ChasingBlueSky

Brave is a word. Not sure if its the one I would use. If you had a Cat4 Hurricane knocking on your front door and you lived that close to the water, wouldn't you move? Don't go to New Orleans! They are calling for the lake to over flow and thinking the entire city may be flooded by the weekend. Katee - I'd knock the parents out and toss them into the car and head north. You still have at least 24 hours to get away from the coast line. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Check this path out _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

I just realized, that Ivan and Jeanne may hook up somewhere over the east coast!! (that should start some rumors). Seriously, how much of a mess will that cause if both storms are over the east dumping all that rain. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Hey! I own that on DVD! Great movie and now the new cartoons are following up on that story line. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

So you can understand bad intel in one area, but not another? That makes no sense at all. No, it isn't hindsight. How many wars have resulted in zero death or no distruction? Exactly, none. When you are going to war you KNOW people on both sides will die and with the errors our technical weapons still have, innocent people were going to die as well. One death is too many....one death from bad data or possible oil greed? Well, thats about a low as you can go for a country that preaches fair treatment for all humans. Yes, it is well known that SH used WMD in the 80s and launched quite a few Scuds at us in 91. However, last I heard there was no solid proof since the first Gulf War. If you are going to war, you should have very current data. But again, that is just me. Irrelevant. Powell went on tv and said they knew EXACTLY where they were at and that he had TONS. So, even if he had sold off or lost some, I'm thinking there would still be a few tons around. The history books show us that he used WMDs in the past (ie, several decades ago). I don't think that was up for argument. I don't know, where are they? Let's ask Powell: "We know exactly where they are." Hmmmm...maybe he should share that info to shut up everyone. Well, since we have the entire country now and we know EXACTLY where they are at, lets see that proof now. We were talking about WMD, not Kerry. Never once in this have i said anything about Kerry. Stick to the topic. So, what he did in the 80s is reason to invade him over 20 years later? Wow, guess we move a bit slow. Maybe we should look at all the other current world leaders that pissed us off recently and find crimes they did 20 years ago and go after them as well. So, at this time table we should be invading North Korea in about 2024? But we were told they knew exactly where they were. No, I meant Kay. Then there was Blix as well. Again, I don't support Kerry. I just don't support Bush. I am not a democrat nor republican. I just want the truth, no politics, no spin. The GW administration pushed hard for this war and gave us one hell of a strong line that they knew they had WMD. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Fuzzy intel on special ops, etc...I can understand. However this is the data that was used to start an unprovoked war. Personally, if I was about to send a thousand troops to their death and realize that countless innocent civilians would lose their life because of that decision.....I would make sure it wasn't fuzzy intel. But that's just me being logical. Which probably should have been done before Powell went public to the world with the info. This way when SH realized we knew what/where he had his stuff, we could watch him move it out. Last I heard, sensitve material has to go thru channels before it is released to the public...so they should have had that process in place already. Since this was TONS of material, that meant many lives could be at risk - that seems like a high priority matter that wouldn't get shuffled around by some clerks as they filed it. Also, this was the smoking gun the world wanted, another reason this should have been looked over even more since they should have known it would have been scrutinized if it was wrong and fingers would be pointed. Bush does that well enough on his own without my help. As a reminder, I am not on the left, nor does my voter registartion card say anything but "independant" so you can't group me in with those people. Bush lost my trust and belief that he was a competent leader. We need to know if the WMD were never there before the war. This way the sources can be traced and we can find out why it was fuzzy intel....or if it was just a lie from the Bush admin that wanted a war so they could get that seat on OPEC and have something to campaign about. I'm sure there are close to a thousand famillies out there that want to know if their children died for a lie or the truth. Congress voted on action in Iraq because they were promised by their president that the intel was true, strong and good which showed a clear threat to our interests. Bush is the one that pushed for war and to invade and he sold everyone on a bill of goods that wasn't that good. There were people, like Key, that claimed there was no reason to invade. Now, if we had gone to Baghdad in 91 you wouldn't hear me asking for an explanation at all. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

These storms are the only good thing about me not moving to Florida this year! BTW - I want to guess that this storm will turn North away from Florida before it hits land. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

The burden of proof is not on me. However, I can demand an answer. I'm not the one that went on TV and in front of the world claiming they had solid proof. They claimed they knew exactly where the WMD were. They claimed TONS of chemicals. They never claimed "we might know where they are at, and I heard from my neighbors next door neighbor's cousin that they have a TON of chemicals." Where did all of that go in six weeks? If we were planning a war I would think the DOD would have been watching where the enemy armaments were and if they were being readied. Now either they had piss-poor sources that gave them such strong, positve intel; they really screwed up in the pre-war times and blinked while someone moved a TON of chemical weapons...or they were never there in the first place and we knew that. I don't care who said what on either side. We were guaranteed they knew exactly where the weapons were. Show us proof. Hmmm...Maybe Bush is saving that proof for October. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

GW is winning in the area of murdering the English language...he has a huge lead in those polls. It is possible that the Kerry camp has seen what demographic Bush is winning over with this approach and now Kerry has flip-flopped into supporting poor pronunciation. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Still, Bush pulled the trigger. The burden of proof is upon him. The world wants to know why we went to war, and right now the reasons given were not true. Yes, the madman has been overthrown, but evicting a dictator wasn't the reason given to the world. Powell was very dramatic and held up that little fake vial and said there were "TONS" of this over there ready to be used and they had the operations to reproduce it over and over at a quick pace. We didn't need the proof in 91, he was someplace he wasn't supposed to be. But since we made the first move this time, our White House is therefore responsible for proving why their actions were correct. True, SH could have made life easier for himself if he behaved and went along with inspectors - but that was just his nationalistic pride that drowned out his rational thought. I'm not unhappy he isn't in control anymore - in the long run it may be better and safer for us because of that. However, you just can't take out every leader you don't like and doesn't work with you. If GW had made the same claims about NK, I don't think many in the world would doubt him. But the purden of proof would be upon him again if he was to send troops across the DMZ. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

There are women who have saved their own lives from rapists, muggers and murderers because they had a gun. They might take issue with your claim that there is "no need" for concealed carry. They are here to raise their children because of their guns, in some cases. Maybe you could poll the children about the "need" for their mother to have that lifesaving gun at that critical moment. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - You are repeating your arguments and I said I had heard this one. I believe there are other ways to solve these issues. But you would not like my way of doing things and I have no say in the matter anyhow - so who cares? _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

You have a short term memory. AOPA and a few others had to prevent certain new rules and laws from going into effect that would have shut down every unfenced, un guarded, no tower airport. There was talk of making every flight IFR because VFR flights were considered a threat to national security. Just like politics, I don't fit into a category when it comes to guns. I have my beliefs and like I said before I came to them from a combination of real world experiences and listening to the rhetoric on both sides. I don't support or claim to be a part of either side and the tactics both use are embarrising. BTW - take a look at Ireland. How many gun deaths do they have there a year? Same goes for the UK. There are models that work and have a proven track record. As far as my trust about my fellow humans? Spend some time at Juvi Hall counseling kids. I've mentioned it on here a bunch of times but talking to kids that shot a family member because "they pissed me off" does wonders for your spirit. And if I am not mistaken, wasn't there quite a few of expressway shootings in LA for a while? _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

That happens all the time. I don't need to consider it because local governments do, lawyers, etc. If you spend more time in this sport you will hear this option brought up. In fact, we were not sure if GA was going to fly again after 9/11. Like I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. All I need is some cowboy to start shooting cars on the tollway because the line for the manual booth is taking too long. BTW - my uncle would never have had a chance to pull his gun out or shoot because he was shot in the back by someone he had never met before in his entire life. You see reasons for it, I see reasons not for it. Lets agree to disagree because I have no desire to argue this point for dozen more posts. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Yet another fine example of how draconian gun control laws do nothing to effect crime, other than promote their rates. If I am not mistaken, gun deaths in this city have gone down while the ban was in effect. And if I am not mistaken, I've pointed out that I very much alive and have never needed to use a gun to defend myself. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

QuoteBut in the period between now and the Sprinkling, it is believed by some that it is best to remain unprepared to defend oneself against the guns and their users upon which the dust has not yet worked its magic. If my uncle had a gun he would still be dead. I live in Chicago - one of the murder capitals of the world and I have never needed a gun for self defense. Now tell me, who is it that I need a gun, let alone an assualt weapon, to defend myself from? _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

It isn't something that I think about often, to be honest. I wouldn't have a FOID if it was a huge painful memory. Yes, I realize that without the person the gun would still be sitting on a shelf somewhere. Nonetheless, a gun was used, bulletts were fired, someone pulled the trigger, people I knew died. Now in skydiving we explore all optioins on how to avoid a repeat of a death....and I do that with guns and part of that means removing the guns from the equation. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

To me, an invention that causes almost nothing but pain and destruction is not a virtue or whatever you want to call it. It's a fun toy, its an added bonus to have one, but it isn't something that is needed to get thru the day. I'm sure you have heard all the arguments on the interpretation of what our forefathers meant. I said I made a mistake by entering this discussion. I made my choices on my own. I didn't need any web links to tell me what to think, I've seen what guns really do on the street and that is where my opinion started. However, I did quite a few hour long shows in college that aired on public radio about the gun debate. I've interviewed both sides, I heard the arguments from both sides. I thought it out and made my choice. It was an informed decision. That choice isn't going to change. I've challenged my views many times and I have friends that push the issue with me. Why is it any worse for me to be that strong and stubborn about wanting the ban as opposed to those that are steadfast about needing to own an assault weapon. Don't forget, its more than a debate topic for me, its something that has hit close to home. No stats on either side is gonna sway me on that. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

I've made it a habit to stay out of the gun debates and I broke one of my own guidlines by posting in here today. My opinons on guns won't ever match up with yours. I've had a family member murdered by gunshot and I've lost a couple friends from High School from gunshot wounds as well. I also was stuck in the middle of a riot in Chicago and had to hide in a basement to avoid random gun shots. I have a too many friends that are cops that have been shot and a good friend was just shot at last week while he was on duty. I've also lost a few other people in my life due to guns like one of my teachers. I have friends that use these as reasons to keep a gun in their house, and I see it otherwise. They are both opinions, neither one is wrong. I understand why you are fighting for gun rights, and you probably believe in them as much as I do on freedom of speech and assembly. You can compare the two because they are rights given to us by our forefathers - but in the end they are apple and oranges to me. Like I said - I like guns for sport only, not hunting or anything else. I go to the range to shoot targets and accuracy. I'm not some fanatic like others on here and I wouldn't lose sleep if I never fired a gun again in my life. In fact, I would be happy to see all guns go away for good....but that isn't anything that will happen soon. I'm not happy to hear about the sunset on this ban, and I don't even bother to listen to the NRA rhetoric on why its a good thing. There isn't much that could ever change my opinon on that. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Been there, done that, got the tshirt. It's amazing when you stand on a stage in front of a few thousand people with a mic in your hand. And I've addressed groups in the size of hundreds quite a few times. From radio, to leading protests, to leading orientation at a college, etc....I've done more than my fair share of public speaking (not bad for a guy that has a slight fear of public speaking, huh?) Let me guess? Fire extinguishers don't kill people, people kill people? _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

history lesson: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=df8c8d0c1b7a3ede&seekm=3AF2E669.351B35B6%40net1plus.com#link10 _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

I think it was done by the same people that did Swoop 2. If you see the end of Swoop 1 they make jokes about it. The Swoop 2 cover was just part of the running joke about the hotdogs. I think there was one more woman/hotdog ad and then an add with a guy and hotdogs (maybe it was Sonic, I can't remember). It was debated on rec.skydiving a lot back then. Go search those archives. Honestly, I never understood the ad but realized what they were trying to do with a memoriable image. And I never understood the uproar about it either. The whole thing was blown out of proportion. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

If you've ever flown on a commercial airline I wouldn't at all doubt that there was a 12+ year old computer system keeping you alive at some point during the trip. When I worked for IBM I used to support the techs that fixed the AIX systems at the Aurora FAA center. I'm not sure if I am still under the NDA, but I can say that the systems being used there were over 10 years old and we created special fixes just for those machines so they could take them past Y2K without any worries. If you know anything about midwest aviation you would know just how huge the Aurora Center is, and how many flights it controls. They were running systems that IBM refused to support for ANYONE else. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

You are aware that we had intel besides our own backing up the claim that SH had weapons of mass destruction, correct? - Jim Then all of that intel must have come from the same, incorrect source. There were plenty of very public sources saying there were no weapons. The burden of proof is on GW and his crew and they haven't done anything to back up their claims. In fact everything that GW claimed about invading both Iraq and Afghan have fallen drastically short. Maybe they should have double checked those sources. Or then again, they did and just didn't care? _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

I remember the news at the time. Most of the world said SH was no longer a threat. He was being an asshole, but had no weapons program that could be considered a threat. Bush is the most powerful man in the world with access to just about any intel out there. You had the main inspector Key saying that there was no weapon programs, and he resigned in protest. That should have caused them to validate the intel the White House had on its desk. Now, we have intel saying North Korea is building weapons and a way to deploy them. It even came from our own sources this morning and a few other sources. Why are pulling back troops and not acting on that intel? Now. You would think that the solid intel with other sources backing it up is something you would act upon and the one that is being disputed openly in front of the world should be the one you hesitate on, right? Seems logical. Makes you wonder what the real motives were for invading a helpless country and letting a danger in the East get even worse? If you were to follow your logic Jimbo - we should be getting ready to invade NK today and having Powell in front of the world saying there is no doubt they are building nukes.... _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

He didn't. Anything else? Ah yea, I can link you back to the old argmuents had on this topic. When you are the most powerful man in the country you can get others to take the fall for you. It was "poor information" right? I've said it before - if you are going to wage war, you better be sure about your facts. There are now more people dead from this invasion than there were from 9/11. Many people going into the war that were in Iraq (Key?) even said there were no weapons, but he wasn't being helpful. Being a pain in the ass is grounds for war? Then there are a few people in this forum that may get invaded. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....