n23x

Do I really need to dig up accident reports in which jumpers with >1k jumps killed other jumpers due to a poor judgement/decisions? While not in the majority, accidents such as these don't exactly have a negligable rate of occurance. What I wrote said absolutely nothing party affiliation. I recognize, 100%, that JM and GWB are not the same person. It doesn't bother me in the least w/r/t what side of the aisle a candidate stands on. I DO recognize that Mccain's senate voting record bears unpleasant similarities to the current administration's behavior. I'll vote for the guy more in line with me. How about this: I'm not picking the TM who's so old that he forgets that he's on the DZ half the time, can't do anything except tell stories about when he jumped torn up rounds for a nickel a jump, and is so stiff he can barely get in the plane. Experience does not equal good judgement, Ron. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I'm going to disagree. I'll still pick the guy demonstrating what I perceive to be better judgement, than the guy with more experience. I would prefer to try the guy who will more objectively approach each new situation, rather than say, "this is the play in the playbook we've always used, lets do it again!". I heard BO is going to cruise in on a chariot pulled by 6 horses, in a toga with gold leaves! Mccain, in his current much, much, much older days is less cocky than he was in his younger, much, much older maverick days. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Hey, I sweat a lot! .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

1st, What's up Ron, welcome back! I disagree with your experience/skydiving analogy. Some of us might look at it more like this: Which jumper would you prefer to have on your DZ: A.) Younger, aware jumper, 25 jumps, head on a swivel, trying to learn as much as possible, and making the right, safe decisions. B.) Older guy, cocky, who'll tell you about his thousands of jumps, who has a tendancy to hum it low, and toggle whip in the student landing area. B's 'experience' is WAY better than A's. His demonstrated judgement, however, is substantially worse. B's got a TON of experience though, so we'll just brush it off when he tells AFF students to spend a little extra time fighting a horseshoe, or PC in tow, etc. I personally look forward to trying the guy who seems to have good judgement, and seems smart enough to not only gain the experience quickly, but apply it in an educated mannor. GWB is absolutely not running again. Thank jeebus! However, JM has been demonstrating a very similar track record to GWB. I'd like something different, please. I have local issues with JM as well. He has demonstrated a lack of understanding w/r/t the internet, net neutrality, and privacy issues (internet + telecom). Do I have concerns with BO? Absolutely, but the amount of dissatisfaction I have for this current admin completely repels me from anyone bearing the slightest resemblance (as I think it does for many Americans). .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

So... the youtube video was supposed to demonstrate what? His opposition has done exactly as he said. We have regular posters who routinely bring up all 3 things! I agree with lawrocket. Obama, in my opinion, has worked exceptionally hard to not say, "vote for me because x, y, z... and cause I'm black!" Rebuttal of your youtube video in picture form. edited to add: and yes, I recognize that is fake .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Nobody said anything about revving the firebird in the garage while blasting freebird and drinking a couple a' (30) beers. Do you think these things affect your mileage? So... Is Obama right, or is he right? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

You're right, compromise and dumb it down the the lowest common denominator. Wait... What was the thread title again? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Would you respect an employers decision to reject her as an employee if they decided they did want to perform elective abortions at their place of business, and wanted 'similarly minded people' working there? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

That's what the girlies say. I wonder what the boys say about that closet homosexual, auburnguy? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I can respect that decision to disclose all information, while refusing to provide a specific service. What is your opinion with the following: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577426/Female-Muslim-medics-'disobey-hygiene-rules'.html To what extent can we 'not discriminate' against a person in a very specific professional role? In the case you present with pharmacies refusing to provide birth control, I am assuming that birth control represents a relatively small amount (minority) of total business. Is it ok to discriminate against the doctors above because their choice affects a majority of their business? Or is it solely a matter of denial of service, vs. refusing to adhere to required procedure? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

If I have to explain it to you, you won't understand. If you're incapable of elaborating on your stance, perhaps you shouldn't have made the comment to begin with. Now, care to elaborate? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Add uncultured to that too. "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

care to elaborate? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

1.) I am not Kallend, whom you seem to be replying to. I'd figure a 'smart college kid' would be able to figure that out. 2.) This 'flaming liberal hippy' crap is retarded. Believe it or not, one could go to a 'liberal' college, and not entertain 'liberal' thoughts. Now, lets apply some of your brilliant logic: and You go to San Fran + San Fran is the 'gay capitol of the world' = Auburnguy is gay?! Now that's logic that ANY retard can use. Keep up the noble work. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

The aroma of dirty socks, what a pleasure. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Are Americans 'entitled' to cheap gas? Even if their infrastructure is based around cheap, individual transportation? The answer is no. The sooner people are forced to see that gas is dying as a viable energy source, and work faster to develop transitioning technologies, the better. "It hurts"? Suck it up. Minimize your driving time, use human power/mass transit/etc. To those that say "I can't", I say, "you won't". You banked on cheap oil forever, you lost, and now you have a harder transition than the rest of us. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Perhaps he offers a course discussing a variety of janitorial methods? Or nose picking? Perhaps a course on flossing all 3 teeth in his mouth? The possibilities, while not endless, could easily total 2 (or maybe even 3) more impressive 'skills'. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Here you go again with this "clear world winner" bullshit. And it is exactly that. Bullshit. Rather than acting like we can muscle our way out of it (which we can't), perhaps we should demonstrate a little humility, grasp for an ounce of respect, and focus our resources on (our own) local affairs. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

The fatties in WALL-E are a result of their greediness, not the cause. You'd think a bunch of lazy fatasses could figure that out. It's not like they're spending their time outside or doing anything active. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

49 seconds in. Trust the Law. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/ .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Get off my goddamn lawn! What does this say about your hiring process and ability to select competent employees. Maybe you're just bad at it. PSA: You should only drive your car in the 6-8am timeslot. That's your time to drive to the diner for the senior breakfast. Any other time, and you're just a threat to the people that should actually be driving. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Your opinion does not correlate with the statistics. Of all the deaths in auto accidents, those without seatbelts are ejected only 29% of the time, while those that wear seatbelts are ejected less than 1% of the time. Of all the people that are ejected, 75% died. Source, NHSTA. I should have corrected my original statement to say, "... are probably ejected straight out of the vehicle, instead of into passengers/drivers of the car involved in the accident, or a 3rd party car". Outside of someone getting cleaned off the road with a sponge, (which i recognize represents a significant public cost) I am still skeptical about the portrayed 'risk' to other drivers/passengers. I recognize the skydiving seatbelt analogy, and recognize that unrestrained bodies become meat missles. I dispute the fact that not wearing seatbelts represents a significant risk to people outside of the vehicle. Like I said in a previous post, I'd limit the choice of seatbelts or not to the people within the vehicle. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

W/r/t kids vs. adults, I have somewhat of a difference of opinion there. Kids (up to a point) do not have the background or comprehension to make an informed choice. Therefor, a law regarding kids belt/safety seat useage might be appropriate. When you can vote, by cigarettes, or sign up to go get shot at, you're probably old enough to decide whether or not you want to wear your seatbelt. I would present the opinion that a majority of people not buckled in are probably ejected straight out of the vehicle. Children are typically seated beside/behind the adults. It seems reasonable to me that an adult could make the choice to not be buckled in, while buckling their child in, and not have a significant liklihood of hitting their kid in a terrible accident. So to answer your question, I would say that the adult likely doesn't endanger the kid's life by not buckling in. @ Casurf: My question would be, "what percentage of a time does solely an ejected body block traffic, vs traffic blocked by general crash debris. FWIW, I think the government should absolutely RECOMMEND seat belts and other passive/active safety devices. I simply believe it should be up to the end user to implement or not. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I recognize that. I still think it should be up to the group of people in that vehicle. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC