tkhayes

I have a lot of issues with the PD report and I also have a lot of issues with the SIM guidance as well. No, none of it is all 'wrong', but the PD report was from 1992 and that is 20 years ago. A LOT of things have changed- particularly canopy size and performance. The quote above says 'do not flare' - not flaring any modern canopy today will almost certainly result in serious injury. They are flying a ridiculously higher speeds compared to 20 years ago. I believe that prevention is the key. DO NOT EVER end up with two canopies out. It's kind of like scuba diving "What do I do if I find myself at 120 feet with 1 minute of air left?" Well the answer is "You should never have been there and now you are fucked" There is no good answer for two canopies out. There is no right answer for two canopies out. Every situation can be different and the BEST situation is landing under ONE and only ONE parachute. So I believe the message needs to be prevention of the said 'two canopy out scenario' and less on what to do about it. And if it does happen, which should be never, then my best situation is figuring out the best way to get rid of the main so you can land the reserve.

he's a politician and he's at the National Prayer Breakfast and he's gonna say whatever he needs to say to get his point across, i.e. selling higher tax ideas. If he was in front of a bunch of Texas oil men, I bet he would not have used that angle. I expect that Obama i about as Christian s i am, but he has to put on a face to appease the mass that he sits in front of at any given time - they all do.

http://www.skydivecity.com Lots of fun and a full calendar of events, all the amenities and you never need to even leave the DZ, food, booze, laundry, fire-pit, social life, gear, store, rigging, camping, rv park, you name it - we got it.

THAT is fucking funny. Too bad it demonstrates how fucking ignorant/stupid/lame/idiotic our leaders are.

before TSA airline employees stole shit. After 9/11, a rash of thefts due to excessive screening of bags resulted in more stealing of shit. Now we have TSA who steals shit. TSA is pretty useless (IMO), but no matter who you have screening your bags, unless you are there to watch them every step of the way, someone is going to steal shit. 2 cameras, CD folder full of software, lenses, computer accessories (they though it was a computer), etc over the years. Airlines used to care but now it is not their problem. TSA is too big to address it (for now), but more stories like this may help.

It's just more of the same old republican party self-destructing in front of everyone, but unable to see it themselves.

privatizing any facet of the criminal justice system is fundamentally corrupt and wrong and should be addressed with a federal Constitutional amendment. dangerous, doomed to fail (at the expenses f American citizen's freedoms and lives), doomed to corruption and no one who makes the decisions see anything wrong with it.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595581030 I just started reading this - good interview with the author on NPR Fresh Air and it is all pretty disturbing, but totally expected in this society.....

taxes and/or gay marriage will be decided by the Congress, not the President, so it matters fuck all who you vote for in that regard.....

And you putting a contradiction in a thread does not make the prior statement 'untrue'

If Newt was a clergyman convicted of molesting young boys it would not matter. As long at the Republicans think he can beat Obama, he will be nominated. Same for any candidate. They would nominate Hitler if they thought he could win - that is how fucked up the system actually is.....

just got off 6 day cruise in Eastern Caribbean and I still feel incredibly safe i those ships. with all the technology onboard, I have no idea how they manage to run aground in this day and age.....

who told you they didn't? Not just the pilots, but the entire chain of command on that flight - they requested and were given permission to engage if I remember correctly. I expect this was systematic, not an individual 'rogue' gunner, which exemplifies my issues with the 'big picture' and demonstrates systematic problems with fighting these types of wars stop it by NOT fighting these types of wars.

can't help it if you cannot see the facts. sorry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3_ynHjL-M this one, there are some outt there that are cut and spliced and longer and shorter.

you're kidding right? no wars. Prosecute the people that put us in there and I bet the next administration does their homework before we go to war again.

let's start with Texas....

No it's not the best we can do - but it is a real-life example of the military murdering civilians, caught on video, and if it was not for an insider leaking it, it would have remained a secret. Therefore clearly PROVING that there are actually "conspiracy theories" as you call them. SO yes, even though you deny their existence, there are cases where government and military secrecy is a bad thing. They opened fire on unarmed civilians that were doing nothing. Then when the people came to help, contrary to the Geneva Conventions, they opened fire on them and children. That is murder. If they were caught in the cross-fire in a ground battle or something like that, I could almost understand the incident as being 'part of the casualties of war', but that was not even remotely the case. Supreme firepower, absolute power, corrupted absolutely at the highest level and used to take the lives of innocent people without due cause in a war that was fought for no reason whatsoever. If the discussions between GWB, the Whitehouse and the the CIA were made public before we invaded Iraq (instead of being kept 'secret'), i doubt highly that the public would have bought it and we never would have been there. But instead, the 'secrets' allowed Colin Powell to sit at the UN in front of the world and lie through his teeth about the intelligence that we had in Iraq. Even I bought it. It was wrong and the entire Cabinet of the government at that time should be put on trial for war crimes. But of course that will never happen because Americans don't care about brown-skinned people that live in the middle east. - they are totally expendable.

There's a huge difference between government secrets and private secrets. Just like there is a huge difference between government speech and private freedom of speech. you should really try to read the Constitution once in a while for a guy who claims so often to be so "Behind its true meaning", you have clearly demonstrated again and again that you are willing to give up the Constitution and its freedoms in order to protect the Constitution and its freedoms. Not to mention that it is off-topic and has already been adequately answered a dozen times already. Start another thread on healthcare and I will be glad to debate it again if you dare.

you have your idealism and I have mine. you have as much (or as little) proof (that you are requesting from me) that yours works any better than mine. In fact, you have NO evidence that yours works any better. so once again, as expected, we disagree, surprise surprise and I could give a shit. You have yours and I have mine. No secrets. It's the wold I want. my vote at least may negate yours, and vice versa.

Skyvan has been flying every day yes.

no one was prosecuted for opening fire on children from a helicopter. No one was even reprimanded. or maybe they were - or is that a secret too? yes a lot is prosecuted that needed to be. Which raises concerns from citizens like me about all the shit they got away with because it is 'secret'. get it? No secrets. I expect we would fight fewer wars. I like that. especially fewer wars that contribute to killing tens of thousands of people for no reason (Iraq, Vietnam) and helping to bankrupt the country. Perhaps it might lead to the impeachment of a president or even a war crimes prosecution. get it? no secrets. no wars. I like that.

you have a line a so do I, they just rest at different locations. Obviously all secrecy cannot be abandoned, I already gave examples. If your brother disappeared after a protest where the police arrested and perhaps opened fire on crowds of protesters in which he was openly participating, I expect you would be advocating for some 'open government' If the law said that the police could detain and open fire on protesters, then i guess that is/would be the law and therefore there would be nothing illegal, and they could keep their 'secrets' and you would have no recourse. But it would still be wrong for them to do that and your only recourse might actually be an insider willing to do the right thing. But it would be the law, so again, you would have no recourse and anyone reporting the disappearance of your brother would be a treasonist and a traitor. So from me to anyone reading. FUCK THE MILITARY LAW insofar as it allows the military to classify murder, rape, mass killings, and executions as 'classified information' just to cover their own asses. Obviously if all I have to do is 'classify' something to make it illegal for Manning to distribute it, well then i guess I would be classifying pretty much everything I do wouldn't I? fuck that noise.... I vote for open government.

+1, it is not an easy issue, never said it was. I vote for transparency. If the Constitution required the government to keep NO SECRETS, I bet our foreign (and domestic for that matter) policy would look a lot different. hidden agendas require hidden government. I vote for neither.

It goes far deeper than that Mark, I do not see the need for military classifications OF SPECIFIC KINDS. i.e. full disclosure of EVERYTHING when we invade a country for no reason. (Iraq) Hide the D-Day mission? Sure. but FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL INFORMATION when a bunch of rogue soldiers kill a bunch of civilians, yes. How about my argument - STOP fighting the watrs, and we will not need the secrets associated with them. problem solved. And the 'treason' argument has been attempted again and again. You call my comment foolish? I call your treason comment completley irresponsible and a violation of civil rights. He has not been charged with treason, he has not had his due process, he has not had his day in court, he is innocent until proven guilty. So I assume then that not are you Ok with the military gunning down civilians and no one exposing that truth, (just because the military decides to 'classify it'), but you are also Ok with the government prosecuting people based on public opinion (treason), even if it violates the Constitution? Does open government and no secrets cause problems? Maybe, but I bet it solves more problems that it creates. Does secret government cause more problems? Take a look at North Korea.