andrewstewart

Did Rush tell you all this? Because he must have been drugged up to the eyeballs at the time. Do you really think that the Clintons have so much "power" that they can ensure that a Democrat won't get elected in the upcoming presidential election? Do they have some sort of mind control ray that they fire from their lair in Brooklyn? How about you lay the proof on us.

I think you'd prefer it in the 1920's, since it was more authoritarian then than now. I guess being born in the 30's is a slight consolation for you.

Well, I am in the highest tax bracket and I'm not complaining about it. And I'm going to send my kid to public school (just like me). Well since the democratic candidiate received over 50% of the popular vote in the last election, you're saying that the majority of american citizens are "losers, deadbeats and parasites?". Uh huh. Got proof?

I am very surprised that the moderators allowed you to get away with saying "faggot".

I could make the exact same criticism of the republican party. How exactly is the republican party the party of "smaller government"? Government spending is absolutely enormous now. Or "fiscal responsibility"? The deficit has reached untold levels. And what did you think of the obviously political move that bush made on immigration? It didn't exactly jibe with republican voters, did it. It's best not to make a criticism that equally applies to yourself. That's called hypocrasy.

is you nickname "Mr Fun" by any chance?

Wow, this is the first time that I've seen you write something that I disagree with. I feel sad :-( But I think you're wrong. Is someone who has 5000+ jumps and is on the Pro Swoop Tour, who has had one smoke really *more* of a risk to you in the air than an overconfident newbie with 50 jumps? You see how I'm saying that it's all relative. Saying that *anyone* who has had a smoke is somehow automatically going to be impared to the point where they smack into someone in the air or under canopy is just not true. It's not as simple as that, that's all I'm saying.

Risk is a lot more compex topic than you seem to understand. There is a difference between the perception of risk and actual risk. The risk of you being killed by a skydiver who has had a smoke is far, far less than your risk of being killed driving to the dropzone. Why, then, are you not indignant about the dangers of cars? People drive when they are tired or depressed all the time - and yet they are technically not breaking the law. I maintain that there are people who smoke and jump who can outfly you in every way, and are far less of a "threat" to your safety than someone with 50 jumps spiralling down over the landng area. It's all relative.

Yup. Relatively stupid. Ciels- Michele Comedy genius. You should be on TV.

And I repeat! Stoned or drunk, there is no difference, if they are driving, flying or jumping they are a danger to themselves and others. There are a lot of people who are far more of a danger to themselves and others just through their very nature, than people who are jumping stoned or drunk. You really have no idea how to think in terms of anything other than black and white. You were in the military and you were a cop though, right? So I guess that explains it.

Wrong. People who are drunk tend to be full of confidence and bravado, whereas people who are stoned tend to be cautious. I have known people who have driven when stoned and they drove at about 20mph. The same people drunk drove way too fast. There definately is a difference. Stoned or drunk, there is no difference, if they are driving, flying or jumping they are a danger to themselves and others. If believe they aren't, you have been living under the bridge. Sparky Edit to include, Have you ever wondered why they are driving 20 mph on the freeway. There brain is going 20 mph in the fast lane. I'm not saying I advocate it, nor that it is a good idea. You said that there is NO difference - and that's not true from both a biological and behavioral perspectice.

No, but I do know very well that level of impairment caused by pot can vary greatly according to quality of marijuana, amount smoked, personality of the smoker...Some people are perfectly capable of being on top of the high, however, most aren't, which is why "Pot doesn't mix well with skydiving" is generally a good advice. Exactly right. I know some stoners who I would bet can outfly almost everyone posting to this thread with both their body and their canopy, wether they were stoned or not. It's all relative...

Wrong. People who are drunk tend to be full of confidence and bravado, whereas people who are stoned tend to be cautious. I have known people who have driven when stoned and they drove at about 20mph. The same people drunk drove way too fast. There definately is a difference.

"You'll never understand" - I thought we'd discussed this point already. Go read back over the thread. If we'll "never understand" then why bother to post? Plus you say that he's entitled to his views and yet close by saying that he has "no right" to speak them. You've contradicted yourself in practically consecutive sentences. And I'll tell you what is disrespectful of the deaths - the fact that our soldiers were sent over there on false pretences in the first place. No WMD found, and yet there are 500+ dead american soldiers and countless more mutilated. Now THATS disrespectful. You should save your indignation for the real roots of these problems.

Yeah! Mob Justice! The true mark of society.

Where can I buy it?

Yeah that damn "public opinion"! It shouldn't be allowed! I bet you'd prefer a nice dictator who would rule with an iron fist and not allow public opinion to sway the governments policy. Like... er, Saddam?

Okay... so those 8000 people would have just dropped dead if the US hadn't invaded? Maybe a few of them would have... You only have to READ the entries to see that a great many of the civilian deaths are caused by american soldiers. (By which I mean the Iraqis killed were not engaged in trying to hurt the soldiers at the time they were shot or blown into bits). It's true that not *all* the civilian deaths are caused by american munitions (bombs and bullets), but much of the tribal warfare that exists there now wouldn't have had the opportunity to flourish had the occupation not taken place. Arguing that the US is completely blameless in that is disingenuous at best and outright blind at worst. How you can stand there and say that the reported facts do not speak for themselves amazes me. Do I have to go in there to the page and cut and paste them here for you one by one? It won't make for pretty reading. And what is this question that you say I haven't answered? I've gone back through your posts and could not find it. Please, enlighten me. Awaiting your typically supercilious response.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm To account for variations in news reporting they calculate a possible minimum and maximum value using all available news sources. I made sure to quote the value of 8000 because that is their minimum value - actually it's below their minimum value. The news sources are listed at the end of the page, and a description of the veracity of their analysis technique is given here: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#sources If you can find a more accurate source than that site, then I'd like to hear about it because I have not been able to find one and I have looked extensively. So. Are you going to email them and explain to them why their analysis is "spurious, inflammatory, and unsupportable"? Edited to add: How can you say that many innocent deaths can't be attributed to the US military when you look through http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm and read the descriptions (and their source)? Just read it.

How is it different?

But if you look earlier in the thread there is data from a survey performed by stars and stripes magazine that found that more than one-third of soldiers in Iraq said that their mission was "not clearly" or "not at all" defined. Secondly, if the president isn't ultimately responsible for the body count in Iraq (seeing as he is the supreme authority within the US) then who is?

Which comments are you referring to?

Exactly. And so the "solution" is to not declare war on an amorphous concept such as "terrorism" because you simply cannot win. We should have already learnt this lesson with the "war" on drugs.

Yeah, and we're in a whole bunch of trouble.

Of course not. Duh. I'm saying that he is the symptom, not the cause. If you want to fix the root of the issue, deal with the causes and not the symptoms.