The people yelling the loudest for death penalty are white males.
Care to site any study on that? I didn't think so.
It is very important that anyone that is on a jury understand it's a trial. The defendant may be innocent. Just because you are there doesn't mean he's guilty. Just becase the defendant is an asshole like Mike Tyson was on the stand, that doesn't mean he was guilty. I don't think Mike was guilty.
They'll think we were the only sane ones. All the crazy sick bastards that insist on keeping very dangerous people locked in a cage their entire life like an animal. That's sick. Have a rabid dog, put it down. Have a rabid guy, put him down too.
Why are they experimenting with 3-drug combinations when they could just use sedatives? They work just fine for putting pets "to sleep".
I know... I don't understand why this is so hard. Little chloroform to go old school or so many other ways to do it. Give him a fatal dose of heroin for example. Fly him to the moon.
I disagree, it isn't a myth, it's an outright lie and they know it. http://www.humanevents.com/201...
Gender baiting along with race baiting from this administration.
It's not for everyone. If you aren't comfortable doing it, don't do it. Just like flying into IMC. There's this site - https://www.sharemysky.com/ . Been around for years. It's generally none of the FAA's business what you're doing as long as you're not doing commercial stuff and they stay out of it. It's only when there's an accident or someone complains. Then you've got some explaining to do. Did you keep records? How much did you pay, they pay, etc.. I always pay about $5 more so even an idiot can't take issue with it. Not that this matters of course. If they want to screw you good, they'll do it.
I just like the idea that if I'm going to be up there anyway and I can help someone, I'd like to do that. Hope that the good deed doesn't go punished.
http://hotair.com/archives/201...
Obama wasn't on board until about 2012 as well, he must resign too.
As a pilot, I'm not sure how to take your remark. I'm pretty sure the rigorous training and medical certifications I've completed will have you in much safer hands than the trip you take to the grocery store from your house. What are the requirements for driving a 3 ton vehicle these days, heartbeat and visit to the local DL office?
I've looked into this over the years, you're safer in the car. Turns out GA as a group is almost identical to a motorcycle. If you fly a lot, maintain the plane well, actually check the gas before you leave and have enough gas to get to where you're going you are probably slightly better than the car ride.
Depends on the plane. Cessna 140 or 172 I can do wonders with. Beechcraft Bonanza is not so bad. Piper arrow is more like a rock. Some are just a powered rock. Especially when you get into jets. Have to be, they go so fast. A Cessna 140 you're doing good to do 115 MPH.
Not sure where this myth about the public comes from. I can tell you if your engine does anything other than that prrrrrrrr, it scares the SHIT out of them. Even an instructor when I'd drain the aux tank to dry, then switch to another tank, he's like - cut that out man. You know when it's out of gas so don't do it.
Cars are forgiving, the sky is NOT. If as many people flew small planes as people drive it would not be as safe in terms of fatalities. It is true when you compare apples to oranges driving is more dangerous; but if you want to even get close to a fair comparison you would compare jets to buses and you'd compare fatalities and injuries separately... since car accidents are far less likely to result in fatalities.
Actually, the odds are about identical to riding a motorcycle. Driver or a passenger. I've never had an accident on my motorcycle nor my airplanes. It is a great idea to watch how a pilot flies before you fly with them. A good reference will do as well. I never take someone up on bad days and I try to avoid it if I think it will be even a bit rough. Good flight. When you run into trouble is with people that don't fly that often or people that skimp on maintenance. I always keep my aircraft in good repair. Reduces what I call excitement.
The FAA has strong rules about flying others around and the FAA never changes the regulations, they only add, never remove. The exchange of money at all for any connected reason is going to cause trouble.
Ok, don't comment on things you know nothing about. Paying for your portion of the cost for gas is actually in the regulations and it is allowed. http://www.faa.gov/news/safety... In the past decade they allowed light sport aircraft where you don't even have to have a pilots license. Just a drivers license. Right now it is looking like you won't need a 3rd class medical any longer for aircraft under 7500 lbs. There are other examples I can give. Not to say the FAA is all a bowl of cherries. They aren't. As with most things they generally do a good job though I have read of cases of some real scum bucket FAA people. I haven't had a problem. I also follow the rules. That could have something to do with it.
Besides, if you thought the taxi lobby was a problem for ride sharing; you'd never even dare to mess with the airline industrial complex (which is so heavily subsidized, it is more of a scam than a market.)
This is funny. GA pilots like me are never going to be a threat to those guys. Sure, I can take up to 3 people in my Bonanza. Big deal. I generally don't fly if there is bad weather, nor that often. They also don't service where I go. They can't. The airports simply can't support them. On the other hand I can go wherever they can go, just not as fast. Even JFK. Some places I can fly the nearest commercial airport is at least a couple of hours or so away. Some places even more driving time.
Sure, if I had access to something like this, I'd love it. I need to keep the aircraft flying and right now I take up friends when I do that. Often I'm alone enjoying the incredible view. Really is a wonderful place that we live in, that most people don't get to see. I'd think it is great to give someone that needs a lift a ride.
It is the current batch of homophobic religious nuts that are trying to redefine things. The Christian church had same sex vows almost a thousand years ago.
Really? Please, do tell. Any citations?
...But tell you what, I'll set a reminder in my calendar for Wed, Sep 23, 2015. If any of the 24 nuclear plants affected by the revised quake estimates has been shutdown by then, I will submit a story to slashdot at exactly 12 pm CST entitled "ebvwfbw was right and SpankiMonki was WRONG WRONG WRONG" so you will know you have defeated me. Hopefully both us old fogies will still be alive then.
While flattering you certainly don't have to do that, nor would I want you to. I'm not about that. Odd how this stuff has been moderated. I see where some of my comments were moderated flamebait, then as high as a +3 for insightful. Same comment. Makes me wonder. I often don't even use all the points I get.
Yes the nominations are theater, as is TSA, the special flight rules over Washington DC, as is Main stream media. 3 ring circus called the Obama administration (Ring 1 we have our Imperial President. Ring 2 we have Eric Holder. Ring 3 we have Harry Reid..(play entry of the gladiators)).
I wish they were a lot more pro nuclear as they need to be. I just don't understand how you can feel the way you do. Just as I don't understand why some women buy the whole "war against women" bs. To me the whole earthquake bit is a means to an end and it's very clear. Seen it before. Just like what they're doing to coal, lead, etc..
Wish you the best.
When you're insulting, expect something in return. Yes, the they sentence was screwed up. Too many conversations going on and my mind filled in stuff that wasn't actually there yet. Still makes sense to me. They the nuclear PP, they the government, they the PP, they Nuclear PP in general, them the power plants. However I have a feeling you know exactly what I meant.
The plants are *already in compliance* with the old earthquake estimates. Jesus. Maybe you should try reading the article one more time.
Understood they are in compliance. Read it again, it isn't about that. Never mind, don't read it again. You still won't get my point. Take that blue pill, sit back, relax.
None of the above ranting has fuck-all to do with anything I've written in this thread. And trust me sonny, I have a clue. I certainly don't need one from someone who's rabidly foaming at the mouth about some imagined no-nuke boogeymen.
Sonny, eh? How funny. There's a very good chance I have hemorrhoids older than you are. There is nothing imagined about the no nuke administration. Just check out the hearing tomorrow. I have a feeling it will enlighten you. If not, you'll get another chance soon as you realize the folly of your (they don't want to shut down domestic energy, at least that is what I think you are saying) position. Less than two years.
I never said no such thing about them not being able to unite. Different issue. This is about what to call it. No one in their right mind would compare slavery to being able to get married. Slavery you don't have a choice, marriage you do. It's nonsense to draw that comparison.
Prop 8 was all about not calling it marriage, not about denying the ability to legally do the same thing as marriage. look at it, find where it says this act prohibits people of the same sex from forming a (civil) union. It's not in there. Fine, so call it something else. Not that hard. I can remember whey the gay community told everyone they'd never ask for marriage. That was in the 1980s.
Of course all of this is so ironic. Democrats have such a terrible track record with civil rights. Wrong side of slavery, wrong side of women voting, wrong side of the civil rights movement, even the wrong side on abortion - which is the same argument by the way as slavery.
As I said, demand tolerance for your cause, no tolerance if you don't agree. How hypocritical.
I don't think you understand what you were reading (99.9% of the US population). They told the NRC that they can't withstand the most severe earthquake.
Sigh. I know what I read, do you? Here, let me help you. From the first sentence of the forwarded article:
"Owners of at least two dozen nuclear reactors across the United States... have told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they cannot show that their reactors would withstand the most severe earthquake that revised estimates say they might face..."
Later in the article:
"Richard S. Drake, a structural engineer with Entergy...said the plants had far thicker concrete and steel than the minimum required. Thus, he said, they could probably withstand far bigger challenges than their licenses specified. But on the basis of engineering analyses already in hand, Mr. Drake said, 'I just can’t say, It looks good from here. We’ll have to crunch the numbers."
So according to TFA, the plant owners are not saying they can't withstand the most severe earthquake under the revised estimates, as you claim. They are saying they don't know whether the plants can withstand the most severe earthquake without further (expensive) studies.
So it looks to me like you not as good a reader as you think you are - unless you think reading shit that isn't there qualifies as literacy.
We need more nukes, not fewer.
Nice job. At least you got that right.
You get that far and totally miss the rest. I'll try it to help you again - The whole reason why they are answering the question is so they can twist what they say and they aren't safe and close them. It won't be about the most severe earthquakes, they'll say that they are unsure if their reactor can withstand any earthquake. You don't want radioactive drinking water/air/children, do you? Think of the children!
I know you think I'm either nuts or have no clue. I'm trying to give you a clue. I've been watching this for decades. Matter of fact, watch Senate hearings tomorrow. They're confirming another environmental wacko. Right here - http://www.epw.senate.gov/publ... . They will ask her about economic impacts, something they clearly want to cause the most impact with. Look forward to brownouts next summer as coal & nuclear plants go offline.
I don't think you thought about this. We're allowing a very small minority of people to redefine Marriage, something that has been defined for thousands of years across the globe and coultures. Why would we allow a small minority to tell the rest of us what to do? Why do we allow them to terrorize us, call us often vicious names and so on if we don't totally agree and write that in blood? Tolerance they tell us, yet they are far from tolerant. Could say they are tolerant as long as you agree with them.
This was such a non issue. So he donated $1 grand 5, almost 6 years ago to something? $1 grand is nothing in those issues. Just crazy bullies again forcing a good guy out because of their intolerance.
"You don't go out and kick a mad dog. If you have a mad dog with rabies, you take a gun and shoot him." -- Pat Robertson, TV Evangelist, about Muammar Kadhafy
