dorkitup

I didn't look at your links, because who has time for that, and I don't know anything, so don't listen to me, but in general, in my experience, most people in tracking suits are not head low enough. You shouldn't be tracking like a skydive at breakoff when in a tracking suit. Don't preserve altitude. You need to be very aggressive (diving more) when flying and raise your ass up. Speed = lift.

Harlan Crow also paid tuition for Thomas's grandnephew to go to expensive private schools. Thomas is bought and paid for. He needs to resign. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

Anyone else have one of these pamphlets (see pic)? Copyright 1975 by Donald Beck (of DJ Associates, founder of PIA). Interestingly, photo credit on the front provided by Strong. Mine is in pristine shape and I was lucky enough to be gifted it about 12 years ago, so it sits next to my other parachuting books/pamphlets/etc. Just curious if others have seen it. Thanks!

Nick! Glad to see you're still kickin' around. Love your work! Still have your 2005 history video in my archive! classic gold!

I call complete BS on that. What do you think millions of people study religious texts for? Listen to religious leaders for? Again, your ego and your delusion that you're "special" clouds your outlook and judgement. This has been apparent since your first post on this site. News flash! You're just as ordinary and insignificant as the rest of us (including me, of course). Its an undeniable fact that you've traded one addiction for another. Surely you know this and can admit it to yourself. Is addiction to church/religion better than drugs/debauchery? Sure. But don't kid yourself. Weakness is weakness and the ability to stand without a crutch isn't something everyone can do. Own your weakness and insecurity. You will be saved! Jesus said love your enemy. Do you REALLY love your enemy? Have your posts on this site represented that? Those fighters in foreign lands who oppose US soldiers? Obama? Are you a REAL follower of the New Testament? Because I (and I'm sure others) are not convinced by your posts. Are you good with that if you die tomorrow? Do you consider others' opinions? Are you really after "enlightenment?" Love your posts and can't wait for the next rationalization you come up with! Haha!

Obviously trade wars are "easy to win," as we were told. That's why they've been going on for so long (and no end in sight). Super easy! In new developments, the big beneficiaries (in terms of job creation) on this side of the Atlantic and Pacific are...wait for it... Mexico and Canada. Not that I'm surprised... https://www.propublica.org/article/how-trump-tariffs-are-creating-jobs-for-canadians Having a trillion $ deficit is obviously good too, of course. I mean, what could possibly be wrong with record deficits? Thats how the US wins, right? Good times...

90 days from publication of the final rule to turn them in or destroy them. Otherwise, owners are in violation of the law (criminals).

For those interested in actual truth, link to letter of intent signed by Trump. Not Cohen, not another Trump company associate. Trump. Obviously Giuliani is now a confirmed enormous liar, just like the old trump lawyer he says can't be trusted because.....he's a liar. How many times have we heard "I have nothing to do with Russia." Its also been reported the penthouse was to be given, free of charge, to Putin. This looks very bad. Let the spin begin!! http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/12/18/attachment.1.pdf

In case you hadn't see today's article: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/18/658509261/trump-intervened-in-fbi-hq-project-to-protect-his-hotel-democrats-allege Remember, GSA hasn't been exactly nice to Trump. In fact, according to the article, the Democrats that brought up the issue did so because their districts would have made money if the HQ was relocated there. I don't blame them. It sucks to lose potential money when an opportunity like this arises, but I'm still not convinced Trump did anything nefarious. It sounds more like they're mad from loss of potential income in their districts. You certainly haven't presented any evidence to the contrary. But I did like this gem: Please provide a source for this subjective comment, and quantify "many" if you would (and "very, very well"). To me, it just doesn't seem like you know the area very well with that kind of statement. I AM curious why they are focusing on FBI. Its strange considering a number of agencies in DC (with similar sized buildings) all looked at the option of moving to the suburbs but there's no mention of them in the press. The numbers just didn't make sense. As I said before, I think FBI made even less sense given DOJ (who they work for) is across the street.

The emoluments clause says different. Just a fact. Ok. I'm willing to listen. How is deciding where a federal agency is located violating the aforementioned clause? And please remember, exploring relocation of DC agencies didn't start with the current president. Please provide something to support your position. I love to learn. Now do I think the Trump hotel is violating the clause? I think there's a very good case for it. But (imho) that is a separate issue.

Fantastic read. Thanks!

I don't think I said anything like that. But thanks for the

Um, not sure I get your point with this one. Please explain. The FBI building is currently "across the street" from the Trump hotel and has been there for quite a while (since the 1970s when the hotel was a post office). Personally, I don't have a problem with its location and prefer it to be in DC (i.e., close to congress and the white house). Obviously there are reported issues re: age of the building, its capabilities in the modern world, etc. that need to be dealt with, but who cares about location? Additionally, fyi, many Federal agencies in DC have been looking at moving locations for a number of years (before Trump was even a candidate). Either to the suburbs or other buildings (not owned by the govt) and paying rent. There are, of course, a number of questions that arise when doing that, such as security, evolving capabilities, employee commute times, etc. that must be taken into account when looking for a new location. To my knowledge, a number of agencies have decided against moving from their dated building after full assessments. Again, personally, I don't think it makes sense for the govt not to own the real estate. Yes, you can pay another building rent, but eventually, you end up paying everything you sold the old building for. Is tearing down the old building and building a whole new one the answer? Maybe, maybe not. I think it depends on costs, both current and future. I think this might be a non-story...

After all perspectives. Cannot disagree with your comments.

No worries, thanks for the comment. ETA: And I am well aware of your comments on this site and your desire to uphold your reputation on this site. Some of us have to use anonymous names because we are fearful of repercussions in our real lives. Some of us work in places and have sensitive positions (maybe I do, and maybe I don't) and certain jobs that we can't take the chance of wackos on this website becoming aggressive. Do me a favor and do some research on this site of some of the people in the early 2000s that don't post here any more because of crazy people and those posters getting fired. I've been here for a while. All the best!