penniless

Really? How about you posting a direct quote from the OP. OK. From post #1 in this thread: "Mark Drake, of the Republican party in Minnesota, said: "To compare the democratically elected leader of the United States of America to Hitler is an absolute moral outrage which trivialises the horrors of Nazi Germany." From that you thought we should discuss the 2000 election, including the relevance of the SCOTUS and the popular vote? Them's some might fine lures ya got thar. You asked for a direct quote, you got a direct quote. You are only fooling yourself.

Really? How about you posting a direct quote from the OP. OK. From post #1 in this thread: "Mark Drake, of the Republican party in Minnesota, said: "To compare the democratically elected leader of the United States of America to Hitler is an absolute moral outrage which trivialises the horrors of Nazi Germany."

Start a new thread and we'll see. How about we compare it to the elections of 1824, 1876 and 1888? I think this thread is about comparing Bush to Hitler, and the issue of election was raised in the OP . Were either Bush or Hitler running in 1824, 1876 or 1888 or are you just attempting a diversion?

And Colin Powell covered up the My Lai Massacre... and statements about tax cuts not leading to higher revenues prove that current federal tax revenues are not at all-time highs... and enforced confidentiality agreements equal the government silencing all of the press. If nothing else, your insights are unique. On March 5, 1933, the Nazis won 44 percent of the popular vote. The Nazis secured 288 seats in the parliament. Along with the 52 seats of the Nationalists their coalition had obtained a majority of 16 seats. The coalition that Hitler led won a majority in the parliament in a democratic election, QED. Hitler became Chanecellor before that election. reply] Want to enter an argument about the 2000 election and how Bush was appointed by the SCOTUS after losing the popular vote?

I don't think cocktail umbrellas would qualify under the "general welfare" part of the Constitution. A reasonable case can be made for an adequate supply of nurses.

He didn't actually write that. His answer was evasive.

Do you think it safe to allow swooping and standard patterns in the same place at the same time? Just curious. (It seems swoopers are divided on this, but I have yet to talk to any non-swooper who thinks it is safe.)

FWIW, I think it can be. A correctly executed high performance landing - with people stacking correctly and being disciplined - is perfectly safe in a designated landing pattern where others choose to do straight-in approaches. Other than educating jumpers on how (and when) to correctly execute a high-performance landing, the issue is congestion, which can be exasperated in a number of ways: 1. People spiraling through the stack (this has nothing to do with HP landings) 2. Freeflyers out 2nd making more people open on the same level (again, nothing to do with HP landings) 3. Plane size and group size (you don't tend to get canopy collisions at Cessna DZs!) 4. LZ size and usable area Not everyone executes a HP landing with the same rotation Sometimes everyone has to bail, whether the plan was straight in or HP How will you guarantee that correct execution? How will you guarantee the proper education? I believe that a couple of the swoopers involved in recent fatalities were considered highly skilled and experienced. What of the individual who thinks he is a skilled swooper, but really isn't. Edited to add - although it wasn't a Cessna DZ, I also believe that a recent collision at Eloy happened when only 2 or 3 people were in the air. And the LZ size has little to do with it if all are trying to land close to the packing tent.

Dang, that's just too bad. It's always nice to hear of scum getting taken out of the gene pool. Well, why don't you make up some more fiction then, and post it here.

They may rank higher, yet you find time to post in support of an obviously flawed conviction. . The jury found him GUILTY. I trust their judgment more than yours, since they sat through the trial and listened to all the evidence. Maybe the conviction will be overturned. Not your decision. Not my decision. Well I've heard a Jury member (a left wing journalist)ask "where was Bush & Cheney" w.r.t. the trial. Clearly there were issues with this jury. Again, shouldn't you be busy overturning Capital cases? Libby has exactly the same opportunity to challenge his conviction as any other convicted criminal. And he has better lawyers than most. You want him to get preferential treatment. How can you call that "justice" and keep a straight face? Justice is what we should be after. Clearly that is something you care nothing about ROFL. Since trial by jury is clearly something that you do not agree with, what is your suggestion for how the criminal justice system should operate? Imprisonment without trial, according to Bush's wishes? Hey, I understand, your hatred for bush alows you to over looke the fact that Fitzgerald should be in the same cell as the Duke prosocuter. But you don't care that the jury was biased and Fitzgerald knew day one who spoke Plames name, day one that Plame was not covert but then went ahead with an investigation that ultimaltey when after a prosocution that was based on different memories between Libby and Rusert on a phone call. Ya, it is very revealing sir What is revealing is that when you don't like the verdict of a jury in a trial, you want it overturned without going through the proper process. Special favors for your guy.

Hawking comes up with similar numbers. Maybe you're a better cosmologist than Drake, Sagan and Hawking.

In that case, in the interests of developing your language skills, I will point out to you that saying "I have not seen anyone refuse to accept that current abiogenesis theories may be incorrect" means exactly that. It does not mean "all abiogenesis theories are accepted as correct." In fact, it means almost exactly the opposite. Your original accusation is therefore as meaningless as ever. You are just encouraging the trolling.

You could always ignore the nameless troll. I suggest everyone ignore trolls. It would make this a more pleasant place.

My point is that compared to the pictures of torture, what we did was nothing more than sophomoric pranks. Strange that the human rights orginizations never uttered a peep over the Pearl or Burg videos. I guess they just consider it a way of life with those people. You are condoning unacceptable behavior just because our side did it.

Do you spend a lot of time listening to people in prisons?

No, it would just waste a huge amount of congessional time and taxpayers' money, like the GOP did with Clinton. Best way to deal with him is to render him incapable of doing further damage by the use of the pursestrings.

That has NOT been my experience. I have found RW people better at docking in tracking dives, and also track faster and flatter that the FFers I have tracked with.

I prefer option 0). Avoid the situation entirely by being an active canopy pilot who controls my pattern starting as soon as my canopy opens. By doing so, I can be reasonably sure that there won't be somebody setting up their 270 or doing S-turns in front of me while I'm on final. If there is so much traffic in the main landing area that I don't think I can do that, I'd choose option 0a). Adjust my pattern prior to entering my downwind leg so that I land out. This doesn't guarantee my safety - there are no guarantees - but it does reduce my risk. Landing out has its own risks. Alligators in Florida, for example. I don't think people should be put in the position of having to land off just because some selfish individual might make a 270 (or greater) in the pattern.

My 20 year old TV has just died. I plan to replace it with a flat screen model. It seems there are several different flat screen technologies out there. What are the pros and cons? Thanks in advance.

SURE

If you go to the 2nd page of the article, you find that they were protesting effectively in front of the stock exchange. They only got arrested once they started blocking traffic. So they weren't arrested for protesting, They were arrested for blocking the street 2 different things - one is fine and encouraged, the other is illegal This sounds like it was handled appropriately, before the jaywalkers caused an accident. Better than Kent State, for sure. I guess the right to drive trumps the First Amendment every time.

www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6489142,00.html

Aren't they the same people who claimed the Iranians don't have the technology to make gunsights and .50 caliber weapons, and then went on to discuss Iran's nuke program?

Well, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote it, it must be true.

I didn't say anyone was devalued, I said their deaths were devalued. "These are real deaths of real people that you devalue" By trying to equate actual reported murder rates with a survey of dubious methodology about unspecified crimes of unknown severity that may possibly have been prevented by a gun, and which may just be figments of the respondent's imagination, IMO devalues the deaths.