TriGirl

The problem here is that according to the link provided elsewhere, the Constitution Party (at least in 2012) was only included on the ballot of 26 states. With nearly half the states not being given the Constitution candidate as an option, that candidate has VERY little chance of winning. Except according to figures I heard in a news report recently, the deadlines have passed to register independently in most states. True, if you've heard of him and know his platform. That kind of communication nationwide requires money, and currently only the two largest parties have that kind of money. I've done this a few times for people who did not win their party's nomination. However, I also heard in the above referenced news report (NPR, IIRC), that a significant number of states don't allow for write-ins. I'd be interested to learn how this is Constitutionally legal (seriously, some day I'm going to look into this to understand it). Absolutely agreed. It just doesn't give him any chance of being elected, which I'm sure was your point.

[whisper] read the article linked by gowlerk in post #8. [/whisper] See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

So upholding the constitution and the inherent right to justice and equality is trumped by the opinion of a small group religious ultraconservatives. No, it's more a question of whose job it is to make that determination. He represents and is employed by the state, not the USA. If the law is to be challenged shouldn't it be a Fed attorney that challenges it and a Fed court that decides? As I see it this guy can tell the state his opinion, but if they disagree, take another course of action and get sued then it's his job to defend them. Otherwise is there a difference between him and the batshit gay marriage clerk lady? Oh wait, I see from Bill's post that he's on he campaign trail. 'Splains it Normiss wasn't quoting the NC AG, but a different one in a state with a similar new law. (bolding mine) In reply to Phil: that other AG had an opinion about it being unconstitutional. However, she had to wait until federal courts overturned it (which hopefully it will be, so the constitution can be upheld). Due process. ETA: acting on her own, that other AG would be in the same camp as the marriage clerk lady! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Or he may want the option to jump old rounds from a static line -- like the guys do on Saturdays out at ZHills. No free fall time there, and linking to other jumpers. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

And keep in mind, just because you can't get back in the sky this weekend, doesn't mean you have to convince her now or give up forever. It may take a little more time. Just remember that whenever you make it back, the sky will still be there for you. No rush!

I like a majority of the advice here. Before 2015, I had only run a total of 3 half marathons, and never more than one in a year. In 2015 I ran 13 half marathons, two Ragnar Relays (including one ultra), three 10Ks, and a variety of 5K and 5-milers. In my 20s and 30s I had issues with knee strain, Morton's neuroma (had to have two removed), various stress fractures, and achilles tendonitis. Since I went crazy with the racing, I've had some aches and minor pains, and may have mild tendonitis my feet (perhaps a slight "stump neuroma" developing as well), but nothing that doesn't go away at the latest by the following day. Stats: Age -- 45 (for now) Ht: 5'4" Wt: 148 (ideal weight 130-135) None of this running has resulted in weight loss, FYI. I work some strength training in as well, but not really enough to make a difference. A few things I wanted to share. First, I used to run only in Asics as well, until I started running distance. Even when I wasn't running much (not even as much as you), and weighed around 125, the Asics just broke down too quickly. Switched to Mizuno, but I might look at Brooks for my next pair. Some coworkers swear by Newtons. Anyway, your shoes should work for you. I went through five pair last year. Already looking to get my second pair for this calendar year. Consult a couple of experts when deciding what level of stability and which style/brand work for you. Second, when I returned to half marathons after about a decade of doing sprint and Olympic triathlons, I incorporated what I've learned is the "Galloway" style. Run/walk. For a half marathon, I set my watch for 12.5 min running and 2.5 min walking. Even in the early stages of a race when I'm feeling really good, I force myself to walk during the walking intervals (I allow myself to adjust some of the walk time if, for example, I'm on a hilly course and need to walk during a run interval). This technique gives your body time to recover over the duration of your run. Many runners' stride and running posture deteriorate badly when they're fatigued. If you keep pushing through when you're exhausted, you'll put extra strain on muscles and joints by that bad stride. If you give yourself the time to recover during your runs, you'll find you can pinpoint where you're starting to feel that first ache, and then rest up and correct your posture and stride again when you're back to a running interval. (for shorter distances, consider a breakout of 4 min running, 1 min walking. That eventually can be lengthened as you start to go farther and feel better). Third: ice is the wonder drug that works wonders. Get ice on the bottoms of those feet, and other times roll your foot over a tennis ball or golf ball. The rolling will stretch the tendons, and serve as sort of a deep tissue massage (only as deep as you can tolerate). The ice will reduce swelling and pain. You can consult an ortho or physical therapist to see how to incorporate ice into your recovery for the best results. Finally, I want to say again I agree with many others here, that cross-training is a MUST. That's how I got into triathlon. Swimming takes the strain off your legs and feet, while cycling helps keep the knee pain in check. And though you're basically moving in the same dynamic motions whether running or cycling, you are at least engaging different muscle groups, so you're still getting a different workout. So, that's what worked for me. Saturday I did a hilly 5k, and Sunday ran a half marathon, also with a lot of hills. Shortly after the race I boarded an aircraft for the first of two flights to get home, totaling more than five hours sitting in an airline seat. Today my quads are a little achy from the hills, but all my joints feel fine. That was my 5th half marathon since late February. If you told me last year how far I would have run between then and now, I wouldn't have believed you. Your results inevitably will vary, but I hope you can see some improvements with some of the advice you choose to incorporate. Then, we'll all do This race next year!! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Perhaps because President Obama is currently the leader of the party, and will not endorse a candidate until the party actually chooses a candidate. [deleted snarky closing comment] So - he doesn't want to be truthful, and transparent, and tell us who he thinks is the right person for the job. Instead, he needs to be told whom he wants to back. [deleted more snarky comments] And appear to influence the voting delegates? Sure, let's do that. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Or she's saying that men who would vote for Trump would also be influenced by being denied sex (from anyone -- she's encouraging female partners from engaging in intimacy with men who would support him, not just saying she is personally denying each of those men, when otherwise she would put out). See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Perhaps because President Obama is currently the leader of the party, and will not endorse a candidate until the party actually chooses a candidate. [deleted snarky closing comment] See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

No, you miss what you THOUGHT he was, and what THAT meant to you. It's upsetting because you have to realize all over again he was actually a wanker, and the guy you thought you were with didn't really exist. So, we go back to: you're better off realizing early enough that he was, in fact, a WANKER, and you're best to be rid of him.

If she's only going to be gone for a couple of days, then can you have another version of the test ready for her to take before she leaves? She isn't going immediately, obviously. And this way the test is done, she can't give the questions to her classmates (second version), and off she goes to grieve over her dog. If she can't focus until she gets back because of the loss of the dog, then definitely taking MORE time off will be helpful. See what happens when you give her an alternate course of action. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Luckily, it seems this socially conscious group of scientists are trying to stem the tide: http://www.theonion.com/article/scientists-slowly-reintroducing-small-group-normal-52632 See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

That's exactly what they are. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Um... unless you eat some of them. The banana cream ones are quite delicious! (get it? BANANA!) You're welcome! I saw them in the candy store, and couldn't resist getting them for you.

I've heard two different political operatives on two different shows (one on Bill Maher, the other on NPR) say that they don't think Trump really will do what he says. They both offered "interpretations" of his more outlandish proclamations. For example, when he says he wants to build a wall on our Southern border, the first said she didn't think he meant a physical wall, all the way across. She thought it would be more like a barrier, with capabilities to have "eyes on" the whole border at any time. I can't remember exactly the example the other gave, but I was definitely shaking my head during my drive to work as I heard a second political operative specifically say, "well, I don't believe he'd actually do that." What are these supposed professionals going to say when he gets elected, and does exactly what he said he would do, and now they as his staffers have to answer for their complicity or support in getting him elected? See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

So sorry, sweetie. Glad you got out before it could really turn bad! See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Hmm. And perhaps fewer people would have been exposed to this stomach bug if it hadn't been distributed to a large number of lawmakers through this batch of milk? Just a thought. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

You can find it (with many font variations) here See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

I have to laugh at the "need" to have codified protections for religious establishments not to perform certain weddings against which they disagree. Can't believe people still believe this tripe, that the government was going to FORCE churches to perform same-sex weddings! No one "forces" religious establishments to perform any ceremonies that do not conform to that church's doctrine. It's like saying the government is going to start forcing the Mormon church to allow non-Mormons (or members of the church who otherwise do not meet the strict code of purity) to enter the temple. And allow them to be MARRIED in the temple. That's never going to happen. No one is going to sue a church over not being allowed to have their ceremony there. So why do any of the protections outlined in this bill even need to be considered? They've all just wasted their time -- and illustrated that none of these lawmakers really know this most basic point of Constitutional law. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

Ah, dare to dream. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

that's a rather thoughtful and non-slanted viewpoint you have there we'll have none of that in Speaker's Corner - if you will, please adopt a more snarky broadbrushed viewpoint of various demographics please That's just the report's viewpoint. I think they're all nut jobs, convinced they're being backed by their imaginary friend. However, regardless of the motivation, I can respect people who espouse a full-society viewpoint on how to get along.

Nicely said. I would extend that to include being able to identify which personal characteristics are simply Irrelevant. It isn't about tolerance, but what is just not relevant. You can pray to whatever deity you choose (or not at all). You can choose to be in a life-long, legal, committed relationship with whomever you want*. You can change your body (colors, hair, gender, etc). Your personal thoughts are IRRELEVANT. Your actions on others, and your rights and entitlements in relation to those rights and entitlements everyone else may have, ARE relevant. *Before this part starts a verbal battle, it also ties to actions on others -- I'm talking about humans over the age of majority. Both must be in a legal position to make the decision for themselves. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

According to the report I heard, that is true of the newer "born again" segment; but the older, establishment segment is all about acceptance, forgiveness, non-judgement, etc. And they do care about a person's actions. So the more establishment segment is against Trump because of all those other characteristics I listed, AND at the same time is recognizing that the "Evangelical" title has been sort of hijacked by the bigoted nut jobs. (characterization mine) See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!

You've heard of Angela Merkel and Margaret Thatcher right? Benazir Bhutto ringing any bells? Besides, we already send female ambassadors just as easily as male ambassadors. We send Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and "Nun-ya's." Sometimes homosexual ambassadors, with their same-gender spouses. They go where their skills and career path dictate next, not whether they will be "accepted" by the host nation. Want to work with the U.S.? Work with the Presidential representative we send, or don't work with us at all. Kind of like their managing boss, Secretary of State. Mrs. Clinton served in that job as well, and had no issues dealing with the leaders of other countries. See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump!