DanG

I don't know, I usually hear, "A man was shot," or, "a man was stabbed." Maybe I'll hear it your way more now that you've mentioned it. I think that's just how people say things. When people say, "The Redskins are going all they way this year," they really mean, "I believe the Redskins are going all the way this year." It's their opinion, but it doesn't make a very persuasive argument if you have to qualify every sentance with, "I believe." - Dan G

For someone bitching about precision in language, you should at least be accurate about where the phrase "certain unalienable rights" appears. Hint: it's not the Constitution. And it's unalienable, not inalienable. Anyway, "you have a right to quality healthcare," is not an abuse of language. It is an opinion. It is clearly stated. You obviously disagree with that opinion, but the putative speaker is not using any tricks of language to make his point. You're just making this up. Yes, some "entitlements" are not earned. That doesn't make the person getting them less entitled to them. If you're entitled to one peanut a day according to the "One Peanut for Every American" law, why is calling it an entitlement inaccurate? If someone is entitled to it, it's an entitlement. Look at the root of the word. Knights are granted their titles by the King. They are entitled. If the government grants you something (earned or unearned) you are entitled. Benefit is actually a less accurate word. - Dan G

Okay, I forgot about that one. That's wrong. I was focusing on the anti-Semite angle. - Dan G

That was the only quote I found to be racist, and I don't know the context. Like I said, "blatant racist" is a bit of a stretch. I'm not supporting the guy, I'm just taking the opportunity to say that anything anti-Israel is not necessarily anti-Jewish. The comment he made about another councilmember caving to the Jewish lobby it entirely appropriate. Questioning the history of Israel is not anti-Semetic. - Dan G

If the quotes attributed him in your linked article are the worst things he's ever said (and they likely are given the nature of internet journalism) I don't think blatant racism is even close to an accurate description. Questioning Israel and the power of the pro-Israel lobby is not anti-Semetism. - Dan G

Guys sounds a little over the top, but I'm sick of the unspoken requirement to support everything Israel does without question. Legitimate criticism of the actions of the State of Israel is not anti-Semetism, although some people would have you believe it is. - Dan G

But that's not, at least to my understanding, the same as what the Arizona laws requires. The law does not require officers to hold you if your name comes back hot on a database search. It requires them to hold you if they suspect you are an illegal, and you can't prove otherwise. That is my problem with the law. I have to prove I'm legal. They don't have to prove I'm illegal. Sounds like carrying papers to me. First, this law is not restricted to motorists. Anyone having any contact with the police is subject to this law. Walking down the street and turning in a wallet you find to a beat cop is contact, and this law would require me to prove to the officer that I am legal before he lets me go. I have a problem with checkpoints, too, so I'm not comfortable letting that slope continue to slip. I believe you are incorrect. The law requires them to hold me until I produce documentation. That is depriving me of my freedom until I can prove my innocence. Yes. I would if the cops required me to prove that I was sober. As it stands now, they have to prove you are drunk, not the other way around. Election year grandstanding. Deportations and border protection capabilities are up across the board. The federal government is doing its job. - Dan G

Here you go: the bill is wrong not because it stomps on the rights of illegals, it is wrong because it stomps on the rights of US citizens, all US citizens. If this law were enforced properly, everyone would be required to carry papers with them at all times proving their legal status, including fully, natural born US citizens. We have this thing called the presumption of innocence. This law turns that on its head, by presuming a person is an illegal alien until that person can prove otherwise. It flies in the face of the very concept of a free country. That is the problem with this law. It is not about "liberals" protecting illegals aliens, it is about citizens wanting to keep America the land of the free. - Dan G

Just to add to what Brandon said, there is a new DZ at West Point. As far as I know, it is tandem oriented. There is also a tandem mill in Warrenton. I think they call themselves DC Skydivers. Go to Orange, Suffolk, or VA Skydiving Center. - Dan G

Yay, there are actual skydivers here. - Dan G

Context matters. I've tried to explain this before, but people like you just won't get it. If I walk up to you and say, "Hey asshole," you'd be rightly offended. When your best friend say the same thing to you, you likely laugh it off. Do you really think that one random black guy can walk up to another random black guy and call him a nigger? Can you see how the second guy is likely to be offended by that? If not, you're living in a fantasy world. - Dan G

Impressive argumernt, as usual. - Dan G

I suppose it would take about as long as some regulars on here took calling African-Americans for Obama a racist organization. Doesn't mean they'd be right. - Dan G

What makes you think your white African-American friends wouldn't be allowed to join African-Americans for Obama? - Dan G

I was not aware you owned one. Please have it recalibrated at your earliest convenience. I haven't stated an opinion in this thread because I really don't know what happened. I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I'm content to let the courts handle it. You, mnealtx, tkhayes, and others are clearly 100% sure that Zimmerman is guilty/innocent, and a revalation from Jesus Christ himself wouldn't change your position. And you also feel compelled to brag about every little factoid the media makes up that seems to support your position. It's actually kind of pathetic. - Dan G

I see your point, but I think you miss mine. "African- Americans for Obama" may support Obama simply because he is African-American. That would be racist. If they support him because they agree with his policies, and they happen to be African-American, that is not racist. If "Non-African-Americans Against Obama" are against him simply because he is African-American, that is racist. If they are against him for other reasons, and they happen not to be African-American, that is not racist. The OP discovered a website called African-Americans for Obama, and instantly assumed that it was a bunch of racists. I was merely pointing out that the organization may or may not be racist. Just because they are a group of people who share a race, does not make them racist. In other words, would an organization called "African-Americans for Romney" automatically be racist? I don't think so, maybe you do. - Dan G

And then someone from the "other side" will feel obligated to get a dig in, even though the criticizer was completely neutral in his criticism. - Dan G

Um, no it's not. Nice piece of bullshit, though. - Dan G

This thread is like SC in a bottle: the usual suspects pick their side according to their own bias, refuse to budge regardless of anything under the sun, and then accuse the other side of being biased. Throw in some thinly veiled insults, and some not so veiled, and you have the whole forum in a nutshell. - Dan G

You do realize that the website is not "African Americans for Any Guy Who Happens to Be Black", right? Perhaps black Americans share more than just skin color. Perhaps they also share a common history, culture, food, religious ties, etc. Is it okay for them to bond over those things, or is any group of black people getting together for a common cause evidence of racism to you? - Dan G

There's difference between having a problem with someone making a false statement, and suing them for slander over it. Were any of the birthers sued for slander? I don't think so. - Dan G

Are you an engineer? - Dan G

I agree, but which is the bigger problem, the fact that we know we can't count legitimate votes correctly, or the possibility of a couple of illegitimate votes (which we also can't count correctly) getting through? - Dan G

I think what kelpdiver is trying to say is that we should first work on the fact that you have to say, "by some counts," because not being able to count legitimate votes is a bigger problem. - Dan G

Was the canopy ride bumpy? I think it's pretty unlikely that there was turbulence you could feel in freefall, but not under canopy. - Dan G