dorbie

Well if he wants to bankrupt the U.S. he need only wait until the social security deficit catches up with us all. He could retire now..... err... mission accomplished.

Where's the "Yes - I voted more times than I otherwise would have to counterract the opinions around here." option?

America's vote does not need to pass a global test. Self serving references to what other diminished nations with generations of questionable or failed policies think should not guide US decisions. Most of these nations envy most of what America has accomplished (which includes freeing their sorry asses). As an British expat living in the USA I can assure American readers that the vast majority of Brits and Europeans have not one clue about American politics, it takes a while to grock what's going on here. The issues in other countries break down far differently from the U.S. with many issues of conscience being off the table or at least much less polarizing when compared to economic issues and social spending. It does tend to lead to a more intelligent debate on economic issues but with a clear emphasis on the emotional side of social services and 'public sector' spending, picture if you will national debates on nurses pay levels set by the government! Compared to the U.S. many of the nations would be seen as profoundly socialist and they are informed by media organizations that are similarly tilted. It's no surprise that they dislike Bush, they were hysterical about Reagan and assumed he would start WWIII. There are real and more recent differences built on a bedrock of distrust for US republicans but mainly based on the differing perceptions of the threats now posed by asymmetric warfare produced by 9/11. If you have an opinion on those threats to America some European's view does not materially alter that threat. You should read the crap in the French newspapers and British tabloids for some insight, this is the main source of information for most of the opinions that seem to concern you so much. Despite all this opinion is not homogeneous in these countries and Bush has some support. Australia overwhelmingly supported the incumbent recently, but it's interesting to note that in Britain it is the *left* leaning party that is in power (in Britain that means real power with a sizeable majority), so despite the bluster there's no prospect for a lack of support in that country short of a coup inside the left wing party (which is a possibility) but it won't be a voters choice. As for 119 countries, well, there's considerably fewer countries in the world that can run their own affairs in my opinion let alone tell the US what to do which tells you all you need to know about this poll, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one, that doesn't mean I have to listen to it.

Not fraud but definitely something very wrong here: http://www.zombietime.com/ny_broome_st_polling_place_11-2-4/

FWIW I've started to take paragliding classes (busted knee put the kybosh on it) and I'm impressed by the complexity and depth of knowledge about the canopy. Uses of different line groups for different control configurations like "rabits ears" etc and all sorts of stuff that just isn't there and often has no place in skydiving. Even the attention to wind details when kiting isn't something you're generally aware of until you try this.

FWIW I realize I'm a 100 jump wonder, but this hold brakes to inflate endcells instead of pumping advice is straight from a canopy control course by a well respected touring instructor/test pilot who was coaching some very experience and highly qualified jumpers (and me

I've been instructed (and verified in practice on several openings) that you open end cell closure by reducing the speed of the canopy by applying the brakes and holding the brakes until the canopy slows sufficiently. This reduces the pressure on the closed cells caused by the flow of air over/against them and allows them to inflate (and changes the angle of attack). It works like a charm. I'm not saying that would have fixed your problem but an experienced canopy instructor / test pilot has pointed out to me that your method of pumping brakes for end cell closure is a common misconception although the slowing it causes will get you there in the end, holding brakes gets you there faster and more consistently. Pump to bring the slider down but hold to open end cells.

More from the horses mouth: http://www.allhiphop.com/editorial/?ID=218 This guy is a philosopher, you're not allowed to form opinions based merely on the things he says, and repeats and confirms he says and justifies with explanations of why he was right to say them. The article maligned him by accurately quoting him, and missed the context of err...... the context where he really said and meant those things, .

Cheney's voting record is not the issue here, although it is the issue that clouds your judgement on the issue. Of course his voting record would have been a valid campaign issue, but that's not what Kerry or Edwards chose to tackle. I've already explained what I think of the mother's comments. P.S. it comes down to you trying to deconstruct a private family relationship while inserting your pejudice that is in essence none of your damned business.

My advice would be to go and hang around the DZ, and do ground school again. Watching hundreds of jumps go without a hitch may help, but more significantly ground school will refocus you on the practical aspects of jumping and get away from the imaginary fears. Going through your drills & procedures, hanging in the harness and talking & thinking about your exit & dive flow may get you back to a place where you're ready to jump. Getting back to the realization that you have a plan and are prepared will help. I would also suggest that you try to trace your irrational fear back to the first time you felt it. I don't mean on your first jump or whatever, but what was the trigger on the ground, at what point did you first feel this queazy fear and what were you thinking about at the time. Locating this trigger may help. Maybe try and induce it by taking another look at your jumpsuit then ask yourself when, where & what were you thinking. When you get to that point see if there are any earlier experiences you are linking to jumping no matter how abstract. It may seem difficult to believe right now but your fear may not be related directly to jumping. For example did your jump suit remind you of a uniform? These are not questions to be answered glibly by the conscious mind, you need to be in the right state when you ask them. Either relaxed and going back over events or maybe when feeling the onset of fear and trying to relax.

Sounds more like an "it's none of your damned business" kind of remark. This illustrates the problem here, we have a woman who never asked for her sexuality to be discussed nationally and everything is cynically interpreted through a prism of supposed prejudice. How the hell do you know what relationship she has with her Mother? Pure speculation and colored by what you hope and imagine to be there. It's your demons speaking not Cheney's. Lynne Cheney saying "My daughter has never declared such a thing" is on the record, after her daughter HAD declared such a thing. It's called "denial". Is this like Dick Cherney saying he had never meet Edwards when the record showed he had met him several times? Is this like Bush denying that he'd said Osama bin Laden was not a priority when the record shows that he had said that? Why do I have "demons" for pointing out Bush/Cheney hypocrisy? Dude, that's your interpretation, you're seeing and supposing things that aren't there. It seems pretty obvious but then I'm observing you from the outside, not the inside. You take one remark that's open to interpretation, (I have offered mine) and spin it into the most conveniently damning portrayal of someone you loathe. You then assume it's some kind of objective truth as if this has nothing to do with the observer. Your assumptions on this are rooted in your beliefs, that's why it's your demons speaking. You just don't know what the Cheney family relationships are, they seem pretty supportive and protective of their daughter IMHO.

OK, OK,

Sounds more like an "it's none of your damned business" kind of remark. This illustrates the problem here, we have a woman who never asked for her sexuality to be discussed nationally and everything is cynically interpreted through a prism of supposed prejudice. How the hell do you know what relationship she has with her Mother? Pure speculation and colored by what you hope and imagine to be there. It's your demons speaking not Cheney's.

First off I didn't put words into your mouth. You sought to dismiss anyone's opinion who might have something to gain, the rest is a natural consequence of your approach. Your ad hominem attack calling me an idiot is a cheap tactic but your post is there for all to see. In this case those who might have something to gain includes the entire family and most associates of the woman involved so it's open season on her and no defense is even possible because according to you it can only be driven by the selfish motive. As for the rest, it only demonstrates that your opinions are entirely partisan in this and you've ignored the central issue with hand waving about the nasty right. Looking at Cheney I got a different impression, his daughter's sexuality had been dragged intio the debate without her permission and he was outraged by Edwards tactic, what he couldn't express was his disgust at Edwards. Kerry compounded the issue. Your third comment is *exactly* the sort of political effect they were after with their cynical exploitation of this woman.

You offer no new information. Did you read the interview or research anything on Woodward's comments? Are your contributions confined to partisan jibes in the face of damning evidence of Moore's malfeasance? I mean you *chose* to respond, is your idea of a discussion or debate simply to ignore the facts offered and think you've rebutted merely by posting verbage?

Insufficient motive.

The mother has a right to be offended at the exploitation of her daughter's sexuality, and apparently she is. She sounded pretty convincing when she said she was "indignant". According to you it's open season on anyone who has something to gain. In reality your bias means you just don't give a crap about the exploitation of this woman if it aids Kerry's campaign. The word lesbian is not the issue, and IMHO the hesitant way he said it implies none of the silly negative things people seem to be claiming. However there's more to citing Cheney's daughter out of the blue than some random example. Politicians like Kerry don't do random things or use off the cuff examples on an issue like this, this was calculated, triangulated and strategized. Let Kerry pick someone else to discuss their sexuality in his campaign speeches and maybe he'll have the decency to ask their permission first. He plain shouldn't be exploiting the sexuality of his opponent's daughter in his campaign speeches.

That doesn't seem very appropriate. I mean you could put him on the roof of a hundred storey building, set the top storeys on fire and let him choose to burn alive, jump or be crushed over then next hour or so. Oh wait, we've already seen that on TV, yea it was pretty disgusting but we all watched in horror anyway. In reality if this ever happens (seems unlikely) he'd be executed in private by the State he's tried in. Method of execution varies by State even for Federal cases. In the case of Timothy McVeigh they televised the execution to a private screening room for the families because there were so many victims involved. Unfortunately they would require many, many rooms for Osama's sendoff. P.S. You'll probably get a show out of Saddam's execution. Not sure I'll watch, maybe out of morbid curiosity, I did watch the fate of some of the captives in Iraq. Very brutal and quite sick the way they try to imply moral equivalence by giving their victims orange jumpsuits.

The problem with those records that I've heard is that apparently they were reissued after he entered congress. When you are dishonorably discharged they take your medals away. If you get a subsequent honorable they reissue the medals with the discharge and Kerry had his discharge papers and medals reissued after he joined congress. Releasing his military records would of course answer this question, but distributing documents we already know were reissued after he became a congressman doesn't resolve anything. It's just more stonewalling. It's exactly the kind release designed to snow the issue and confuse most people who aren't paying attention.

Looks like Kerry persuaded someone. http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001868.html

I prefer 'Rumsfeld's' "Axis of Weasels." meme, it's been around a while. http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/weasels.asp http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/11/1044927597014.html

Ok I apologize then, I really thought you were being sarcastic.

Thx a lot. As until today it seems, nobody ever here noticed what you pointed out, rest assured that from now on, we will have an eye on that! Is that sarcasm or are you merely patronizing me? Oh wait, it's patronizing sarcasm.... You either didn't realize it or were being intentionally deceptive. I'm glad I was able to correct you.

There are many types of discharge and a number of things troubling with Kerry's later re-issue of his papers. The most troubling thing about this is that Kerry has not released his records and the same people who insisted Bush should release his, and celebrate lawsuits for a more thorough DoD search for Bush's records, have nothing at all to say about Kerry keeping his secret. The same people using forged documents to criticize Bush won't even ask for Kerry to sign the release of his records.

The old Iran-Contra chestnut. The reason this happened was a clandestine operation as a hostage payoff, and the real scandal (internationally) was the USA pressuring for the arms embargo on Iran from it's allies, who then learned of an arms deal by the US, one they were pressured into. Personally I think the US should have carpet bombed the country until they released the hostages but the same finger waggers would have been outraged by that more than an arms deal. Once again context is important and you ignore it at the peril of your intelligence.