prop 64 legalizes marijuana If this passes, guess how many plants you'd be allowed to grow at home. YOINK - > No. Heath and social costs don’t outweigh the tax benefits. Put more tax on gas if we need extra income. Prop 63 creates stricter laws around ammunition New license to buy ammo, instant background checks, and no online shipping. YOINK -> No. Such a half-arsed cop-out measure that I’m embarrassed by it. prop 67 & 65 bans plastic bags statewide and redirects the 10 cents YOINK -> No on both.

we don't. Again, another reason I don't trust their information. In theory the idea of a certain level of transparency is a noble one, but the execution will always be open to manipulation if it goes through a third party. (see my response to Rush explaining this concept in another thread...). The only way to do it would be to give every citizen full access to everyone's data.

Negative. As a concept I agree with what they're doing, but they have an agenda and that makes me suspicious. How do we know they're releasing all the information and not releasing only certain portions of it to serve their own ideals? Quis custodes custodiet, and all that.

Yup. The 'but your candidate did X, Y times worse than mine' response is a large part of the reason we're left with 2 entirely unlikable people who are going to be elected without many people really knowing what their policies are. It's far easier to talk about scandals and behavior to drum up viewership or incite emotion around a watercooler than it is to talk about education or voting reform, and we're all to blame... I want to say that more than 95% of posts about either Hillary or Trump in here will get a response of that type within 3 replies. It's really lazy.

And there's the evidence danger of the nonsense Trump has been spouting. Based upon NO evidence or facts, this woman was convinced to commit a felony because Trump can't control his mouth. It's deeply worrying that some people take what he says at face value and will act on that despite an absence of any, you know, evidence.

The damage is already done this year. People will vote for Trump and hopefully they'll lose. Then they'll scream about rigged elections for a few months until they get bored and go home. Or they'll do something terrible. When Trump loses the best thing the Republican party could do would be to make a statement straight after the election saying 'We fully stand behind the outcome of this election and repudiate any notions of rigging or falsifying the votes of this election and request that all patriotic Americans do the same. It does not benefit us as a country to disseminate lies that damages faith in our political system. While we are ashamed that we didn't better represent those people who believed in the Republican party, this election has highlighted the crisis that exists for us. The American people deserve better from yor chosen representatives and we promise to deliver on that."

I'm curious why you're even considering stowless or semistowless bags. I can't believe anyone would tell you that it would help with your packing problem? The process is the same for all bags - they just close differently. You've still got to get the canopy in the bag itself first... Like everyone else has said, your best bet is to save the money on the bag and just practice. Don't try and make quick loads - make sure you leave yourself enough time to pack slowly. Take the time to squeeze all the air out of the canopy and have a relax while you're doing it. After jumping is done for the day, offer your packer a couple of beers if he'll watch you pack a few times and offer some advice as you're doing it.

That video blows my mind every time I watch it and should be required watching for all parachutists - particularly speed-flyers.

It took a lot of clicking through links to get any information on WHY this is happening. Every story is full of the hardships faced by soldiers, but that isn't particularly useful in understanding what actually happened. It's just an emotional appeal. As far as I can see there was no oversight in assigning these bonuses due to the urgent need and recruiters took full advantage of that. (Did recruiters get bonuses for hitting certain targets?) If that's the case then I agree - the government needs to suck it up, return the refunded monies and if procedures did exist at the time that were being broken charge the people in charge for not abiding by them.

Is that just to stop a recitation of all the complaints that have gone before?

Welcome to world many here create for me. Funny how some dont like this thrown back at them isn't it! Of course it's not your fault... How could it be? It's everyone else who is wrong, stupid and forces you to say the things you do and think the way you think. You're the one blinding beacon of rational insight in an otherwise dark and unthinking forum. There's a guy in the news a lot at the moment who shares this same psychological trait - narcissistic personality disorder. You might have heard of him.

Brilliant!

It would seem as though a lot of professors might disagree with you: BS in Mech. Engr., Class of '71. How about you? Jerry Baumchen Well Jerry, That only proves that you can be trained. Then according to Hillary's emails, all she needs to do is train those to support her. I guess you proved that point. Yup. I'll take highly educated (proven to be able to make decisions based on all available research) over your particular brand of lunacy, any day. You do realize that's what education does, right? It teaches you HOW to research before making conclusions... it's not just an innate skill that people have - As you repeatedly prove. By the way, I think it's hilariously inconsistent that you purport to be anti-Trump AND anti-Clinton, but the vast majority of your posts prove otherwise.

I suspect there are magnets and then there are Magnets, and not all of them are created equal - I don't believe there's an industry standard that all bag manufacturers use, but am willing to be corrected on that. Not only that, the attractive power of magnets follows an inverse square law so if you double the distance between magnets the power quarters. It's not too hard to believe that different bags might have different thicknesses or densities of material between them which would result in differing attractive forces in bags compared between manufacturers. Again, I ask why a solution with so many variables is a good idea for anyone other than someone who is using a very twitchy canopy? The bag rocking as line stows release from rubber bands on something like a moderately loaded 150 is not the end of the world. In fact I doubt it's even noticeable. As you state, both types of bags require proper packing technique so there's really no saving there. In fact the only big save I can see if if you have arthritis in your fingers - Getting stows around the line bights can be a pain in the arse. (or fingers, more accurately)

As depressing as this is the actual figure is much lower. I believe the real figure is 21.97%...

In a very limited scenario, semi-stowless bags may have a place. (Personally I think fully stowless are a bad idea) If you're jumping ultra-high performance canopies then there's an argument to be made for reducing the shake of the bag as the lines deploy from rubber bands for deployment stability. For everyone else they're a cool-factor, or a convenience. Prove me wrong. Tell me why someone with a Spectre 150 is safer with a stowless bag than a traditional one.

The counter to that is that discourse is the path of the adult. Reasonable argument and all that... You actually typed a paragraph a couple of posts above that I can understand and empathize with, for example. Bullying people who don't fit with your particular beliefs until they physically move is the opposite to that - a profoundly juvenile behavior.

Christian values, ladies and gentlemen... 'love they neighbour' and all that. Unless he's a liberal. Or black person. Or muslim. Or Democrat. Or disagrees with you.

What would it take to open a criminal investigation of Trump at this point? Presumably all of these have passed their statute of limitations? It would be very very amusing for Trump to win the White House, only to be thrown in jail several months later.

Can't we just burn the excess corn as fuel? Corn-fired power stations are the future.

oh crap "yeah, we'll pick someone. We're GETTING AROUND TO IT" and then just put it off for year or two.... don't give them any ideas Jesus. That is an entirely terrifying thought... And if you think the corruption in the parties is bad now just imagine what it would be like as an open race decided solely by politicians.

'Creepy Joe Bieden groping young girls' is the title of the (entirely questionable) video... And now that I've said that no-one else will click it because it has nothing to do with your post. Congrats. You suckered me into clicking the link. What's your point?

I think it was trotted out specifically to highlight Trump's absolute lack of experience, and as a counterpoint to Trump's claims of being the best everything candidate ever. Healthiest ever despite being morbidly obese. Best 'at the military' ever despite never having served and being up against the Supreme Allied Commander in the European theatre of WW2. Maybe, but instantly saw it as to combat her 60% (and likewise Trump's) unfavorability rating. It's not enough that Trump is just bad, so Hillary is better. It's the image that, well, she's NOT really bad! She's just so good with ALLLLLL her qualifications. When both candidates are a giant steaming pile of lying, cretinious dogshit, having some experience and qualifications for the job is a difference maker.

How were you EVER a councilor??? '5200 of those are criminals shooting each other' - a defensible statement. You could make an argument that it's morally justifiable to care less about people who choose to be criminals shooting each other. I could go with that. '5200 of those are inner city street thug murders' - A very confusing statement. Are they criminal on criminal, or criminal on innocent, because it matters. (see above) '5200 of those are black on black...' Nope. You've lost ANY moral high ground your were trying to take. Do you admit to yourself how racist you are and how that colors your world-view?

I don't know. What would her policies be? This is the problem. People vote for personalities....