Andy9o8

The context is irrelevant, just as long as he gets to say "Obama".

LoL its funny to us upstaters how downstaters call anything that isn't NYC or Long Island "upstate."

Well sure. I'm speaking in broad terms of course, and am only on my phone today so can't really write at length. That said, putting a bullet into mass murderers like Assad, or Idi Amin would be humanitarian. And of course, there's always Adolph. Look I understand why many nations prohibit their citizens from serving in foreign militaries, rebel forces, etc and I'm ok with that. But the moral facets are a labrynth at best.

Where in Upstate NY are you? Finger Lakes Skydivers is in Ovid, near Syracuse. Frontier Skydivers is in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls area. I think there's a third one up there closer to Rochester, too. The Ranch is great, but it's more downstate in Gardiner, near Poughkeepsie.

Same reason why the vomit outside the building was power-washed the way it was. Which is to say: it's inexcusable.

Do you think those that joined up (just for lack of better terms) "illegally" did so because they thought they'd receive amnesty for their actions? I suspect most of the teens and 20 - somethings that do that sort of thing in any generation probably don't give that a lot of advance thought. Irresponsibility of youth.

Still need that are-you-sure screen, and maybe a repositioning of the spam button. I just marked one of my own posts as spam when trying to edit it on my smartphone. Also respectfully reiterate same point re: "friend" button as I mentioned up-thread.

Well, that's the public sector for you: they swing both ways.

The distinction between individual humanitarian help and individual military help is more a legal one than a moral one. Again, compare to individual volunteers in the 1930s & 40s in European and Asian conflict areas.

Anyhow, we look forward to your first hand account of the first test flight.

Given that premise I don't disagree but that's not the pitch. It's a towed system. Granted it's not unlike a glider, but you (hopefully) can't fall off a glider at low altitude and die. I see. The op is ambiguous re launch, but if it's from the ground under tow. .. well... Maybe it's for the Jeb types, but not for me...

Patients have died in Spain, too. But one's odds are still better in a First World hospital than by staying in Africa. And perception is everything, especially among the poorly informed and the desperate. The genie's already out of the bottle.

From a regulatory perspective, as long as it's launched at altitude, and the flyer-jumper uses a tso'd rig that is deployed at a safe altitude, why should the faa regulate it much differently than skysurfing? If it's risk of the wing freefalling to the ground, shouldn't that be roughly equivalent to jettisoning a skyboard during EPs? I ask these with an open mind.

My mom, my sister and I have each been married for quite a long time. We don't agree on much, but we do agree on this: "vacation with in-laws" is a total oxymoron. It's something you do when you're younger, before it dawns on you that you'd be so much happier without them along. Been there, done that, got the whip scars. Doing Christmas with in-laws is one thing, but living with them for a week or 2 is the precise opposite of the definition of Vacation.

I see no moral difference between that and opposing Assad's genocidal level mass murder of his own citizens. Nits. Unpersuasive.

No analogy is perfect but I find your nitpicks unpersuasive. For example, your standard would condemn french Americans who might join the French resistance in 1940 to engage in sabotage against the repressive Vichy French in southern France.

The president is a lawyer. I see no reason that ANY lawyer is any more of an authority on infectious disease than the NRA. Present company included. He was also a former professor, prior to becoming gainfully employed. Anyhow, in fairness to the presidency generally, presidents do have the Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC and the Surgeon General reporting to him. And, this president has a mean game of golf, which means he rubs shoulders with a lot of doctors.

Let's get past your vilifying him personally, and get back to the subject of checks and balances on majority rule. The problem is that your proposal sets up what's commonly known as "Tyranny of the Majority". James Madison, one of the principal drafters of the Constitution, as well as its Bill of Rights, observed that factions posed a special problem for democratic societies because a faction composed of the majority of the people could easily oppress the minority. On this point, he wrote: “Place three individuals in a situation wherein the interest of each depends on the voice of the others, and give to two of them an interest opposed to the rights of the third. Will the latter be secure? The prudence of every man would shun the danger. The rules & forms of justice suppose & guard against it. Will two thousand in a like situation be less likely to encroach on the rights of one thousand?” (Source: http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/founders/james-madison/) Essentially, pure majority rule allows "Tyranny of the Majority". You like Wikipedia. So do I, sometimes, for its convenient synopses, though sometimes at the expense of quality. Take a minute and read the Wiki article on Tyranny of the Majority. Then you should understand our concerns with your majority-rule proposal: Article: Tyranny of the Majority

Yeah, I understand that. So do the judge and prosecutor in charge of the grand jury. That's why they're investigating - to find out what really happened.

Please. You were able to take the time to copy & paste the quotes. When I asked you to post your links, you responded 5 minutes later with a simple refusal. In that time you could have just as easily copied & pasted the urls from the browser address bar. You didn't post your links because you knew fully well that your sources were rock-bottom shit like THIS.

As I understand it as presented in (Canadian) Parliament, it would used only against people holding dual citizenship. Singular Canadians would re-enter and be subject to prosecution under Canadian law. Plus, not all countries legally equate revocation of passport with revocation of citizenship. For example, HERE is what it takes to lose one's US citizenship. Simply having one's US passport involuntarily revoked does not seem to be enough.

Read the tweet again, all of it. It says: "I know someone sitting on the grand jury of this case. There isn't enough at this point to warrant an arrest." Whether you're allowed to disclose the mere fact that you're of sitting on a grand jury (but nothing more) depends on the instructions of the jury's supervising judge, and sometimes on the jurisdiction. If the judge prohibits even that, then you can't say even that. In some jurisdictions, however, the identities of grand jurors must be kept confidential; even the jurors themselves may not violate that by identifying themselves as jurors. In this case, if the tweeter was simply lying outright about knowing someone on the GJ, then she did nothing unlawful. If the grand juror did discuss the substance of the case with the tweeter, the juror's doing that was unlawful. If the tweeter then repeated what the juror told her (other than reporting that to authorities), that may or may not be unlawful; it's a grey area that depends on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of what happened.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29518342

None of the quotes given contain any support for your original statement. Without the links we can't see whether the full articles support you statement, so we'll just have to assume you were wrong, hey? OK, since cvfd was either too lazy or too deceptive to post his links, I googled his quotes to check his sources are. Here's what I found so far: His first quote is found in this google result: https://www.google.com/#q=%22In+2011%2C+Obama+unilaterally+declared+that+illegal+aliens+from+Liberia+could+not+be+deported.+This+triggered+a+huge+increase+in+illegal+immigration+from+Liberia.%22 3 sites stand out: One is a site called "topconservative news.com". The second is a site called "White Unity Blog & News". The third, from a site call "whitechildren2.blogspot.com" has a headline that reads: "JEW-AMERICAN GOVERNMENT ADMITS IT IS OUT TO "KILL THE WHITE MAN" EBOLA OR NOT". It features a cartoon depicting a big-nosed Jew drilling a screw into a white man. So much for that. Now googling his second quote. Result: https://www.google.com/#q=%22Thomas+Eric+Duncan+is+a+Liberian+from+an+Ebola+ravaged+area.+After+seeing+friends+die+of+the+disease%2C+he+quit+his+job+and+fled+to+the+United+States.+Most+likely+he+planned+to+simply+stay+in+the+USA+forever+since+Obama+banned+ICE+from+deporting+Liberians+starting+in+2011.+%22 Again, the first site is "topconsrvativenews.com". Another is from an "alternative news" site called "Angry Summit". A third site with the quote is from the English version of the Russian "news" site Pravda. I see. The third quote, finally, seems more mainstream. Let's see how those health officials' initial caution is treated by the Administration over the next couple of days.

I always figured you for a closet breeder.