wolfriverjoe

Well, it's kind of hard to decide how seriously to take this. Link to story: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/suppress-black-vote-trump-campaign-230616#ixzz4OsIv3Ef9 "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Big difference between going as a protester, intending to make a scene and get booted and going there as an "agent provocateur", posing as a Trump supporter who is as repugnant as this dude. So many Trump supporters seem to ignore the fact that he is pretty clearly a racist. Being sued for racial discrimination is a fairly big clue. His comments about Mexicans & Muslims is another. There are also a lot of people who are ignoring the simple fact that Trump has done a very good job of courting the "bigoted & xenophobic" demographic. As I have noted before, there is a pretty significant segment of the population that clearly hates Obama as President because he is black. They were hiding their racism behind claims that he is a "secret Muslim", or he isn't a US citizen. But since Trump has come to the forefront, they aren't hiding anywhere near as much. There have been a few instances of online stories about Michelle Obama or the daughters that have been pulled because of the hateful, racist comments that were posted. Now that HRC is in a position to win the White House, a lot of those same people are up in arms that a woman will be president. So it gets even uglier. There was a recent post about how many of the Trump supporters long to "make America great again" by going back to a time when women and minorities had little or no rights in society. If you wish to pretend that the racist, bigoted, xenophobic & hateful people who are supporting Trump are all plants by the opposition, go ahead. But I happen to think that the reality is waaaaaay different. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I don't usually answer these sorts of surveys, but for a high schooler, I gave it a shot. A couple of issues: As was noted, you tie military jumping and sport jumping to closely together. Other than "they use parachutes" there really isn't too much that crosses over (not including Military Free Fall). Modern gear is very reliable. Static line (even though it isn't "modern") is also very reliable. Hard openings are somewhat of an issue, but it's a transient one, unless there is a problem with the gear (lines out of trim, wrong size slider, ect). I have hard openings from time to time, but it's a packing issue, not a gear issue. Modern square canopies are fully controllable. I can go in any direction I wish. Accuracy (not including the "down to the centimeter kind) is very easy. Automating wouldn't make it any better. As was suggested, go out to a DZ. Explain why you are there and ask if anyone is willing to talk to you. It shouldn't be a problem. Getting jumpers to talk about our sport is easy. Getting us to shut up about it is the hard part. For example, there was a group of Cub Scouts at the DZ a couple weeks ago. The DZO gave a full tour, I demonstrated a pack job, the only "down" part was the DZ was in full operation, so the DZO couldn't let them get a good look at the Otter. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Short answer: Probably. Keep in mind that "Impeachment" isn't limited to the office of president. It's the removal process for any elected official. If the elected official is accused of "bad behavior", then they get a hearing of some sort, and if the folks in charge of that hearing decide that the behavior warrants removal, then they do it. It doesn't happen a whole lot, at any level, because the person facing impeachment will usually "see the writing on the wall" and resign before facing any public hearing. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, he was at one of his resorts in Florida. He was talking about how "All of my employees are having a tremendous problem with Obamacare, What they're going through with their health care is horrible because of Obamacare." and how his employees are facing huge premium increases this coming year, how he is going to repeal it and replace it with "something better." Wait a minute, a large company and it's employees are getting their health insurance through the Obamacare exchanges? No, "over 95%" get their health insurance through the company. Go figure. NPR Story For those that hate NPR, you can find this with a simple search. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Two thoughts on this: If you have access to a canopy and a hanging rack, hang the canopy up and go up into a cell. Measure the height of the rib at a few points. Use that data to get a rough estimate of the area of the rib. Send an e-mail to a few canopy manufacturers. Ask them. Tell them why you want the info. Keep in mind the ribs vary from canopy to canopy, and even more by size of canopy, so be specific. No guarantees it will get a response, but certainly worth the effort if you want accurate info. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Even professional counselors at treatment centers will admit that the treatment will get someone clean, but will not keep them clean. Alcoholism/addiction is far to involved and complex of a situation to be "fixed" by a short term hospital stay. The alcoholic/addict needs continued support to stay clean. Continued, long term treatment (often called "aftercare") is one way. AA (or other 12 step programs) is another. There are others. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I think those are pack volumes. As in what size main container should they fit into. HxWxD won't work either, because they taper to the tail. You'd need approx area of the rib, x width of cell x chord of canopy. And the chord will vary from the middle cells to the outer cells on anything but a truly "square" canopy. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

The pic in post #2 shows the door (sort of). It's on the right, and it looks just like another bulkhead panel. But you can see the two hinges on the seam. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Same as his three wives. He has "preferences". So many people have asked "why didn't these women make complaints when these things happened?" Maybe because Trump has a loooong history of attacking anyone who says bad things about him? He is currently threatening to sue each and every one of these women after the election. He also has a long history of making these sorts of threats without actually following through with them. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Precisely what you are doing. Weird. IMO: That is a good observation. What is your suggestion? How about love him as a neighbor and treat him with respect? You know, like that one fella said to do. I believe I have stated that above. Well, in a post on the previous page you wrote: My experience with fundamentalist "Christians" is that the 'invitations' are accompanied by a lot of threats of fire and brimstone and damnation if they don't repent and do what they are told to do. It is very difficult to fraternize with people who are convinced that their way is the only way and that all others must follow the exact same way or suffer "God's Wrath." If dude doesn't want to join your church, don't force it. But that shouldn't mean you can't treat him with love, kindness and respect even if he doesn't believe as you do. And I (as usual) fail to understand why you can't fraternize with "socialists", especially since you and (apparently) many of your "tribesmen" are retired, collecting social security and using medicare. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Precisely what you are doing. Weird. IMO: That is a good observation. What is your suggestion? How about love him as a neighbor and treat him with respect? You know, like that one fella said to do. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

You mean like allowing pretty much unlimited immigration for the first hundred plus years? Those borders were pretty "well protected." "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Translation: When we decide someone is around that disagrees with our beliefs, we terrorize them into leaving. "Democracy, Freedom and Liberty" at it's finest. Just out of curiosity, who was there first? Them or you and your "tribe"? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

AGREED - and the other half to see him get attacked seriously, it shouldn't even be a podium, it should be a ring Cage FIFY

We had this setup in a 182 that I jumped out of a bunch of times. Your guesses are pretty close. We had a wood backrest for the "#1 student" spot. It protected both the dashboard/controls and the jumper's rig. The "J/M" spot (what you call the "last jumper") could either sit facing back, between the legs of the "#1 student", kneel facing forward or sit facing forward, leaning back on the jumper against the rear bulkhead. In any case, the belt was usually threaded through the legstraps, because there really wasn't anything to keep the jumper from sliding out from under the belt. Since nobody has answered your first question, I'll give it a shot. Oops. Riggerrob answered it and I didn't see that. You mention "Rook's plane". I guess you mean Skydive Chicago's Otters. I'm also going to guess you were at the International meet. Keep in mind that those weren't all SDC's planes. Skydive Midwest's Otter (203SF) was there too. Not a big issue, because it has the same setup as SDC's. Those are single point "Hooker" belts. There's a nice writeup on them in Annette O'Neill's article on seatbelt use. It's covered in part 4. I don't have a pic, and I couldn't find anything with a quick Google search. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Here's one for you; let's say this election ends up without someone getting to the magical 270 electoral votes. It then goes to the House of Reps to decide. Will the Republican-controlled House choose Trump? Jerry Baumchen They probably would only if he formally agreed to work with them in some type of binding contract. Currently they know that he doesn't care about them any more, he used their party to get to this point and doesn't need them. If elected he wouldn't need the citizens of the country anymore so he could go back on any campaign promises while he uses his Presidential authority to hammer out all the pissing matches he can line up. If anyone thinks his SC choices will be anything but a personal bargaining chip you're kidding yourself; conservative, liberal, who knows. lol - that post maxed out the speculation meter Do you think anything involving Trump would resemble something other than a loose cannon rolling around the decks with a lit fuse? All we know about him is that when he gets mad about something he just wants to win and doesn't care who he steps on to make that happen. While it certainly is speculation, all one has to do is look at his history to take pretty good guess at what "President Trump" (I just threw up a little bit in the back of my mouth at that) might do. He has shown pretty clearly that whatever he may have said or done in the past, he is willing to promise anything to get what he wants. From the "Illegal Immigrant" promise. He says he's against illegal immigrants and will deport them (leaving out all the racial/xenophobic crap). He hired models that were not legal to employ. He hired construction workers that were illegal immigrants, failed to give them proper safety equipment (hard hats among other things) and paid them well under the going wage. Interestingly, he had zero issues with the unions while doing this... In New York City. You know who runs the construction unions in NYC, right? He claims to be fully in support of the 2nd amendment. The NRA even endorsed him (which may cost them my membership when it comes up for renewal). Yet he published in "his" book that he supported the AWB and that ordinary people shouldn't have those sorts of guns. He also brags that he has a NYC carry permit. And brags how hard it is to get, so he must be "special" to have one. He doesn't say anything about that difficulty for the ordinary citizen. He has yet to say anything specific on gun rights that I know of (other than "I support the 2nd"). He claims to be against abortion. Yet he has said repeatedly in the past that while he personally opposes it, he 100% supports a woman's right to choose. And, last but not least, "make America great again." (sorry, I think it's pretty great right now). He's repeatedly gotten a group of investors together and purchased a company of some sort. Typically, he has a big meeting, where he gives a rousing speech, promising to "Make This Company GREAT Again." He then proceeds to run the company into the ground. Paying himself a huge salary, dumping personal debts onto the company, using his other companies as contractors and vendors to make more money for himself. Then, when the company has been totally plundered, he declares bankruptcy. His investors lose their money. The contractors and vendors are left with unpaid invoices (except, of course, for Trump owned vendors - those were paid up front), and the employees lose their jobs. The casino bankruptcies were classic. He walked away with a huge payout (and dumped his own debt onto the company) and the investors, contractors & vendors and employees got screwed. I don't think it's unreasonable speculation to think he would behave any differently as President. Note: None of this addresses his issues with women, or the whole Trump U con job/bribery issues. Those are a whole different can of worms. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

People who irrationally target LE probably don't objectively look at much of anything. I don't think surviving the attack is really a consideration. Maybe, maybe not. It's realistic to presume that those attackers were doing a "Death Run" (expecting to go down in a "Blaze of Glory" kinda thing). And most of them were killed by return fire at the time of the attack. The didn't even escape the scene of the initial attack. The one in Dallas, however, was a bit different. They had the suspect cornered. He had nowhere to go. They chose to send in a bomb carrying robot. Actually a fairly expensive remote control vehicle. And blew it up. They could have waited him out. Attempts to negotiate weren't successful, the suspect indicated he wanted to kill more cops. But they didn't even wait a couple hours (reports said shots were exchanged at 0030, the bomb was detonated at 0121). Historically, suspects in cop killings have a pretty high rate of dying while being arrested. Some of that is the irrationality of the suspects. But to think that the mentality of the cops isn't part of it is rather naive. Even suspects who attack cops without killing them suffer. (even if the suspect turns out to not have committed the assault). They don't take that sort of thing lightly. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I think people do care about subjective opinions. Yours is. Mine is not. They care, just not the way you think. It's funny too because you just dismissed out of hand the word qualified used objectively, yet you appear to have no issue whatsoever making a completely subjective claim. Double standard much? Well, I think both the subjective and objective qualifications matter. Objective being largely the experience that HRC has. I said before, and still believe that from an "experience and understanding of how to do the job" perspective, HRC is the most qualified candidate for Pres that I've seen in my life. Perhaps in the entire history of the country. Subjectively, her behavior her entire adult life has shown her to be ambitious, fairly ruthless, and largely lacking in integrity. No worse than GWB, or her husband. Certainly not worse than Nixon. But, even using that fairly subjective metric, she is head and shoulders above Trump. His treatment of investors, vendors and employees (including illegal immigrants) in the companies he has run (and run into bankruptcy) is pretty telling. His treatment of his wives and just about any other woman he has encountered is also rather damning. His "Trump University" is clearly criminal fraud. His bribes to the Attorneys General who were investigating him (for the Trump U and other things) were rather blatant. His "Foundation" is a sham. I'd say he has less integrity than any President in the modern age (including Nixon). He also has far, far less of the objective qualifications than any other President. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

he'd stand a chance in 2016 considering DonHillaldery it'd been extra funny since a Billy president would still have a bat shit crazy brother Considering that he died of Pancreatic Cancer in 1988, I doubt he would be interested in running. He'd still be a better pick than Trump. I don't see anything in the Constitution or 25th Amendment that says a dead person can't be elected President. The 25th addresses a president's dying while in office. Very true Professor. I didn't say he couldn't be nominated or elected. I said I doubted he was interested in running for office. Being dead for 28 years, I kinda doubt he's interested in anything. Unless he comes back as a zombie, in which case his primary focus would be "brains." And again, Billy Carter (zombie or decayed corpse) would still be a better pick than Trump. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

You might try "fact checking" some of that. The Stingers used in Afghanistan were leftover from the Soviet war (that's why it was a dud - it was 25 years old). And the Reagan admin (via the CIA, via the Pakistani ISI) never supplied arms directly to OBL. But people like to keep repeating that old lie. There were zero Stingers in Lybia. There were, however, something like 20,000 (yes, twenty thousand) Russian SAM-7s. Similar to a Stinger, shoulder fired, heat seeking, anti-aircraft missile. Handy, easy to use and fairly cheap. Khadaffi used his oil money to buy a lot of them. They were scattered all over the country, and the rebels were capturing them on a regular basis. Some (nobody knows how many) ended up being taken out of the country by "Islamic Radicals." Part of Stevens orders were to find and purchase as many as he could. The intent was to round up as many as possible to keep them off the "open market." But, of course, this doesn't cast any aspersions on HRC, so the right wing refuses to believe it. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

he'd stand a chance in 2016 considering DonHillaldery it'd been extra funny since a Billy president would still have a bat shit crazy brother Considering that he died of Pancreatic Cancer in 1988, I doubt he would be interested in running. He'd still be a better pick than Trump. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Kind of the same argument Trump supporters like to throw out there when confronted with the more outrageous campaign promises Mr. Trump has made ("oh, he doesn't actually mean he'll do that"). Not sure why it's okay to dismiss half the things Mr. Trump claims he'll do while touting the radical political shake-up he also claims. What puts one claim into the "well, he won't actually DO that" bin, and another claim into the "he's going to do such great things for this country!" bin? At least now we have the same assessment for beliefs about Sec. Clinton -- if they believe she'll try to take away everyone's guns, then why wouldn't they accept that premise being tossed into the "well, she won't actually do THAT" bin? (Yeah, I know -- the question is rhetorical) Well that's a pretty good point. They both say they'll do things they know will never happen to energize part of their base and get votes. Well, motivating the base and getting votes is part of it. Another part is that she probably does want to do those things. Maybe not "prohibition, confiscation and destruction" of all semi auto long guns, but I don't doubt she would like to get stricter legislation. She may even try to do it. I think (I haven't had an opportunity to ask him personally, you know ) that Obama really wanted stronger gun control. He was not a politician back in the 90s, so he may not have understood how bad an idea it was. After the battle to get the ACA passed, I think he had learned a very difficult and expensive lesson (not "$" expensive) on pushing through legislation that half the country was against. So he decided it was unrealistic to push gun control through. Then, after the tragedy at Sandy Hook, he saw that there was significant, vocal support for controls. And, as I pointed out, a history of successful gun controls in the aftermath of this type of tragedy. But he failed to understand the "grassroots" power of the gun rights crowd. They don't just sit on the sidelines and shout. They act. They write their legislators. And they vote. And the legislators know that. In the runup to the Senate failing to move any sort of gun control to the floor, one senator was noted as saying something like: 'I know the polls say 90% of the people are in favor of stronger laws, but the mail I'm getting is 90% against it.' Knowing that people who just answer polls aren't anywhere near as likely to vote as people who write letters, the senators wanted to keep their jobs. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Except "well regulated" in the context of the way it was written, and the language of the times, does not mean "subject to lots of rules and regulations." It means "operating properly". Why would they mean "subject to lots of rules and regulations" in the part about the militia, then write "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" at the end. Lots of rules and regulations tend to infringe rights. This isn't to say that I think that there should not be any rules on guns. Even the Supreme Court in Heller said there can be reasonable ones without "infringement." It's just that I don't see the meaning of "well regulated" the same as you do. Edit to add: I don't focus on the "milita" part of it either. I focus on the "People" part. And to address the reply that popped up while I was writing this: I wouldn't worry about '321 fools' that overreact. While 'groupthink' can be very powerful, and once things get rolling, they can be veryhard to stop, if a bunch of idiots try something violent, they will be taken down pretty hard. Look at the lunatics who decided to go out and "hunt down some cops". EVERY ONE died. None were taken into custody alive. One was even blown up by a robot (Dallas). You think that isn't an object lesson? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Bolding mine. HRC has said lots of things about guns. Mostly not in favor of gun rights. She's said that both Heller and MacDonald were wrong, that the 2nd doesn't apply to individuals. She has said she'd like "Australian style" regulation, which means outlawing all semi auto shotguns and rifles, confiscating them and destroying them. She has said that she would like to abolish the NRA. But saying those things and actually doing them are two totally different propositions. Obama has said virtually the same things (not sure if he's proposed abolishing the NRA). His count of successful attempts at gun control legislation is... Zero. His count of attempts at gun control legislation is... One. After the aftermath of the Assault Weapons Ban in 96, most politicians realized the danger of proposing gun control legislation. Amazingly, they don't seem to have forgotten it. Even after the tragedy at Sandy Hook, they didn't do anything. Similar incidents led to sweeping bans in the UK, Canada and Australia (see above about "Australian style" gun control). I really don't like HRC. I won't vote for her. But I don't really fear her going after gun rights. Even if she stack the Supreme Court with anti-gun types, they tend not to overturn previous SC rulings unless they were extraordinarily bad (Dred Scott is one). They accept the precedent even when they don't like it. I also don't worry about any sort of "uprising". As was noted, any sort of organizing to that end would not go unnoticed by the authorities. And if it was serious, it would be addressed. The type of douchebag that talks about that sort of revolution is exactly the type that wouldn't have the balls to stand up (in person) against authority. They are great at posting shit on line, and talking at the bar, and all that. But when push comes to shove, they would most likely submit to what ever authority came after them. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo