AndyBoyd

Jakee, I'm on your side here, and I appreciate the boost, but let it go. I'm just fucking with him because it's fun.

Because it makes people like you angry, and I find that amusing.

Hinckley, July 4, 1994. Porter. At 2,000, the plane shuddered (not sure how else to put it), and the pilot said exactly that "Get out of the plane now." We did. Everyone, inlcuding the plane, landed safely in a beanfield. Apparently a small screw broke in the elvatator. The pilot was able to obtain another screw and repair the plane in the field. We resumed jumping it that same day.

My 2 cents on this. I'm not a big-way guy. To me, 18 or 20 people in the sky is alot. But I have done a little 4-way, not enough to get all that good, but enough to know that skydiving at a serious level is expensive. I've spent as much as the OP is describing on 4-way camps. I've done some Airspeed 4-way camps that have been very pricey, but worth every penny in terms of the uptick in my skill level. I don't do 4-way anymore mainly because of the cost (although there are other reasons). I guess what I'm trying to say is if you just want to hang out at the DZ, make 5 or 6 jumps and have a few beers a few times a month, skydiving is not too expensive for most folks. But if you want to get serious about it in any discipline, you've got to pay up. And look, the free market will sort this stuff out. If people won't pay for the big-way or 4-way or whatever-way camps, they won't exist.

I think what this poster is trying to say is that there is a historical trend in America towards expanding civil rights. This happenned for women and minorities in many different ways. Things that we take for granted now -- women as equals in the workplace, interracial marriage, for example -- were not always the norm. We can see this inevitable march towards acceptance happening today with attitudes towards homosexuality. Young people today are much more likely to be tolerant of gays and support things like gay marriage, while older people are not so tolerant. http://www.newswise.com/articles/americans-move-dramatically-to-acceptance-of-homosexuality If this trend continues, 50 years from now when most of us are dead and gone, or at least old and gray, being gay will be no big deal, gay marriage will be the norm, and everyone will wonder what the fuss was about. Kicking and screaming against this inevitable evolution towards equal rights is pointless. The country's attitude towards gay rights is slowly and inevitably changing towards tolerance.

See, Andy, that was my point. You have never run anything. All of your knowledge comes from someone telling you how it is. You have absolutely no idea of what effect the loonyness of Obama's policies have on real world businesses. Perhaps if more people would lose their fear of failure and leave the comfort of that weekly paycheck, they would start to gain some real insightful knowledge instead of what's taught in the academic world. Did you run your business into the ground, and now you're mad at Obama? Is that what this is about? Sounds like you've got real problems. I like my weekly paycheck, thanks. Maybe the bank will give you another loan. Best of luck.

I don't own any businesses. I made my point twice, as clearly as I could, with support from an external source, and now you want to change the subject. You are not worth my time. Continue your anti-Obama rant. Have fun. By the way, if you own businesses and find yourself running to the bank for emergency loans all the time, you might want to think about restructuring a few things.

You obviously have a political axe to grind as well. What natural flow are you talking about? The one where the economy was flowing down the toilet under Bush? You are right about one thing, though. It's businesses that determine how good or bad the economy is. Not presidents. http://www.newswise.com/articles/how-much-can-the-president-influence-the-economy-only-a-little-says-an-economic-historian

The idea that any one person can destroy the US economy is silly. The guys quoted in the article obviously have a political axe to grind. The economy cratered under a republican administration. The recovery is agonizingly slow under a democratic administration. The economy will likely continue a very slow recovery regardless of who is elected president.

You should take a long look in the mirror and give some serious thought to your statement.

I read an article online about the most bizarre form of athletic cheating I've ever heard of. Athletes in the Paralymipcs who have spinal cord injuries apparently cannot get the normal blood pressure boost that comes with exercise. So in order to get that boost, they intentionally cause themselves pain before competitions by, for example, breaking their toes or blocking their cathaders. This is called "boosting", and it is against the rules, but frequently done. http://www.businessinsider.com/boosting-paralympics-2012-8 BTW, just replying to the last post.

What do think President Obama's motivation would be to destroy this country? I'm asking a serious question. Do you really think he ran for President with the hidden motive to destroy the United States? How did he hide his motives from his staff and all the people who helped get him elected? Or are they in on it too? I think what Obama is pointing out is that like, the ground, and the air, and also food, shelter, good health, all the things that people thank God for is not a place the government should try to place itself, or a President. [/:(]It's rudely overbearing at best, dangerous to liberty, it's why we are all living in fear now.... some people are. and even if it's naively meant as good will, in the real world business-wise on a global level it's counter-productive. It's problematic in all governments now. More people working at the FAA to review skydivers PLA's is but an example. Business and trade on a global level now is tough. The US with it's financial troubles because of years of past bad business, wars, past bad business is making it even more difficult. and to the green movement, its not good for the planet. It has pushed business out of the US and the EU into Asia and they are polluting the other-side of the planet 10x worse than the US and Europe ever did, or would in the future if citizens & governments allowed clean USA/EU business to better meet the needs of all of us, instead Asia is. So yeah, overall, currently the effect is to destroy the United States. How long do you think it will take Obama to destroy the United States, if he is reelected? After he destroys the United States, what will be left? A huge pit of sand? The idea that any politician can "destroy" the United States is absurd. People who say things like this on public forums look silly. The United States has survived Reagan and two Bushes, not to mention Gerald Ford repeatedly falling down the stairs and Jimmy Carter lusting in his heart and beating off crazed rabbits. The union will survive regardless of who is elected President, folks. Relax.

What do think President Obama's motivation would be to destroy this country? I'm asking a serious question. Do you really think he ran for President with the hidden motive to destroy the United States? How did he hide his motives from his staff and all the people who helped get him elected? Or are they in on it too?

Yes, Biden has foot-in-mouth disease. But Obama was on the law review at Harvard law school. Romney has a joint law/MBA degree from Harvard. Ryan has a BA from Miami University (Ohio). These are very bright guys. I'm not sure where you are coming from with this comment.

I don't want to figure all of that out. And this is the problem, right here.

You will likely get your wish and see this guy killed. Sorry it won't happen quickly enough to suit you. You really didn't answer my questions, though. So let's try again. What parts of the judicial process would you bypass in this case? Should this guy get a trial? An appeal? State or federal habeas petitions? What specific legal rights would you take away from this guy, and why? And who makes the decision to take away this guy's rights? And what specific criteria do we use to decide when we are going to take away criminal defendant's rights? In other words, what new legal rules do you propose we use, and why?

It's not the actual execution that is so expensive - it's all the legal wranglings leading up to it. The laws should be overhauled so that clear cut, caught red handed BS like this gets the proper treatment. There is no excuse to keep this person alive. +1 Who gets to decide when a situation is so "clear cut" that certain individuals get fast-tracked to the death penalty? What criteria do we use to make this decision? How would you draft legislation to make this work? Look, I understand the anger towards this guy. But what you are proposing simply is not going to work in America. Everyone gets due process of law. And yes, in death penalty cases, the process is long and drawn out. This will not change, and it shouldn't. We can't have a system where certain individuals are simply fast-tracked to the gas chamber, and others are given full due process of law. Any legislation attempting to do this would immediately be found unconstitutional. You may well get your wish and see this guy executed. But it won't happen any time soon.

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 The first line of the article: "The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated."

+1

it's not pertinent to the case - unless we are now in a thought police state only actions matter This is 100% wrong. In almost all crimes, there must be criminal intent in addition to the physical act. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea Edit to add: everyone agrees GZ shot TM. The only question is whether he had any criminal intent when he did so.

Blue skies, old friend. You will not be forgotten any time soon.

A guy in Texas who asserted "stand your ground" in a similar case just got convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-stand-ground-shooter-headed-prison-210731482.html

You are probably not driving your right elbow and shoulder down hard enough. If you cannot see tail's reserve handle, you are not doing it right. Before anyone gets all bent out of shape, that's a joke. Seriously, if your formation is turning 180, it is highly unlikely you are the sole cause. Have an experienced coach look at a video of your exit. That's the only way to figure out what's wrong.

what an odd post "pro-gunners" want to have the right to choose for themselves on the topic and respect the right of others to choice the same or differently. The anti-gunners want the right to make choices about the topic for other people. They also respect the right of others - as long as they agree with them. I guess you are a pro-gunner Can a pro gunner have no desire whatsoever to own a gun? If so, I guess I am a pro-gunner. But like Wendy said, I guess I'm pro-choice.

I'm not aware of any stats on that, but this certainly seems accurate at first glance. The homeowner in this story had reason to be alarmed.