tkhayes

I used the Edsel as a simple but singular example. There are hundreds if not thousands of other examples that could also be used. Try not to overreact to one valid example as if it was the only one that existed....it makes you look piteous. yes 'seriously'. we establish all kinds of changes to products that may increase their costs to ensure safety. saying that an 80 year old airplane might need some upgrades to continue offering specific kinds of service is not, in fact, unreasonable. As I said, SOMEDAY they will all be retired or at the very least the few remaining will be flown for novelty only. And someday as well for the C-182. someday. not today, probably not tomorrow, but someday yes. they will all be retired. Do they still deliver mail by horse & buggy in the USA?

there is always a valid case for retiring lots of technology as better technology comes along. There is a reason that we do not drive Edsels anymore, they were bad cars. At some point we will have to retire every airplane out there. restoring them as antiques? Fine. Flying them for fun? Fine. But expecting them to fly into a never-ending future as a viable commercial or even operational entity is not realistic. I get a kick out of people that decide to build old planes like this one, then they fly it and die, and everyone wonders why? Because it was not a very good airplane....that's why. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/30/ohio.wright.replica.crash/

Cosmos is on again. It's free. and has much more in it that this film does or ever will. I will watch that instead. A story about some Chirstian's 'struggle' against atheism sounds like a weak pretense, especially here in FL where there is a church about every 1000' in most towns....

not at all - you are oversimplifying the entire issue apparently. He is 100% correct and you are somewhat correct. And neither of those single points actually makes or breaks the case.

I cannot see Hobby Lobby prevailing in this case. Previous related cases including striking down parts of RFRA have set the basis for this case to fail for them. They are simply claiming that the previous cases only applied to states and not to federal law. Should Hobby Lobby prevail, it lays the groundwork for anyone to ignore or break pretty much any federal law because of their religious beliefs. This is not a sustainable solution. Nor should it be.

I do not have a problem with tax dollars funding land conservation, especially in Florida. I disagree with the constitutional amendment process in Florida in general, but if we are conserving water, land etc, then that helps ensure the future of the ecology here. Because right now we are fucking it all up.

That was all done on March 8 here at Skydive City. Not just that reporter, but 17-20 Wounded Warrior vets came out to jump, included 4 paraplegic tandems. Our staff and the SOCOM team spent the day jumping with these guys and showing them our stuff. My staff stepped up to take the paraplegics, Mike Squires and Gary Billings both took their first para-tandems with some help from me and all the hardware we built to do these sorts of jumps.

And the sad part is that freedom of your beliefs allows this, and then you deny the future of your country, your people, because of your fantasy. You allow belief structures to influence policy when they have no basis in fact, and you rob your own children of the ability to make good decisions, putting their futures in jeopardy. just one of the thousands of things that are wrong with this sort of thinking permeating the decision-making processes of society.

Ron hopes that you find peace. One of the ways that I have found 'peace' is by ignoring and dismissing Ron. You might try that.

If you want a christian school, there are plenty of them out there....go find one and sign up. Not the first case and certainly not the last. Good for the ACLU and those parents.

Currently 'you' are the one forcing us 'crazy liberals' to drink your ideological koolaid. touche. If you have the right to 'force your beliefs on others' using the Constitution, then I automatically have the rigth to try and change that. tit for tat. Of course you probably do not understand what I just said, because you are blind to any changes to any laws....ever, unless of course, they suit your flavor of koolaid'.

no one is asking for 'full measures'. I have never advocated for a repeal of the 2nd amendment, banning guns, whatever. Seemingly when it comes up for discussion, yours is simply one of the two answers I usually end up getting; "Why not then go all the way" or "If you don't like it then leave" Both of which are not real responses and therefore not worth talking about. So I will not. How about some common sense reforms, like background checks, which are supported by the VAST majority of people in the country?. I mean after-all, this is a democracy right? We already take those 'god-given-holier-than-thou' constitution rights away from people all the time, ex-cons, felons, etc. Why not expand that program? Using the Constitution argument to its most basic definition, ANYONE, including felons, should be allowed to arm at any time. And I do not claim to, nor have I EVER claimed to have the correct answer. There are plenty of people out there, highly educated, experienced on policy and implementation, that I would be happy to consult with to come up with something. I do not know the correct answer, but I do know that if we do nothing that we can expect nothing to change. And I am not happy with the status quo, as are tens of millions of other Americans. And I also realize that if we do not make small changes to demonstrate improvement, you and I someday might lose the right to own a gun altogether, just because we dug in our heels, decided to be belligerent about it, and thus lost everything in the process. Look at what pissed off mothers did for drunk driving. And if you think the country cannot make radical changes that affect everyone's freedoms at the stroke of a pen and in short order, take another look at the Patriot Act and the DHS.

And we are advocating some changes to that right...yes. As I said, the basis of my argument is that we CHANGE things when there is a problem, (except apparently in the case of guns). That only makes the country look ridiculous and stupid when it does not have the ability to solve a problem. 200 year old constitutional changes that need to be updated. The Constitution is far from perfect, has been amended (and unamended) 27 times, Even your precious second amendment was just that, an amendment. An afterthought. 15 years after the new country was born. To take it as solemn gospel to never be tampered with or updated at least, especially 230+ years after the need for it, is plain silly. yes, i said silly.

the 'actions' of the actor actually do describe the actor. Therefore it is OK to 'despise' the actor when their actions are indeed 'despicable'. Fred Phelps is a blot of pus on humanity and the world will be a far better place without his sorry hatred-filled ass in it. good-bye and good-riddance. motherfucker asshole dip-shit douche-bag. Yes I said all that. plied by just a touch of whiskey....

And the difference between guns and cars, as has been stated thousands of times, is that when we see a problem with cars, whether it be design defects, operation, training or otherwise, we go out of our way to CHANGE things, to IMPROVE things and we actually makes CHANGES, we TAKE away rights to drive cars, we put people in jail, we limit the cars, we sue the manufacturers and the drivers, we have legal recourse. And that is why driving is safer than ever before. However, when the gun issue comes up, it is COMPLETELY untouchable and there is no recourse and we state that there is NOTHING that can be done, because it is just 'mental health' or 'people', or 'criminals' or whatever bullshit excuse the gun lobby comes up with today as to why things cannot be improved. that is the difference between guns an cars. If you want to argue then try arguing apples with apples......

anecdotal stories that have have little statistical value. There are hundreds if not thousands of other 'anecdotal stories' that clearly demonstrate that some people simply should not have a gun in their possession ever.

I always joke that if you have a reserve parachute that has your wing-loading at 1.3+, then you do not need an AAD. Given that the AAD is there to save you (supposedly unconscious), then landing a small reserve, unconscious, brakes set, no flare, possibly downwind, is likely not survivable anyway. The right size reserve might actually be the difference between scraps/bruises/beat up and massive blunt force trauma.

not possible. the world is only 6000 years old

+1 wow, they managed to come up with ONE example......to compare to the tens of thousands of gun incidents and murders that happen every year, and then state it somehow as statistically significant? yep, we are fucked as a society

100lb people do not play pro football. 300lb people do not skydive. You are in a very limited category, and while it might be possible, most likely it will be very difficult and very expensive if you can even find anyone willing to help you through it.

Just another example of how fucking stupids humans are and why we are a scourge on this planet.

stop being asinine. SOCIETY as a whole has decided that being 21 is the age for drinking and that harsh penalties shall be imposed on those that sell to underage people. That is not discriminating based on age. SOCIETY has now decided that gay marriage is OK, gay is normal and we has stopped or begun to stop discriminating against that. All we are doing with the recent pro-gay laws is protecting people, just like protection of kids from getting booze. Booze is still legal, it just has an age limit. SOCIETY has decided these standards. Go ahead. start a petition to remove age barriers from alcohol and see how far you get. SOCIETY will decide that you are full of shit most likely.

You called it a sin. That is labeling people as doing something wrong based on something they do. Something that has (as I said) ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with you nor does it ever affect your life. And then you just called it a perversion (again). that is called hate-mongering (again) Your one statement contradicts the second in context. You have no problem with the 'perversion'. It's kinda like saying - "I ain't racist, I just don't like niggers" And knock off the slippery slope argument of 'all perversions'. Consenting adults, versus say, child molesters. One brings harm to another person. One does not. I can see the difference. Too bad you cannot.

+1, in other words, hate-mongering.