wolfriverjoe

Like Trump?

Well, sure. It's the obvious next step. Your choices are to not jump again, do more tandems, or go AFF. Some places require tandems as part of AFF. Real, working, teaching, learning tandems, not just a carnival ride. The student has tasks to perform and skills to demonstrate. The student has to go through the First Jump Course to learn that stuff, then do the 'working' tandem. But to just do another 'fun' tandem would not be terribly beneficial.

Not according to the story you linked. Apparently the cops were totally unaware that the charges were going to be dropped. The statements they've release seem to indicate they aren't super happy about it. From the Central Detective Commander: From Mayor Emmanuel: So it's back to "Chicago Justice" as usual. Money & influence. Smollet is going to forfeit his bond ($100k). Apparently the former Chief of Staff for Michelle Obama approached the state's attorney "on behalf of Smollet & his family." That state's attorney recused herself from the case. And the public court file has been sealed. Go figure.

Oh piffle, Professor. There were no new indictments. That means Trump is totally exonerated. It was all LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The fact that the meetings with Russian officials were illegal (just not about coordinating election activities), the fact that Flynn "Betrayed his country", the fact that Cohen committed a felony on Trump's behalf and at his direction are just... Distractions. Yeah, that's what they are.

Define "Good Step". There are risks. You can get hurt. You can die. Student jumps are pretty safe, but not completely so. The comments that 'the drive to the airport is more dangerous' sound good, but are not supported by the statistics. IIRC, an average jump has the same risk as riding a motorcycle about 30 miles. There are things you can do to manage that risk, but it never goes away. There is also a reasonable risk that you will fall in love with it. If that happens, say goodbye to: Free weekends. All your money. All your friends who don't jump (don't worry, you'll make new ones). However, this will bring you into a very cool world. People like no other. Opportunities to go places, do things and meet people you won't believe. It's not super surprising that you are more nervous for the second jump. The first time, you had no idea what to expect. This time you do. Pay attention to your instructors. If you don't understand something, go over it again (and again and again) until you do. Stay hydrated, stay nourished. Have fun.

For the lawyer, it makes one a convicted felon. For the 'fucker' it makes one a hero to the alt-right.

So you like record budget deficits and overall debt? By the same folks who shut the government down because of the debt ceiling? You like planes that 'short-cutted' the certification process? Using rivers and streams as garbage dumps because its convenient and cheap? You think someone who was credibly accused of sexual assault should have a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land? You think we should spend $50 billion (low estimate) on a wall that no actual expert thinks is a good idea? What happened to "Mexico will pay for it"? What is 'energy dominance' exactly? Consuming the majority of it? Trying to keep a dying source (coal) going well beyond what market forces dictate? Sucking up to Saudi Arabia? You're absolutely right about the 'carnival barker' and 'dumber than a bag of hammers' part. I have yet to see coherent policy about anything. It's all about what's in front of his face at the moment, what Fox News is saying and what he thinks he can get away with. North Korea is a good example of this. Huge promises, no clue what's really going on, bowing and scraping to a second rate dictator in charge of a third rate country and then... Failing miserably. KJU gets what he wants (exercises cancelled, nuke and missile programs on the fast track). Trump gets... A few dead bodies from 65 years ago. (good that we have them back, but not at that cost)

I seem to remember that it used to be conservatives who railed against foolish and frivolous lawsuits. McDonald's Coffee (despite the fact that company officials knew that it was stupid hot and the lids weren't really secure), Mayors & anti-gun folks trying to sue the firearms industry to death (they knew the suits wouldn't go anywhere, they just wanted to bankrupt the companies), that sort of thing. So, times have changed. Trump threatens to sue anyone who is 'mean to him'. The kid from the Lincoln Memorial incident is suing the WaPo & CNN for being mean to him. And now, congresscreature Nunes is filing a lawsuit. For $250 million. Against Twitter and the Twitter user who goes by the name "Devin Nunes Cow." https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2019/03/22/devin-nunes-sues-twitter-and-internet-has-cow/kmmEZGuXITWxOIFwRkHf9N/story.html The 'cow' says mean things about Nunes. You know, free speech and lampooning politicians. So he's suing. And, as a result of the lawsuit, the number of followers of the poster have gone up. Just a bit. From about 1200, to over 600,000. Six hundred thousand. https://twitter.com/DevinCow

Well, as was pointed out above, the President is the only citizen that cannot be indicted for criminal activity. Knowing more details, and forcing them out if the potential candidate isn't willing, isn't a bad idea.

I agree that it's a bad idea for states to pull silly ideas for requirements to run for public office. I don't think this is one. I like the idea of requiring anyone who wants the 'highest office in the nation' to release more detail than the vague 'financial disclosure' that is currently used. Trump was the first in 40 years to fail to do so. He promised to (lied), make fake excuses (lied), all that to not show how much he's lied about his financial situation. I know lies are a politician's stock in trade, but he has gone well 'above and beyond' with his garbage.

Is he interested in getting royalties? He could allow someone else to publish, keep the copyright, and collect royalties.

Googled "How to file a complaint against a doctor." Got this about halfway down the first page: https://www.ama-assn.org/about/publications-newsletters/frequently-asked-questions-ethics Phree's suggestion about the medical board seems to be correct. Just curious, how did you find this out? How much evidence can you bring to the board? You said 'on the guys' and 'on girls'. How many of each? I'm going to guess you talked to at least a few women. How do they react when the find out? It might be better if one of them files the complaint.

Yup. In both theory and practice, the EC follows the 'will of the people' and elects the one who got the most votes. For the most part. The idea that they could be 'smarter than the people' and refuse to elect a demagogue, blatant con man or someone clearly unfit for the office was one good reason for their existence. The fact that they failed miserably the last time, when we had a wannabe dictator and con man and someone who failed to meet the constitutional requirements (emoluments clause, anyone?) and still put him into office kinda throws the whole 'Deep State" conspiracy idea out the window.

Maybe. I don't know if various state's legislatures are foolish enough to not realize how badly this could backfire. I think that anything beyond financial (tax) records would be a pretty hard sell. Elected officials are already required to make financial disclosure statements. They're pretty vague, but they are required. Also, every presidential candidate since Nixon has release their tax returns. It wasn't a law, but I don't see how making it one is that big of a step. Medical records are different.

I seem to recall that they are not open on Friday. I could be misremembering, though.

Very true. But many (most?) of them refuse to admit those flaws. You know, the "It's all a Witch Hunt" or "There was NO Collusion" crowd. They want to pretend that he was a 'successful businessman', despite being unable to run a casino without declaring bankruptcy 3 times. Having him disclose his tax returns, like every other candidate since Nixon, would at least offer some proof of his lies. Not that it would sway most people, but it would take some of the force out of their arguments. Seeing his lies about his finances written out in his own words (well, filled out on a form) and above his signature would be something hard to pretend isn't real. And the AG. Funny how they said that this was essential. And that it 'returned power that rightfully belonged to the legislature'. Equally funny that they waited until the end of the R governor's term to do this. If it was that important, why didn't they do it earlier?

"Know-it-all" folks, like those who dismiss a stated statistic as a 'liberal lie' without even checking it? The misinformation seems to be coming from you. The reality is that owning or possessing a gun makes one more likely to be shot. Similarly, owning a chainsaw makes one more likely to suffer a chainsaw injury. Who said anything about 'being violently attacked'? As was noted, many of the incidents are accidents (shooting one's self or another) or suicides. Ownership and access are pretty much interchangeable. If you own one, you have access to it. If you have access, either you or someone close to you owns it. If you want to split hairs that far, have fun. If you want a real discussion, rather than a shouting match or an echo chamber, you have to accept that other people have differing views and try to understand them Especially where they may be right. You don't have to agree, but to dismiss opposing views without even examining them won't get you very far. Again, 'gun violence' and 'violently attacked' are not the same thing. Generally (at least for this discussion) any shooting incident (deliberate or accidental) is considered 'gun violence'. While I don't fully agree, I do have to admit that a small piece of lead (or other material) entering the human body at supersonic speeds is a pretty violent thing. And I'm going to guess that everyone reading this now knows that you own guns. I don't know exactly who you are (and no, I'm not going to start stalking you), but chances are that someone on here does. If you've posted pics of new guns on FB or something, then a lot of people know. Spouses, kids, other family members (living with you or not) usually know. So does anyone those people have told. Range buddies know. (funny story on that below) The people you bought them from know (either a dealer of an individual). The people you buy ammo from know (or components if you load your own). The list goes on and on. The idea of owning guns and keeping it a secret is laughable. Funny story on range buddies: There was a regular who had a really nice M1 carbine with the paratrooper stock (original). One of the other regulars made a joke about walking off with it. I told him he'd never get away with it, because we 'knew where he lived'. He protested that we didn't know that. I said that I may not know where his house is, but I knew where he lived (he was at the range three or four times a week).

So how is this "Tyranny"? It's an elected legislature enacting a new law, following proper procedures. Somewhat different from a 'certain person' declaring a "State of Emergency" to get what he wants after the legislature decided not to pass it. THAT is one person, ignoring protocol & procedures, doing what HE wants, regardless of what the people or the legislature wants. That would be "Tyranny".

Yes they are. What stats did I 'spout'? I simply agreed with the above people that owning a gun (being in possession of it) puts you more at risk of being shot. There is enough data in the links above to establish that pretty clearly. I volunteer as a range officer at the local shooting range and have to deal with the entire spectrum of gun owners. I see some folks who are conscientious, careful and safe. Others have no business handling a gun. At all. The worst part is that the idiots usually think they are 'just great' and won't listen to anything. The risk for stupid people is likely higher than for careful and well trained owners.

Right. Most. That doesn't change the fact that owing a gun puts you at greater risk of being shot. Don't forget that these are statistics. Based on averages. You may be a perfectly safe & sane gun owner. That would put you 'above average'. So your personal, individual risk may be lower than average. The below average folks, OTOH... They have higher risks than average.

Have you noticed that he has yet to respond to any questions about his posts? I've asked several and gotten nothing. He knows he's posting garbage.

The fact that you posted this shows how uninformed you are about the whole situation. Thanks for the laugh. Helpful hint: Look up the name Viktor Yanukovych.

If it was in a state that required front plates, they'd likely have a suspect in custody by now. I can recall that (or similar) happening a time or two.

This one? https://taskandpurpose.com/much-actually-achieve-dropping-moab-afghanistan Looks like it wasn't as effective as originally reported. There's lots of women and kids in there, too. I presume that you're ok with killing them, because they are in there with the Daesh folks.

True to a large degree. But when some countries support and encourage extremists, they are vilified and suffer consequences. Iran is an example of a country that supported Islamic extremists and paid a price. However, Trump has not called out Saudi Arabia for their support of Muslim extremists in Yemen. Or even the (likely) government ordered murder of a journalist in their embassy in Turkey. Trump did call Nazis and KKK 'very fine people.' And there have been quite a few Right wing extremists who have taken those comments as support of their position. Trump's response to this seems to be that he doesn't think it's a real problem. He doesn't reject their philosophy. He doesn't say 'I don't support them'. He doesn't even say anything like 'they are misinterpreting my words'. He just says that they aren't a problem