DanG

You've gotten a lot of good advice here. Unfortunately, not everyone who is giving the advice agrees with each other. That doesn't make anyone wrong, what it does do is highlight why dropzones should have strictly enforced landing rules. Imagine that you are landing at about the same time as everyone who posted here, and the wind shifts 90 degrees. Some people would take the crosswind, some would make an extra 90 degree turn into the new wind direction, and one person would make a 45 degree split. If there were no predefined landing rules, no one on the load would be "wrong" but you can see the chaos that could ensue. So the only real answer to your question, "Did I do the right thing?" is the same as the answer to the question, "Did I follow my dropzone's landing rules?" If your dropzone doesn't have rules for this sort of thing, then there are a whole different set of questions you need to ask, preferably to your S&TA or DZO. - Dan G

Then go to locally owned and operated stores. They still exist, although they're not as convenient. And when the punk kids are rude, tell their Dad, he probably owns the place. - Dan G

Rush Limbaugh said it was, hell, he even added the word "freedom". Are you saying Rush was wrong? - Dan G

This is why we need to start buying robot insurance NOW! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyxzxNu6J98 - Dan G

Exactly, in school that place is science class. That would be religion class. - Dan G

Like what? There are lots of things that exist because they make short-term economic sense. I'm sure you can point to examples of things that are traditionally done by government like roads, police, scientific research, etc. that are being done by the private sector. That doesn't mean that there is no place for government. Do you really want to have law enforcement, military action, food safety, and air traffic regulation done by for-profit corporations? If so, you are living in a fantasy world. - Dan G

We feed ours. But never after midnight. - Dan G

Just because you don't agree with his plan doesn't make it either sabotage or stupid. I know that SC is a black and white corner of the universe, but there actually is grey out there. I don't agree with all of the spending either. I don't, however, think that the only two choices available are that the President is a commie or a moron. The world is not binary, you should explore other possibilities. Obama seems to believe in a larger role for government with regards to social spending than I like, but I happen to agree with him on other issues that are just as important, if not more so. For instance his belief in the rule of law and the importance of balanced diplomacy. Your milage may vary, but that's the great thing about America, you can say what you want and vote how you want. I personally think those rights will be stronger under Obama than the alternative, and that's more important to me than if the top tax bracket pays 39% (acceptable) or 42% (communism). - Dan G

Removing a ban on using Federal research dollars to conduct a certain kind of research is not the same as adding funding for that research. If you're going to pick on someone for being misleading, step out of the glass house. - Dan G

Fandango was intentionally comical. Cutaway not so much. - Dan G

Virginia DMV suckiness depends entirely on which one you go to. Rural ones are great, urban ones suck. They've all gotten much more tolerable in the 20 years I've been driving here. You can do just about everything online now, and even the urban centers seem to be better organized than they used to be. And just because VA went for Obama last year certainly doesn't make it a blue state. - Dan G

Obama may want the US to turn more socialist. That's not what Muenkel said. The idea I think is ludicrous is that he is actively sabotaging the country. If you've gone so far off the reservation that you think the President is trying to destroy America to increase his ability to remake it in a communist mold, then there is really no point in talking to you. - Dan G

Do you really, no shit, believe that the President is actively trying to destroy the economy so he can turn the US into a communist state? If so you have completely lost touch with the real world. How do you expect people to discuss issues seriously when such ridiculous extremes seem to be turning into normal positions? - Dan G

Again, you're right. I just remembered that I could never figure out how to pronounce it without visible wincing from my instructor. I suck at languages. - Dan G

Well I just can't argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge accepted truths regarding Bootsy Collins. - Dan G

Good point. Why are we having this debate when the world has long known about Bootsy Collins, the brother from another planet? - Dan G

Agree 100%. This is what bankruptcy is for. - Dan G

I'm pretty disappointed in Obama's plan. I would prefer we pull out much more aggressively. I'm hoping that he's setting some limits and then intending to have the actual withdrawal come in well under those limits, but I'm not holding my breath. - Dan G

Sounds a lot like your definition of conservatism. You're a liberal! - Dan G

Thanks. I appreciate that you admit the possibility of debate. It's refreshing given the increasingly partisan nature of this forum. The NYT article makes it clear that the jump in revenue in 2005 may have had a number of other causes, not the least of which was the bubble that we all know burst last year. Even Bernanke is quoted as saying that there is not enough evidence to vindicate supply side theories. I didn't watch the video. I understand the theory, I'm looking for real world proof. The link from the JEC shows that the tax burden in total dollars is being shifted toward the top 5%. They then use this fact to jump to the conclusion that under lower tax rates people will philanthropically expose more of their wealth to tax liability, and that total tax revenue will rise. They also make the argument about increased investment and productivity, but fail to back it up with facts. What they fail to take into account it the fact that wealth gaps are rising faster than any other time in history. Even if the tax rates stayed exactly the same, as the rich got richer and the poor poorer, a chart such as the one they show would result. The Laffer curve and supply-side economics are still unproven theories. The only thing proven about them is that reducing taxes on the wealthy gets them to support your party. - Dan G

You're right. I was thinking "Hello" Maybe this is why it took me three years to struggle through two years of Russian. - Dan G

It's only three syllables. "Thank you" on the other hand, is long as hell. - Dan G

That was far too well thought out and reasonable for this forum. Could you add in a few epithets and gross exaggerations to make us feel more at home? - Dan G

It's unlikely that I know anywhere near as much about this as you, but my basic theory is that we knew all along that Russia would never allow the installation of a missile shield in eastern Europe. In fact, from a strategic point of view, I think the destabilizing effect would more than cancel out the supposed security benefits. I believe the missile shield concept provides a couple diplomatic benefits: aid to Poland and the Czech Republic to solidify our alliance, a bargaining chip for use against Russia, and the appearance to our Western European friends that we are still serious about our NATO commitments, but without garrisoning thousands of troops on their soil (which has become rather unpopular). Notice that I didn't mention protection from Middle Eastern missiles. Perhaps if Russia had not been Putin-ified and started edging away from cooperation with the West the missile defense shield would not be the issue it is today. They did, and it is. The shield has more likelihood of being an effective deterent to Iranian missile development as a lever against Russia than it does as a missile defense shield, IMHO. And if you remember your recent history, the Polish installation agreement was finally signed after Russia invaded Georgia last summer. How anyone can argue that the shield was ever about anything other than Russia is beyond me. - Dan G

Do you have a source for this? Not being snarky, I'd really like to see evidence of this. I know that the Laffer curve predicts a rise in tax revenue with a reduction in tax rate, I've just never seen anyone show that it works in the real world. Thanks. - Dan G