Andy9o8

Please re-read the rest of the thread.

The BSRs are not all-inclusive in scope, so a reasonable argument can be made that they are not necessarily either the beginning or the end of the analysis as to what constitutes conduct warranting disciplinary action. Here's the link to the USPA's Governance Manual. http://www.uspa.org/portals/0/downloads/man_govman.pdf. Please refer to Section 1-6, "Disciplinary Actions". Thereunder, refer to 1-6.4, "Scope"; and thereunder, refer to B.3 and B.4. At a minimum, in my opinion, the language from B.3 - "Is so grossly negligent in his conduct or acts as to imminently imperil his fellow skydivers or aircraft or persons or property on the ground, or wantonly disregards the safety of himself or other persons" - would seem to warrant scrutiny - including, of course, Rich's full opportunity to address this himself.

How on Earth is that number calculated? Over a lifetime, of course.

Really? Now there's a real boost to your credibility. Yeah, you go with that. Don't listen to Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow much do you? I don't blame you. I wouldn't either if my choices over here weren't so limited. Yeah, keep going with that. Or, raise your game. Whatever.

Really? Now there's a real boost to your credibility. Yeah, you go with that.

QED. Thanks again.

Do you mean Medford, MA where he grew up, Boston, MA where he went to grad school, or Manhattan, where he lived and worked as an adult? But let's get to the skinny: racist goat-fuckers in the GOP outnumber racist goat-fuckers who are Dems by about 1,000-to-1. For the most part, those who are desperate to claim otherwise tend to be other racist goat-fuckers. Whomever those may be.

Well looky here - you caught some fish!

While tracking during a big-way. There's never a wrong time to call your lawyer.

I wasn't really thinking about that, just pointing out that this is a classic example of how the end result is counter-intuitive to logic - a result so often the case in US drugs laws. A similar example would be how many (most?) US states' laws penalize crack cocaine much more harshly than for equal-weight amounts of powdered cocaine. No that is totally explainable and logical since mostly white people use powder. Yeah, I thought about whether to mention that angle, but I let it slide. LEOs and most politicians deny it as an underlying motivator, but I agree with you.

Jury nullification is the way to beat a lot of sense back into the system at this point. That is true. Lawyers and judges hate it. Judges have thrown jurors in jail under contempt for bringing up the concept in the deliberation. Seems to be kind of a grey area in how various trial and appellate courts have dealt with that particular scenario. See this interesting Wiki article on jury nullification; focus especially on the last half of the section "Court rulings": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States#Court_rulings

I wasn't really thinking about that, just pointing out that this is a classic example of how the end result is counter-intuitive to logic - a result so often the case in US drugs laws. A similar example would be how many (most?) US states' laws penalize crack cocaine much more harshly than for equal-weight amounts of powdered cocaine.

US flag patches are worn on athletic uniforms (and/or helmets, warmups, etc.) fairly frequently. Google it and you'll see lots and lots of examples. As long as it's done tastefully and respectfully, it seems to be acceptable. FWIW, the US Code section you (correctly) cite is merely a suggested guideline, for the sake of both respect and uniformity. Otherwise, it carries no mandatory weight of law.

Gosh! Where does it go?

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.... While I agree with you that that ought to be the case - and a minority of Supreme Court justices would also agree with you/us, the majority of justices (thus far) have held that the inclusion of "mixture" agents, defined broadly, in the total weight of drugs for sentencing purposes, is permissible. On this basis, most trial courts have likewise taken the harsher analysis for sentencing purposes. Here's one law review article (it's actually a "note", meaning it was written by a law student) that describes this in some detail: http://assets.wne.edu/161/17_note_Criminal.pdf, and here's one court case that's a pretty representative example of how the courts typically apply this (i.e., harshly): http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/303/277/505693/.

(a) Doctor, Doctor! it hurts when I do THIS! (b) __________________________________ .

I don't mean to be politically incorrect... but that is one improbable white guy.

Bryan also referred to creationism as "the plainest spiritual truth", and evolution as "the wildest guess advanced in the name of science". So you'll forgive me if I choose not to credit him as a presumed font of wisdom.

Not deliberately.

LOL - historically, the mission statement of every third party movement in America.

It's that thing you said in post #157 that you passed.

I haven't had many vulture capitalist groups making me offers for my small sign company. Maybe I am doing it wrong Here's your sign.

There's no historical fact at all to this, just more liberal rhetoric. I live in the south, I pretty much have first hand knowledge. You clearly have misunderstood the post you've responded to, or maybe just pretending to. She's (much more concisely) making the same point I made in the posts linked in my post above: that the old racist, socially-conservative Dixiecrat wing of Southern Democrats began to switch over to GOP beginning in the late 1960s, and they and their ideological progeny are now firmly ensconced in the GOP. That's historical fact. While I appreciate the sacrifice you and your fellow servicemen made in Vietnam, our government shouldn't have sent you there in the first place. I'm your age, and not naive, and you'll never convince me that the US fighting the NVA and VC ever did one thing to make Americans safer in their beds. The protesters may have been naive about how good they had it at home, but they were right about the war.

Let me raise an angle that hasn't been discussed yet: politics and public relations, which in this case are more or less one and the same. As of course you know very well, WV is one of the the "coal is king" states. It's not just an integral part of the state's economy, it's ingrained into the psychology of the people with all the fervor of religious faith. You should expect the coal companies, the politicians that are in their pockets, the unions, etc. will counter-campaign against this tooth and nail. I remember during the last election cycle traveling up to my old stomping grounds in Upstate New York for a visit. Our route took us through rural central Pennsylvania (part of the same coal belt that includes WV). All along the roadsides we kept seeing "campaign" signs exclaiming "STOP THE WAR ON COAL!" They knew the mentality of their audience, and they were playing to it. Mommas will be screaming at you, asking why you want to take the food out of their babies' mouths. The Rolling Rock bottles will fly. So fair warning: that's the kind of shit you'll be up against; and on the local, grassroots level, it could get ugly.

Seriously? Do you think you're addressing morons here? A cherry-picked half-fact, delivered entirely out of historical context, is not intellectually honest, and is easily rebutted: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4517289;search_string=dixiecrat;#4517289 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4246930;search_string=dixiecrat;#4246930 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4097446;search_string=dixiecrat;#4097446