DanG

That is utter bullshit. So is that. - Dan G

Thread drift happens, deal with it. In fact, you started it by commenting about BoA providing banking services to illegal aliens, a practice you found to be against Christian teaching because Christians uphold the law of the land. Of course, abortion is also the law of the land, but somehow not subject to the same "Christian teaching is to uphold the law of the land" rationale. - Dan G

Which is why they won't do it again. Remember, the VP is picked by the candidate, not the primary voters. I think they'll frame it as a states' rights issue. Romney will argue (as he's already done) that was was right for Mass. may not be right for Miss. and federal.gov shouldn't have a say in the matter. He's also starting to work in some wiggle room between himself and Romneycare because he knows how tough it will be to get over that hump. I think the GOP base will fall in line. The base will vote for anyone over Obama, and Romney will appeal to the swing voters that the more conservative GOP candidates can't get. - Dan G

Yeah billvon, remember, "It's turtles all the way down." - Dan G

The only person that would pick that ticket would be Obama. Gingrich has stepped on his own dick (or stuck it in the wrong person) so many times there is no way the modern GOP will elect him. Bachman is an idiot who appeals only to the ultra right wing. Swing voters wouldn't touch her with Newt's dick. The GOP saw what happened when they picked a Bachman clone last time, they won't do it again. Are you joking? I hope so. Compared to Gingrich/Bachman, Romney and Pawlenty are carrying those little vinyl 1960s carry-on tote bags. - Dan G

Michelle Bachman will kill the GOP ticket as surely as Palin did. She's said too much utterly stupid shit to be taken seriously. I think the GOP powers that be know that. I think the only reason the GOP would nominate Cain is to court the black vote, and I think the black voters they would be trying to court will see right through it. I don't think Cain is electable to President, although I admit I don't know that much about him at this point. I think Romney will get the nod, although he will be so damaged by all the other GOP pretenders by the time the convention rolls around that Obama will beat him in the general election. I honestly have no idea who will get the VP nod. Pawlenty is posssible, but Cain might be irresistable for VP. My official guess is Romney/Cain. - Dan G

Look in the dictionary under the term "projecting". They did not put a mirror in the dictionary, that is actually your picture. - Dan G

Yep. And even if you argue that they are all on board for a common purpose, the pilot must pay at least his pro rata share of expenses (gas, oil, fees, etc) so the Private Pilot is still barred from taking his buddies up unless the Pilot chips in his share. - Dan G

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. - Dan G

That attitude is terrifying. Where does it stop? I flew to San Francisco and back about a week ago. My tickets were bought be someone else, who spelled my last name wrong. Neither TSA agent screening me noticed, not even the one who asked me what my name was. The TSA isn't protecting us from anything. - Dan G

I think the rest of us wish you knew 15% of what you think you know. You seem like a happy guy. - Dan G

I respectfully disgree about the 7711. If they had done the jump without the 7711, would that have been better? - Dan G

Maybe. It still might not rise to what USPA has defined a demo jump as. Either way, and the waiver was approved, then the jump was 100% legal. If the jump was legal and there were no spectators, why would the BOD need to do anything about it? - Dan G

I suppose I should have said, "I've never seen a skydiver soliciting funds on their own behalf." I wouldn't, and didn't, give her any money. The friends I've donated to didn't ask for help, but they obviously needed it. - Dan G

Only a Commercial lincense is required. Some even argue (wrongly, I believe) that only a Private is required. There is no FAA "Jump Pilot" rating. Not really. USPA has minimum field requirements for students. Even those are waiverable. Licensed jumpers (not doing demos) can land in pretty much any field they have permission to. Assuming it is a demo jump. No spectators = no demo. - Dan G

Sure. That has nothing to do with your theory that we are in Afghanistan for natural resources. No and yes. Yes, I'm happy with it. The Administration was not watching it live like it was a Playstation game with direct feeds from gun mounted cameras. That just doesn't happen. In another thread I challenged someone to come up with changes to the story other than Bin Laden being armed and using his wife as a shield. They were unable to, just as you'll be unable to as well. Obviously you can, since your mind is quite made up. Like I suspected. Another conspiracy theorist who thinks he knows it all. So you think we went to war to increase illicit opium production? That makes no sense, even from your warped perspective. No, it was a hodge-podge because it was a hodge-podge. You don't have a coherent argument, just a lot of vague references to radical anti-Western talking points. I can openly deny it because it is silly. As far as insulting you goes, you need to refine your reading skills. I'm insulting your argument, not you. Crying about non-existant personal attacks is a sure hallmark of a weak argument. Yeah, I suppose so. I'm just sorry that so many people choose the interpretation that makes no sense. Some of those people even vote. - Dan G

My old DZ has radio pockets sewn into the upper outside sleeves of the student jumpsuits. When their hands are in the toggles, the radios are right near their ears, but there is essentially no snag potential. - Dan G

As expected you had to rely on the old pipeline backup. In order for that to make sense, we had to engineer 9/11, invade Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, and then get to work on that pipeline! If you believe that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy, then I have nothing more to say to you. I suspect you'll argue that 9/11 was a convenient trigger that Bush/Cheney seized upon to get the ball rolling on that pipeline. Okay, so we get rid of the Taliban, and get to work on the pipeline, right? Well, it's been almost ten years, and no pipeline. If we're fighting in Afghanistan just to build a pipeline, we're doing a shitty job. Other resources you mention are opium and lithium. For the first five or six years of the war, we pretty much didn't touch the poppies. We promoted alternative crops, educated farmers on modern techniques that would make other crops more profitable, and worked with tribal groups to discourage the planting of poppies. Only in the last four or five years has poppy eradication been prevalent, and it's mostly being pushed by the Europeans. I fail to see how the low level effort to eradicate poppies could be considered a war over resources. I don't know much about litium production in Afghanistan except to say that I don't believe there is much. I suppose there may be substantial lithium resources there, but as far as I know, they have yet to be exploited. Again, we're not doing a very good job if we went to war for lithium. The end of your post is a hodge-podge of talking points about military contractors, distribution of wealth, and general sheeple bullshit. I see no reason to respond point by point. Suffice it to say, as much as you think I've bought into the mainstream narrative, you've obviously bought into the radical alternative narrative. We went to war in Afghanistan to respond to repeated attacks by Al Qaeda, with Taliban support, on US interests both at home and abroad. Missle strikes and economic embargoes by Clinton didn't have an impact, so boots on the ground were required. We succeeded in removing the Taliban from power, and started working to build an effective central government. The effort has had mixed success. The elections in 2004 were very successful, but the new Parliament has had trouble becoming an effective body. The ANA and ANP numbers have swelled, but the leadership from the mid level on up has not been effective at all. What we are trying to do is nothing short of building a modern country from scratch, against the baggage of centuries of tribal warfare, drug profit dependance, and constant outside interference. I doubt the West has the tenacity to stay there long enough to allow the progress we've made so far take full root. I'm sorry that is the case, but it's not surprizing. People like you, who seize on radical anti-US propoganda without really understanding the situation, are partly to blame. Antipathy and general ignorance in the general population is mostly to blame. - Dan G

We're not talking about what people do in another country, in another culture. We're talking about the government sponsoring Christian prayer in America. How would you feel if the government sponsored Hindu prayer in America? - Dan G

No, I suspect I would care. How about you? - Dan G

How would you have felt if the student had given a Hindu prayer? Or a Muslim prayer? I suspect it would have bothered you, even though you don't believe any of it. - Dan G

Then we'll just get to do it all over again in twenty years or so. - Dan G

My understanding is that USPA negotiated for group LIFE insurance rates. I'm not sure why there are links to health insurance sites on the USPA website, but the LIFE insurance USPA negotiated does not exclude skydiving. Yes, I am yelling the word LIFE on purpose. - Dan G

You made the argument. Back it up. You first. As background, I spent about a year and a half in Afghanistan working with the local population and local authorities in both the East and South ofthe country. I don't know yours, which is why I asked. I claim that all wars have been about Krispy Kreme doughnuts. And I have provided as much explanation for my theory as you have for yours. See above. - Dan G

Huh? How can you say donating money to injured friends has nothing do to with donating money to injured friends? It is the soliciting part you're talking about? I don't think I've ever seen anyone soliciting funds on their own behalf. It has always been a DZ or other concerned person soliciting on behalf of the injured. I don't see anything wrong with that. - Dan G