tkhayes

sorry but that is a load of shit. Everyone goes on about freedom and bullshit like there was some fucking remote chance that a bunch of terrorists were suddenly going to conquer and invade the USA. If they on 9/11, managed to bomb a skyscraper in EVERY city in this country, we would still be a 'free country' it's a fucking ridiculous argument and if you can even remotely explain the possible end-game result of the WTC bombings as being a threat to our freedom, then I am all ears. The looses of freedom have only come SINCE 9/11 in the Patriot Act and the extreme fear and right-wing policies. You can do far better than that - it has NOTHING to do with freedom - but that sounds great when you are spending a trillion gdollars and you want everyone to feel afraid.... such arguments insult any level of intelligence in thsi country.

It's still cheaper than the prison system and the enforcement systems that we have in place today - so mock it if you want to - but can you really say that the 'war on drugs' is working? Should we realistically continue to fund programs that do not work? Or do we try something different? Portugal already did. The results look promising. What I am saying is making it 'illegal' has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the usage of stuff. It's like making teenage sex illegal - they are going to do it anyway.

Hey and don't forget, God created E. Coli bacteria, H1N1, and the plague. God caused my uncle to get hit by lightning, even though he was really a decent guy and God gave my other uncle lung cancer..... He is nothing short of fucking amazing all the things he can do....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110606/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq time to leave....I wrote my Congressman and Senator today - did you?

yes they do, but they don't get robbed particularly for the beer and cigarettes. They get robbed for money. We have drunks, we have alcoholics, we have chain smokers and we have a health care crisis due to smoking. Society accepts this as an 'acceptable risk'. We offer counseling and the freedom of choice for smokers and drunks, we may as well try the same set of rules for drugs and drug addiction. Can the DEA, can the 'war of drugs', can all the laws regarding the use of drugs and open it up. I bet we save tens of billions of dollars each year and I bet society is no worse off because of it. Fer sure what we are doing now is not working -

Well if you 'don't see opening it up further', then the robberies will likely continue..... legalize it, sell it at 7-11, tax it like cigarettes and beer, just like you can buy at 7-11,

all the more reason to legalize it all, tax it and put it out there. Empty the prisons from drug offenders and spend the money on rehab projects.

the gear is a museum piece and at that age, probably should not be jumped at all. Invest in some new gear and keep the old stuff around for some great stories and photos.

I suggest we leave, that is what I suggest being done. Al-Qaeda is damaged and severely. Taliban? Who gives a fuck anymore. The culture is 2000 years old and we are not going to change it by building fucking roads and schools over there while depriving our own citizens of a decent education. Get the fuck out. Now. When it disintegrates again into terrorist bases, opium and Taliban supported governments, we can still bomb the shit out of specific targets by remote control and probably have just-as-successful results without having the $8-10B/month overhead. beware the military industrial complex

that would be so true EXCEPT for the outcry that would most likely happen if someone broke out into muslin prayer or held a Wiccan ceremony at the same graduation ceremony. I am pretty sure that this would NOT be tolerated by the 'religious majority who is only trying to express a freedom of speech' It is a fundamental difference. Freedom of speech - but only as long as it is CHRISTIAN speech....

yep, I bet it will. And I bet the Supreme Court will rule that prayer at graduation ceremonies in public schools IS actually state sponsored prayer and therefore unconstitutional. $5 on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/02/prayer-prohibited-at-graduation-ceremony/?test=latestnews another 'ban' of prayer at high school. One more thumbs up for the Constitution.......

I was a bad student too. But it came to me eventually. saving your life is the big one - so simpler dives that focus on the basics. Jump, Pull, then canopy control If you are not getting the instruction you need, then change instructors or dropzones and try something different. Sounds like you need canopy control training for sure. Hop n pops, then you cannot 'forget to pull', since you are doing that out the door and do that until you get the canopy stuff to a point where you are safe for yourself. I did not understand the 'not taking your seatbelt off at 1K'. 1000' is not ahard and fast number, nor should it be. There are a lot of reasons to leave your seatbelt on. 1. Could I get out of the plane right now? 2. Would I get out of the plane right now? If the answer to either of these in NO, then consider leaving your seatbelt on. If you are at the front of the Twin Otter, you ain't getting out anyway at 1000' - too many people in front of you. At 3000', fine, or leave it on; while everyone else is leaving, you have lots of time to undo it. It also helps Center of Gravity issues with the pilot if there is a serious control issue. If you are sitting by the door, then yes, you are expected to have your seatbelt off and probably be ready to open the dorr in the emergency. Not comfortable with that? Then ask to sit somewhere else (not often possible). I would stick to hop n pops and hire a dedicated canopy coach until you understand the concepts of pattern, altitude, and flaring reasonably well.

see my avatar, don't hook it too low

who cares? I mean, if you hang out with a bunch of plumbers, you will get a plumber's opinion, whatever that happens to be. No different for movie makers.

yep, TK 'said' it therefore it must not be true. that will hold up in a constitutional court battle I am sure. your use of semantics is nothing short of amazing. change the meaning of stuff to suit your narrow belief structure. Perhaps we could spend some time arguing about the definition of the word 'the' or some other useless legal tripe.

maybe you can show the Supreme Court ruling where government sponsored POLICY of prayer or government sponsored prayer has been upheld.....

OK, my bad, Prayer POLICY was shot down. From your argument, you would think that the Supreme Court said it was OK to have open prayer at school functions. They did not. policy changed, no prayer. Same decisions would be made today. Prayer at government/public/school functions is an endorsement of government supported religion and is unconstitutional. argue all the semantics you want, the end result was no prayer. you really ought to be an attorney, the arguments you make in the full face of

perhaps you are having trouble with the comprehension of the case... last paragraphs of the ruling: Prayer was shot down. end of it Am I cute now? You really should try to read the case before you comment, I did.

my empathy has nothing to do with it. The right wing, in this dropzone forums and others, constantly talks about personal responsibility and the rights of corporations to do whatever the hell they want. And if you don't like it, then go start your own corporation and do it differently. I do not have empathy for him. bully for him - he shot a gun and chased away some robbers. That cost him his job. Too bad. Walgreen's decided that and that is fine with me. If the guy wants to work at a drugstore where you can carry guns, then he is free to start one. He should be 'grateful' that his actions worked and he possibly saved his life. Instead he will probably sue Walgreen's, which does nothing for anyone and instead turns him into a prick (if he does that). Walgreen's can have whatever policy (or not) that they want. If I was the Walgreen's store, I bet I would be firing him as well. And I bet Walgreen's insurance policy just doubled. They may only mitigate that by firing him.

It is really only a 'strong deterrent' if the person with the gun is highly trained and has the credentials and experience, as well as the 'upper hand' in any given situation. Me, as a bystander, would choose to NOT start that situation, or be involved in it. 1. i am in the store, the robbers come in and start shooting first, the clerk shoots them dead, I am alive. I would be grateful and I would be pissed off at the same time that he shot the fucking place up and I could have been killed. 2. I am in the store and the robbers come in, and the clerk starts shooting and they leave, no one is shot, I would probably be pissed off that the clerk started a shootout with me there. 3. I am in the store, robbers come in and execute me - oh well, life is a cunt sometimes. Not that I would want nor accept that - but I do not wander around basing my life on the possibility of that happening since the odds are so fucking slim, - (I would probaby more like get colon cancer than ever have that happen to me.) 4. Any number of other scenarios..... bottom line, the guy takes a chance 'cause his life is in danger. fine. he has to accept the consequences of his actions. I bring a gun to work, I might get fired. I have rights too. Post the big sign outside warning shoppers that there are guns inside and everyone gets to choose. I choose a different store, and I bet the robbers do as well. But I don't go hang out at the liquor store at 1am on a Saturday night, so again, the odds of anything like that ever happening in my lifetime are slim. I will spend my time on education, having fun with my friends, living the dream and not much time worrying about getting shot.

no, his life was still at risk in the situation. alright - All of the LIABILIY risk of his actions was borne by Walgreen's. I do not disagree with your point - his life was probably in danger. Walgreen's can still fire him - the issues are not actually related. If I am in a store while it is being robbed, they might have a right to defend themselves, but do I have a right to ask that no one starts a fucking shoot-out? I am not interested in going into a store and wondering if the clerks are armed and willing to use them. Now if the store posts a sign out front and says "Hey, our clerks are armed and will shoot you if you try to rob us", then the robbers have a choice and so do I as a customer.

despite everyone's beliefs, especially here in the USA, the US does not actually have a lot of control over the price of a barrel of oil Did we go over there with some hopes of controlling it? I believe that is true, but the reality is that we have little control over it.

no brainer, the clerk could have drawn customers and other employees into a gun battle. You're fired. THe Gimli Glider pilot was touted as a hero because he dead-sticked a 767 into an old airport int he 80's with no power. bravo. Then he was fired because he was ultimately responsible for the airplane running out of fuel. If the Walgreen's clerk had real firearm credentials (other than a CCW), the employer was aware of the gun, he/she carried a multi-million dollar liability insurance policy to cover his 'acts during the use of said weapon(s)", then maybe Walgreen's would have seen it differently. All the risk of his actions were borne by Walgreen's.

for every 'disenchanted' democrat who no longer supports Obama, I will find you a 'disenchanted' republican who has finally realized that yes indeed, they will cut your social security check and slash Medicare/medicaid so that we can continue to fight wars and subsidize banks and rich people. Rick Scott, just elected 5 months ago has the lowest approval rating ever here in Florida. My answer to that? "Hey YOU elected him, you dumb-asses". Now you got it - good luck.