tkhayes

And you do not necessarily need armored personel carriers and assault rifles, tear gas, and tasers to accomplish that. Your narrow view is restricted by your own experience, which is solving problems with weapons. Ask a plumber and you will get a plumbers opinion.

that is a pretty stupid comment. our police are weaponized to the max..... and asking them to stop killing our citizens, given that 'we the people... bit' is not an unreasonable request. Your comment ranks right up with 'christian prosecution' claims in America when there is a church on every corner..... Cops are not more at any threat than they were 40 years ago when they had far less weaponry. I for one, would like to see a massive disarming of the police. They need to learn better ways of handling crime, as does the entire country. It starts with having some respect for people.

I do not find living in reality as depressing. better than living in fantasy. nothing wrong with ideologies I guess, but at some point you have to face reality and best to base policies and laws on that

humans do not celebrate life, and we destroy life every day. stop pretending that we care, when we invade countries and bomb the shit out of anyone that gets in our way. It is a joke that somehow humans care about life any more than a polar bear cares about the seal it catches. stop kidding yourself. the abortion issue gets used far too many times (as far as I am concerned) as some vehicle for 'how much we care about life'. those same pro-lifers support our military and send their kids to war to kill other people for far less reasons that the need for an abortion. that might be 'sad', yes, but the fact is we do not care that much about life. not really. Of course everyone likes to think that they do, but the only lives you really care about are those closest to you. and no piece of legislation is going to fix that either.

I wasn't being personal. your yôr,yo͝or/Submit determiner 1. belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing. "what is your name?" 2. belonging to or associated with any person in general. "the sight is enough to break your heart" Choose number 2

Sounds like it is a much needed service, high in demand by women, right? there are more than a million hernia surgeries every year - also a much needed medical service. And no one made me wait. Nor did the state legislature even consider it worth debating..... If the government has the right to restrict a service upheld by the Supreme Court, then the govt has the right to suppress gun ownership as well (also upheld by the Supreme Court) - careful what you wish for and pick your battles.

Why wouldn't that same idea apply to open heart surgery? Why wouldn't that same idea apply to organ donations? Why wouldn't that same idea apply to tattoos? Why wouldn't that same idea apply to buying a car? Why wouldn't that same idea apply to having children? Why wouldn't that same idea apply to [insert anything here] If it is not justified for 99.9% of the things we do every day that are 'risky and should be further considered', then it is not a valid argument for abortion either. This is a bullshit foot-in-the-door attempt to control the issue when the SUPREME COURT has already ruled on it....and that is fine I guess if you do not actually believe int he Constitution or the Supreme Court....go ahead then, we will do it 'your way' instead.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/apr/17/judicial-watch/judicial-watch-says-isis-has-camp-mexico-and-near-/ you are truly full of shit - as is Judicial Watch. You could not post a fact if you tried.

I am more concerned about the Christians infiltrating out school system than CAIR, and the threat from any 'militant islamic group' in the USA is far less than the threat from another nut-job school shooting. your priorites are your priorities...but they are still fucked up. I will continue to ignore you now.

Ron, your life revolves around imagined fear....heaven and hell.

yes it does take a special person, my comments were generic and there are exceptions to every rule. But very few exceptions. #1. I trained a para handicap guy to skydive and he is solo now, working on the license with restrictions/exceptions on it. That does not mean that paraplegics all can skydive nor does it mean that I am interested in the time investment in teaching another one. But it has for example opened some floodgates of requests for me to do the same for all these other people.....I simply state 'no'. I am not interested and they do not have enough money to make it worth my while. Pookie got lucky in many ways, and he persevered. However we also have earned the title of being the 'go-to' place for para and quad tandems due to the experience we have built up over the years. #2. Norm Olson came back after not jumping for 25 years at age 75. We let him jump. The reason? He was one of the original founding members of the Navy LeapFrogs. He held every license and instructional rating at the time of his 'departure' from skydiving in 1983 with over 2300 jumps. And to top all that he is and was in perfect health. His military background and his experience also told him that he needed MUCH refresher training and was even willing to do as many AFF/Coach jumps as we thought he needed before cutting him loose and he did another 1700 jumps over 5 years before retiring completely at age 80. Yes there are always exceptions. The exceptions often cost a dropzone a lot of risk, a lot of extra time and effort. And while I (we) are in the business of making people's dreams come true, I still have a cost/value/time/effort/safety factors that are involved and ultimately I get to make the call of whether or not a particular person should be jumping. You were willing to work with a 300lb guy - good for you - I would never be willing to do that under any circumstances....there is not enough money in it to make that effort. Gear limitations and being able to fall at 140+MPH alone is enough for me to say no. It is simply not worth the extra effort. We all have our own limits and draw the line at a slightly different place in the sand.

people are reading way too much into this. ADA? careful wording? bottom line - that guy should NOT be jumping- period. if he is 78 and 270, he is going to get hurt. He will not be able to flare a 470 sqft main. He will not likely be able to even exit an airplane without putting the airplane at risk. And most likely be unable to deal with any EP you task him with. He will get half way to altitude and will be huffing and puffing and out of breath. Regardless of his jumping history, he is a different person from what he was then and is lacking DECADES of experience. Sure, plenty of elderly people are jumping, but they have EXPERIENCE, they are CURRENT, they kept up with it all these years, and you are not going to be able to re-teach that missing 'experience'. You do not need to define the reasons any more than 'based on my vast and current experience, you should not be skydiving'. and leave it at that. I would not bother with letters or writing anything, a phone call will do. I get loads of people like this - they want to start learning to skydive at 75 years old. no. they are 300 lbs and do not understand why they cannot. They want to re-live their days of old, but they missed that boat - it has sailed. "Your inability to understand the sport, sir, in no way influences the decisions I make" "100 lb people do not play pro football and 300lb people do not skydive" "I know you had 1000 jumps 45 years ago, but you were younger, in better shape, better reflexes, and a lot slimmer then as well" "If you have those 1000 jumps that you claim, then surely you understand the complications, the training, the execution, the issues that skydiving has.....what makes you think you can still deal with all that?" "I know you really really really want to skydive. I want to be an astronaut, but that is not going to happen either, no matter how badly I want it" them: "I don't care if I get hurt". me: "I do" we have real limitations in this sport. It is your business and it is your liability. rather than write letters to him, write down the defense you would use, standing in a courtroom, justifying how you let this person make a jump. And ask yourself how many 'reasonable' people would have let this person jump. Just say no. leave it at that. He is spending thousands on gear? too bad for him - that is bad planning and bad foresight, and should not in any way influence any decisions you make, or anyone else. It's like buying a jet before I start flight school. a bad decision. Just like his other decisions.....

it got the point across and it is very effective. no different than pro-life anti-choice nuts running around with placarded photos of aborted fetuses in everyone's face. You only think it is stupid because you disagree with the message, but that is a brilliant piece of work.

I think that is even extreme....the reason we stop jumping during an accident is if a) helicopter is inbound or b) the authorities have closed the airport due to the accident. If you have seen this 3 times, then it is still the exception, not the rule. I would not base a policy on that

At a busy dropzone, there could be several hundred people onsite who are jumping who have nothing to do with the missing person. They may not know them, they likely have never heard of them, they are not affiliated or associated with them. They have absolutely no interest or part in their being missing. And they may not care. So to stop jumping for these people is purposeless. Individual choices. Some wish to help, some do not, some will volunteer to search, some will choose ot stay jumping, some will choose to go home. Not much different than driving by a car accident. If people are already helping, then why would everyone need to stop driving? Some will help, some will not. Leave it be.

well Spock - that sounds pretty fucked up actually...... And I would go so far as to say that you have absolutely zero real evidence to back your claim up from any reasonable source of science or medical/social data. this is an opinion. You are making the assumption that everyone is born straight....incorrect....or at least you/we have no way of absolutely knowing that - therefore any conclusion you draw from such a claim is false. there are plenty of other species that demonstrate from time to time , homosexual or at least 'other-than-heterosexual' tendencies. therefore being born 'gay' is absolutely entirely possible given that many of these other species do not make 'choices', or at least have very limited 'choice-making' abilities compared to man.

$80 for a piece of steel? http://www.amazon.com/Bayou-Classic-7438-20-Inch-Cast-Iron/dp/B00062WTS8 probably do the same for less money and has more than one purpose. also http://www.amazon.com/Lodge-LJSCP3-Platter-12-inch-15-inch/dp/B004QM8SKW/ref=sr_1_cc_3?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1424605901&sr=1-3-catcorr&keywords=cast-iron+platter

http://www.performancedesigns.com/stiletto.aspx http://www.performancedesigns.com/katana.aspx everything you need to know

I don't care if you believe or not either. HOWEVER, when your beliefs start creeping into justification for making public policy, then yes it actually affects my life, and I object to it. there is a difference between 'being called intolerant' as us atheists are so often labeled and objecting to what you represent because your religion is actually affecting the country and therefore affecting me. "I think there is no climate change caused by man...." - fine let's have a discussion about that. "I think there is no climate change caused by man because god told me so and he has a plan for the world anyway...." that is fucked up - I have every right to object to it and your religion is dictating your position and it is spelled out in the Constitution that the govt cannot make laws based on that logic. " I disagree with gay marriage...." fine let's talk about it "I disagree with gay marriage because god tells me to hate you...." again - go fuck yourself. Christians (religion in general) are the ones that are far more intolerant that any atheist out there. you are the ones with the strict guidance from god that tells you what you can and cannot do. read the Constitution, it pretty clearly says what the govt can and cannot do with religion. Yes you can have your religion, but stop pressing it on us and our govt......and yes we object to it because of your 2000 year old historical record of wrongdoing using religion as a feeble excuse.

And atheism is NOT a religion, but it is another claim that the religious community likes to use. It is the ABSENCE of religion. Basic English language skills, usage and definitions. If atheism is a 'religion', then not smoking is a 'habit' and being unemployed is a 'job'.

Adolph Hitler's army and special forces had "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their uniforms. Many would like to think he was an atheist, but they would be wrong actually. He might not have been a bile thumping evangelical, but he was no atheist. And the 'atheists' you mentioned did not hardly murder people over their 'religion' and trying to purge the world from it, they murdered over political/cultural ideology. There is a difference between Stalin killing the people opposed to his 'ideal Soviet Union', and people murdering doctors because 'god told them to'.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/179191/its-not-just-uganda-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa even more recent. in fact ongoing. What about Eric Rudolph? Clinic bombings and murders. Oh wait - he's white and American, so we do not call it 'terrorism'

no one made the claim that they were 'more evil', 'less evil, 'as evil' - whatever. What was stated was that there have been atrocities on all sides related to religion. And for Christians to deny that there have not been any atrocities and perhaps MILLIONS of people dying at the hands of Christians, in the name of god and Christianity, would be a fucking lie. Religion is evil and the sooner we eradicate it from the earth, the better of we are.

.45-70 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45-70 Slings a 500 grain bullet at 2200fps, and generally made the ground shake, not bad for something designed in the 1870's

can't tell either if Cruz is sane or insane