wolfriverjoe

Ok. FAR 105.3 (Definitions): Foreign parachutist means a parachutist who is neither a U.S. citizen or a resident alien and is participating in parachute operations within the United States using parachute equipment not manufactured in the United States. Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/105.3 Not sure how an ex-pat US Citizen would fit in there.

That is my understanding, but I don't have any solid proof. As usual, I can be wrong and welcome correction if so.

Turn into? You mean he hasn't been?

Hi Jerry, On a reversal of you, a friend's brother is named Gerald. His dad was also Gerald, but went exclusively by Gerry. The younger Gerald absolutely refuses to be called Gerry, because of issues with his dad (they were estranged for a long time).

^This. I volunteer at a local cat rescue. Due to some really good luck (and some excellent planning by the leadership), we now have a Veterinarian on staff. It makes a lot of things a lot easier. When I first met her, one of my first questions was "How do you want me to address you?" She was comfortable with either "Dr Emily" or "Dr Basten". She said something to the effect of "When I was up in Minnesota, everyone called me "Dr Emily", but down in Texas, they were more formal and called me "Dr Basten". So we agreed that "Dr Emily" was what I would call her. In the past week or so, I was informed by others that she has changed her mind and does not want to be called "Dr Emily". I asked her about it and she said that she was generally fine with "Dr Emily", but too many people calling her that were 'forgetting' the "Dr" part and just calling her "Emily", and she wasn't ok with that. So we agreed that, moving forward, I will call her "Dr Basten". And I'm fine with that. She's a fully trained and qualified veterinarian. She's earned the right to be addressed as she wishes. Out of courtesy and respect, I'll address pretty much anyone however they wish, within reason. My legal name is "Joseph", I generally go by Joe. Either is fine. I don't like the nickname "Joey" and those who use that are so informed. Its kinda funny, that some assholes then taunt me by calling me that. I wonder which side of this argument they would fall.

No, there's no law against vigilantism. But it should have taken away the 'unavoidable' part of the self defense claim, negating it, resulting in convictions for at least 2 counts of voluntary manslaughter. The Zimmerman case should have had a similar outcome. I'd bet a dollar that, had the protester shot and killed Rittenhouse, that the prosecutor would have pushed the case a lot harder, claiming that the protestor voluntarily placed himself in a volatile situation with a gun, that a 'reasonable person' could have predicted that violence would occur and any claim of self defense wasn't valid. And likely gotten a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. And child abuse, seeing that Rittenhouse was 17 when it happened.

No. The original suit was for $250. The settlement was a lot less. As is typical, terms have not been released. The 'funny' part about this whole thing is the way it was handled by the prosecutor. There's been some speculation that he 'took a dive' on it. He did a really poor job on it. It's not a secret that white people are given preferential treatment in the court system in that part of the state. There have been several 'self defense' killings that were prosecuted much more aggressively and thoroughly than this one was. The primary issue (in my mind at least) is the 'unavoidable' aspect of this case. Rittenhouse chose to inject himself into that situation. He intentionally travelled there to 'protect property'. No authority, no ownership of that property, no real training. That, from what I've been taught, removes any valid claim of self defense. Vigilantes don't get to claim self defense when they kill people. But the combination of the judge's rulings & instructions, the piss poor case presented by the prosecutor and the effective defense got the kid off. This will have some very significant consequences down the road.

Wouldn't that be pretty much the same thing?

Or that the fear of what could/would happen if he revealed his sources is greater than the fear of the judgements. No idea who/what pays him. But I can see it being 'bad people who would do bad things'.

Well, one more suit in Connecticut has been given a default judgement. Jones and his attorneys have consistently failed to produce documentation as ordered by the judge. Interestingly, some of that documentation is related to how Jones gets his income. How he monetizes his hatred. Who's paying him for it. Funny he won't say. Really, really funny. And, as I noted above, he's whining and crying that his free speech rights are being 'crucified'. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/581570-alex-jones-found-liable-in-latest-sandy-hook-defamation-case

Pfft. Which of those were legitimate predictions made by ANY scientist? And which were random statements taken out of context by sensationalist media?

The Covidiots are reaching a new level of stupid. While they are submitting to the vax mandates in order to keep their jobs, they're also going after quack 'remedies' that will 'detox' the vax from them. About as effective as the garbage they like to promote instead of the actual vax, some of it is, not surprisingly, a bit dangerous. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/covid-vaccine-mandates-push-holdouts-get-shot-detox-rcna4859?fbclid=IwAR2ysz-kXPCdJ3nlUXRnRZSI8fFT4NQKYQFE7XJtgcma4g73Xgz5WOQGuDg Also, on a slightly different level of stupid, a bunch of folks in Greece bribed a clinic to inject them with sterile saline instead of the vax. That way they could pretend to be vaxxed and avoid the required, repeated test protocol. While it seems that some folks were successful in avoiding the vax, others were actually vaxxedby doctors who weren't willing to risk the consequences of faxing a vaccination (Note: This may be a repost. I've seen it before and can't remember if it was here or somewhere else). https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/anti-vaxxers-bribe-doctors-for-fake-vaccines-in-greece-end-up-receiving-real-doses/829999

There were lots and lots of angry bigots. Lots of complaints. Of course, the fact that she knelt during the Star Spangled Banner just pissed them off even more. However, she hasn't been fired yet.

That's what he always does,

Stupid, selfish & short-sighted. I made that comment in another thread. It also applies here. I always remember that today's kids are the ones that will be paying into Social Security when I'm receiving it. I'd like them to be at least reasonably well educated, so that they can get real jobs.

It's not the fragility, it's our aversion to loss. Both for sentimental reasons and for the cost (training up an astronaut is not a cheap prospect). After the Apollo 1 fire, after the Challenger explosion, after the Columbia breakup, after each of those, there was a long 'stand-down' to figure out what happened and how to not let it happen again. The ironic part of that is that all three had the same basic root cause. Overconfidence and 'normalization of deviance'. The other ironic part of this is that during the big push to faster & higher airplanes (40s, 50s, & 60s) there were a LOT of test pilots killed. Even more if you factor in the 'normal' military pilots who died flying the 'newest & fastest' planes. While they would do thorough investigations, and would sometimes ground a particular type of plane, they would keep on flying and testing. The pilots took it as a matter of course that some of them would die. The book "The Right Stuff" covers the mentality rather well. Most of that stuff never made it big in the press. The astronauts (and their deaths) were front page news for weeks. Ironically (again), the early astronauts were the same test pilots who put their lives on the line, at much higher risk. I saw an interview with an astronaut (Storey Musgrave IIRC) in the aftermath of the Columbia breakup. He basically said we could make a rocket 90% reliable for fairly cheap. Use that for unmanned (cargo) launches. Manned launches would be in rockets that were as close to 100% reliable as we could make them. Those would be much more expensive. The cost of the loss of the occasional cargo ship would be offset by the cost savings of their lesser reliability. The higher cost/extremely reliable ships would only be used for irreplaceable/extremely expensive/human cargo.

If I've learned anything in the past two years, it's that a system that doesn't have some sort of coercion, some sort of reward for good behavior and punishment for bad behavior, then it's not going to work. Far too many people are stupid, selfish and short sighted. They are more concerned with getting their hair cut than they are about their neighbors dying from a contagious disease.

Ok, I have NO CLUE what I just did. I tried to edit a post and ended up with four of them. I tried to delete them and only edit one and nothing wanted to work the way I thought it should. Oh well. Here goes again: Not my dilemma. I've never been ordered by the President to do anything, either for real or in my delusional imagination. But the question of "can a civilian be ordered to do something by the President, and if that order was legal (this one wouldn't have been), can that be used as justification in court?" is still a question that is in my mind.

Something that just occurred to me, reading Jerry's response (which is more or less the same as mine): Can a President give orders to a civilian? He's Commander in Chief of the military, so he can give orders to them and expect them to be obeyed, but does he have any REAL authority over civilians? I don't think so. I mean, he can give orders to his people, and some of them have authority over me (cops, Secret Service, ect), but I don't think I have to obey a direct order from the President. If so, a LOT of those people willing to obey Trump will be rather offended that they have to obey Biden. Or would have had to obey Obama.

I've mentioned the Herman Cain Award sub on Reddit several times. Lots of snark, more than a smidgeon of schadenfreude, but a lot of interesting and insightful stuff. The comments for each post are often more interesting than the posts themselves (which are very repetitive). I saw this a bit earlier. Kinda sums up my feelings on the matter:

It's happened in the past. But not for a while. I've heard the opinion that we didn't see much of that for the past 60 or 70 years because of WW2. The folks serving in office either served in the military, had family that did or were 'on the homefront' during the war (even just as kids). The concept of sacrifice for the 'greater good', working together with people you may not like very much, the 'common goal' ideal; all of that was ingrained in those people pretty deeply. Now that those serving weren't even born until after 1960, they never saw it or even had direct life experiences with those who did. Not enough to take on the attributes.

Or had the roof come down where they were sitting, and they would have been crushed. I know someone who claims that (old-school Bronco with the 'tin roof' - the fact that he could have just laid to the side with the belt on has yet to occur to him). Of course, the number of people killed because they were ejected from the car is staggering. I personally know two. One was ejected straight up. About 20 feet was the estimate, based on the impact injuries (fatal). Another was partially ejected, out the passenger door window, and died when the car rolled on top of her. And the fact that the impact is usually hard enough to render a person unconscious, so escaping from a burning (or sinking) car is far more doable if you had your seatbelt on. But, you know, reality and facts don't stand up against "Aunt Mabel's Anecdotes". My personal favorite reason to not wear a seat belt was because 'It wrinkles my dress'.

I didn't read it that way. As I posted above, anecdotal doesn't trump data. And what, exactly, are the options to 'making one's self less prone to severe problems'? Vaccine 101 (no matter what the official definition of 'vaccine' is): You expose your immune system to an 'invader' that is mostly harmless. That give the immune system an opportunity to develop antibodies to that invader (takes a week or so). When the real 'invader' (the virus) shows up, your immune system is primed and ready to respond. Without the vax, your immune system has to develop those antibodies while the virus is already making you sick. It then becomes a race between your immune system and the virus. If your immune system can develop the antibodies before the virus destroys your body, then you get better. If the virus can reproduce faster than your immune system can come to an effective defense, then you die. Like almost 800k people in the US so far.

Hello Bill, I was never much of a hunter. More pistols, a bit of gunsmithing and a fair amount of hand loading ammo. After working as a range officer at the local range, I realized that the only way you'd get me out in the woods on opening day of deer season (weekend before Thanksgiving in Wisconsin) is in something with armor plate. The vast majority of the hunters coming down to sight in their rifles during what we call 'silly season' are safe, conscientious, careful and thoughtful. But there are enough that aren't that scared the living daylights out of me each and every year that I don't want to be anywhere near them carrying a loaded rifle. The asymptomatic (or pre-symptomatic) spread is what makes Covid so dangerous. That's why mask recommendations for everyone are important. My chances for getting sick and spreading the virus are rather small. But I still usually wear a mask in public. Anecdotes aren't completely useless. But they aren't a substitute for actual data. All the data on Ivermectin is that it's of little or no use against Covid. When the anecdotes come from a clearly biased source (with article written under a fake name), I tend to be skeptical. When those promoting it tend to promote other 'cures' that are proven fake, then my skepticism goes through the roof. Sort of 'you are known by the company you keep'. Aaron Rogers promoted Ivermectin AND Homeopathy. That little anecdote (not data) makes me more skeptical of Ivermectin.

Then they are likely to spend a lot of time and money finding out that illegal orders are not a defense.