DaVinci

Nice. Even when bitching about not being able to make an attack, you make one That really does not help your cause And BTW how does number of jumps mean you have a better opinion on politics? RSL safety, wing loads, AFF v SL, ok, but politics? Please.

While you may well be correct that there is no way we will ever know who is "right". I found it funny he supported Iran based on confessions while the sailors where captive as proof they were in Iran's waters. Now that they say they lied to save their ass, will he admit that the confessions are worthless? Doubt it. As for bias...Sure. Iran is a country that has sworn to wipe another off the earth and basicly tells the world to fuck off. The difference is that I can admit that countries could have a problem with the US's "Bully" image. And even admit that they have a point. But some just blindly support and ignore any evidence that could hurt their opinions. This is one such case.

Easy to say from behind a computer.

But you did seem to think it was true when they admitted it when under arrest?

And as usual you are trying to dodge what you said. You said you find it funny that "apologists" are bitching about pork. I bitched about pork no matter what party, you seem to support it if it is from "your" party.

Your rants are getting more pathetic. If you can't see that Congress tacked on the withdraw deadline just so they could claim he does not support the troops (just like you are claiming) and gain political capital there really is no point in discussing this.

Total BS. What cracks me up is YOU have been attacking the Reb pork for quite some time, NOW you love it. For me I think "attachments" are plain BS and have always felt that way. You are only happy since it is your party doing it now.

And you dodged admitting the clear differences by throwing out a red herring....Good on you!

You keep telling yourself that...But that does not make it true. If congress really wanted to support the troope they would not have included a timeline into the bill. They are playing politics (normal) but I thought you smarter than buying into the retoric.

But not for everyone. Hell, not even close for me or my GF.

Oh please, one stole documents from the CIVIL WAR and one stole documents that seemed to cover up for his boss. BIG difference. I think the coverup artist is worse.

Funny I have never read anything from news max...But nice to know you claim to know everything. It will be clear the Congress will not fund the troops unless they get what they want. It will be clear that Bush thinks that timelines are a bad idea. Thats all. BOTH will be responsible. But please don't sit on your high horse and claim that the failure of this bill is only Bush's fault. If the dems really cared about supporting the troops they would give the money and then if they really wanted a timeline they could pass a seperate bill Bush could veto. Your lame attack trying to claim Bush does not support the troops is a shame, and frankly I expected better than that from you.

No you just made a statement then avoided answering a question that was a comparison. Your hatred of Bush is showing. It is removing your normally good critical thinking skills. Nope and if you bother to read what I wrote you would see the reason I gave for why he would veto it was to due to him thinking a withdraw is the wrong course of action. But YOU stated "They finally passed it. If he vetoes the troop-funding bill, the American people will indeed know who to hold responsible." And I said that Congress would be responsible since they added pork to the military spending bill that they KNEW he would veto since he TOLD them. So you can continue to make BS claims. But they passed a bill they knew he would veto just so they, and you it seems, could claim he does not care about the troops. I for one am amazed you are buying into it.

Not surprised at *them* surprised at Bill for buying into it and perpetuating it.

It is called a COMPARISON. You should know that. See you claim that in one case where Congress attaches something to a bill and when one President vetos it it is fine, but whan another does it it makes him evil. You can't have it both ways. I'll make it easy for you. 1. Reb Congress attaches tax cuts for small business. Clinton Vetos it. 2. Dem Congress attaches troop withdraws to a military funding bill. Both are the SAME in BOTH the President didn't agree with the attachments. But on one you claim that if Bush vetos it he does not care about the troops...But you refuse to say the same about Clinton. That is just you playing politics. And again you just avoid answering the question.

Lame Bill, lame. You claim that if Bush Vetos this bill due to the withdraw dates he shows his lack of support for the troops. Then the same thing must be said for Clinton and his lack of support for people on min wage since he vetoed that bill since it contained extra shit he didnt like. But instead of being honest, you throw a red herring into the mix...How about you actually answer the question?

So I guess you agree that Clinton didn't care enough to vote for a min wage increase then right?

Maybe he thinks the best way to support AMERICA is to finish the job? Put a person in a box with only two options and either one you get to claim victory. See you like he is in a trap since it supports your personal views. But you ignored the min wage issue. So you agree that Dems really didn't want the min wage bill to pass then right?

Pathetic. He thinks the war should not have timelines. The Congress is playing dirty pool to try and force him to a timeline. If he vetos the bill it was due to the timelines Congress put in the bill. You and I both know he would fund the troops and you also know that Congress only passed the bill to try and make him look bad when he vetos it. They are trying to set him up. I guess you would then agree that the Dems don't want a min wage increase since they will not allow concessions for small company's? Can't have it both ways. If they did that and he did as you said, THEN your rant would be true.

Preventing some is good enough. The thing is I swoop, but I don't want to be taken out by some jackass that didn't bother to look for me. And it has happened. I have had guys bitch at me since I got into the way of their swoop. One was above me with a sub 90 and did a 270. I was under a 90 and did a 180. But he claims *I* cut HIM off?!?!?!?!?! So fixing some accidents is better than doing nothing. Thats like saying we should not jump AAD's or RSL's since they will only save a few people. And while I knew and liked Danny, Cliff...ect. They screwed up and they were both skilled enough to know better but did it anyway. As for your numbers, about HALF were caused by swoopers. I would not mind cutting accidents by half. Plus, I am OK with people who really know the risks killing themselves due to a mistake. I am not OK with them taking other people out. That is one solution I can agree on. I also think that maybe 270(+) swoopers should get out on their own pass a 270 is NOT good for any pattern. It is time to face it that swooping has become a discipline all its own. And maybe that means they need their own airspace.

Not at first. In fact most of the first lessons they do not take off or land the plane. There is a big difference in that with flying a plane an instructor is there and can take off and let the student fly till the landing. In skydiving the student must do the entire process each time (unless it is a tandem jump). You must be talking about YOUR AFF class. The ones I teach have a great deal of focus on canopy control, as do most AFF classes I have seen. Simple fact is that *students* focus on the FF portion thinking the canopy control is not as important. You can't do that unless you plan on making them do static lines only; and even then they should learn how to arch. You have a valid concern about canopy flight being important. However, you need to realize that before a person can be under canopy, they must leave a plane. And in skydiving we need to teach a student ALL of the skydive, not just one part. As for SDA and not allowing 270's in the main landing area. I think it is a great idea and I support it. You are correct that it is not the turn that is killing skydivers but the lack of awareness. However, the 270 degree turn is harder to pull off in traffic and know where it is going to be done than a 180, 90 or straight in. I am sorry you feel that your aspect of the sport is getting shit on. But the simple fact is that this 270 ban will prevent accidents like we have seen. And if 180s become the problem, I fully expect them to get banned as well... And I would have no issue with it. As for swooping dying...It will not. You will instead go to a small Cessna DZ and help keep them alive. I would rather to hop n pops out of a Cessna than an otter anyway.

Please tell me you are kidding....

Because most pull above 3500 to get set up.

There is a big difference between the two piles of evidence. One was shown on tape taking 100k, the other accused of selling stock that he claims to not know how much he had. One is CLEARLY illegal jet the person is being put one big committees. The other is being investigated. So one is "We caught him on tape on an FBI sting". The other is "We really think he did something wrong."

It is only against the petrolium based bags. I have no issue with requiring stores to use easier to recycle bags.