Lol, horseshit.  I know a whole host of people who vote (R) no matter how terrible the candidate/incumbent is.  Religious zealot who spends more time worrying about how to enact laws about whether gays can marry than trying improving something meaningful . . . sure seems like a shoe-in for political office.  Hell, we've had (R) politicians fighting for a decade over putting a monument of the 10 Commandments on the State Capitol grounds.  The problem is, moron (R) voters will lap that shit up like it's "fighting the good fight" and vote party line. 

Most R/D voters and politicians are just two sides of the same coin.  They espouse different platform ideals, but in reality, operate in lockstep when it comes to legislation . . . and Libertarians are the bad guys, lol.

Bullshit. I’m no great defender of Republicans, but I despise mischaracterizations of Republican voters.

You are emblematic of the pathetic populace that characterizes republicans as evangelicals.  Frankly, that group has lost any power it may have once had.

Republicans support the bill of rights - all of them, not just a few. So when Republicans make an impassioned argument for freedom OF religion, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, or due process, it is doing so from a constitution-centric argument. Likewise regarding abortion. Being pro-life is not necessarily a religious position. It is a pro-science position.

Yes, in many cases Republicans have to hold their nose and pull the R lever.  But that’s only because the D or L option is often bat-shit crazy and in the case of D’s likely damaging to our freedoms.

Well take the SS/Medicaid/Medicare out of that number . . . DoD is the next biggest Federal budget expenditure.  It's equivalent to a whole host of other "social" discretionary spending categories combined.

Yet that large blue portion of the pie chart is the ONLY power represented in the chart that is specifically granted to  Congress in the Constitution.

I didn't find that thread offensive at all, unless, well, maybe you're an atheist snowflake.

I saw nothing in that thread that would cause any reasonable person to close it, even a sensitive snowflake. I wonder if “offending” posts were removed before I saw it.

yup - that was the headline of an opinion piece in the Boston Herald today (Wednesday).

The writer is Joyce Ferriabough Bolling, someone who bleed liberal liberal liberal all the time.

She laments about the cost of eye drops, she cries about the cost of prescription medicine, she decries "big pharma" getting sky-high profits, she complains that a company has the audicity to discontinue production of a cancer drug (calling it "unconscionable" - I guess she'd be ok with forcing the company to continue production)

Not once does she consider how much it costs to develop and produce medicine.  Not   one   single   time.


Not once

Does this woman think that Warren’s plan also involves a government takeover of the pharmaceutical industry? 

Pharma profits are used for R&D on new lifesaving drugs. R&D doesn’t just “happen.” 

What a twit.

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/11/05/video-leaked-insider-recording-from-abc-news-reveals-network-executives-killed-bombshell-story-implicating-jeffrey-epstein/

This is on Tucker Carlson right now. Holy crap.

Another week and Sean Spicer is still in and the judges get more indignant each week. I love it.

Funny as hell. Spicer is the shittiest dancer out there and he keeps getting saved by the fans. 

Just curious Stan.  I know you fly warbirds on the side.  When you got checked out in the PT-22 (?) are you done?   Will the group you’re flying with not require any additional training?

It’s a Fairchild PT-26 Cornell, and yes, the CAF required an annual checkride to commercial PTS standards.  We also take an annual ground school with a written test.  The standards are high because of what we are flying - we fly pieces of history. Also, let’s be honest. The biggest driver of our standards is the CAF insurance policy. Still, those requirements haven’t prevented some people from doing really stupid stuff like running out of fuel.

My greatest fear in flying a CAF Warbird is not dying in a crash; it’s being “that guy” who wrecks a piece of history.

Except for some multi-engine aircraft, we are restricted to day VFR.

Required crew members are also required to wear Nomex flight suits, and its recommended but not required for all pax.

So let me ask a question:  It is proven that Nomex flight suits help you survive a crash by minimizing the pain and agony of a flash fire from burning 100LL giving you time to get out alive.

So, why don’t we wear them when we fly a 172?  Certainly having 100LL sitting in a wing above your head is not ideal for survivability, as an 18-year old CAP cadets found out when she crashed on a golf course and succumbed to fire.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1960964/Video-18-year-old-pilot-dies-crash-landing-golf-course.html

We don’t because we make a calculated risk that we would rather not look like dorks stepping out of a Skyhawk and sauntering into an FBO than if we were to burn to death in a crash.

So we take safety steps relative to the risk involved. We also do have substantial training and recurrent training for flying IFR  (via 6 in 6 or IPCs, as well as BFRs) to help prevent us from becoming smoking holes in the ground. I just don’t think MORE government-mandated requirements are needed to move the needle in IR safety. Your NTSB examples are anecdotal and don’t reveal the actual causes of a crash in IMC.

So trust me, I’m all for training and taking measures steps to improve safety. I just don’t think an annual written test will do anything.