Profile

Cover photo
Dave Grenier
5 followers|5,619 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Dave Grenier

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
I think it odd that if the TCAS had been shut off, no matter how, that the pilots would have turned it back on after the collision when they were wrestling with the plane and trying to find a place to land. I think activating the TCAS at that time would have had a very low priority.
1
Add a comment...

Dave Grenier

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
I don't know when this was recorded, but Glenn Beck (and Mark Levin) attack the Republican collectivists/RINOs all the time. Beck has spoken extensively about the nature of the Federal Reserve system.
1
Ron Wordwelder's profile photo
 
The Federal Reserve is Beck's chosen libertarian talking point - he pushes it while otherwise adopting statist positions - most recently supporting the Federal Government against Cliven Bundy.
Add a comment...

Dave Grenier

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
"Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free."
Larry Linville as Major Frank Burns - "M*A*S*H

“Oppression and harassment are but a small price to pay to live in the land of the free.”
J. Montgomery Burns, The Simpsons
1
Add a comment...

Dave Grenier

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
I know that the way you constructed the sheath is a common method, but is there a reason why you don't leave the Kydex in one piece, and, after heating it, you just don't fold it over the knife? If made this way, the two side will absolutely remain in alignment because they're a single piece of Kydex.
1
Add a comment...

Dave Grenier

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
 Resistance is ALWAYS a duty. It's just that sometimes (rarely) it's not necessary.

I'm still waiting for the police involved in two shooting incidents, in which they were attempting to assassinate cop-killer Dorner, who mistakenly opened fire on innocent citizens. This was ATTEMPTED MURDER even if they had actually been shooting at Dorner. Only had they killed Dorner, they would have been able to make up a self-defense story. Unfortunately for the police, the innocent victims survived, so there's no excuse for not prosecuting them when the events in the incidents are not disputed (no pretext of acting in self-defense) .
2
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
5 people

Dave Grenier

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
If the orbiter was at the space station when it was attacked, how is it that it that the debris managed to re-enter the atmosphere on schedule as if it were a normal re-entry? The orbiter must move away from the space station, maneuver into a different orbit, and then do a de-orbit burn. Not only does this take a few hours, at least, but without the de-orbit burn, any debris in orbit near the space station would remain in orbit near the space station. (A de-orbit burn slows a spacecraft in orbit, allowing it to fall back towards the earth. An orbiting spacecraft must maintain a certain velocity - dependent upon the altitude of the orbit - in order to remain in orbit. Reduce that velocity, and the craft will begin to loose altitude, the rate of loss being related to the amount of velocity lost. Without a de-orbit burn, a craft's velocity is not altered, and it will remain in orbit, at least until atmospheric drag - if in LEO - causes the orbit to deteriorate by slowly reducing the craft's velocity over time - a long time, usually weeks or months, and sometimes years.) Additionally, this debris would create such a hazard to the space station (it's in the same orbit with the debris) as to make it uninhabitable and unusable (which obviously didn't happen).

The chatter about the loss of telemetry from various systems on the shuttle was real. As the super-heated gases entered the shuttle's wing, it destroyed sensors in the wing, and they went down in the sequence one would expect as the jet of hot gases burned its way into the wing. This was noticed in real-time during the re-entry.

You are correct about the flag and which side of the orbiter is shown in the "debris" video. The flag, when properly displayed on an aircraft/spacecraft (or a service man's shoulder, for that matter) is always oriented so the field leads, as if it were on a pole and flying in the wind as the craft (or person) moves forward - the stripes trail as if the flag is flying. (In other words, a flag image or patch with the field on the right is meant for display on the right side of a vehicle or on the right shoulder, while a flag image or patch with the field on the left is for display on left side of a vehicle or on the left shoulder.)
1
Add a comment...

Dave Grenier

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
As an atheist, I do think about me inevitable non-existence and I must admit, that it does disturb me. I find it a very difficult concept to really come to grips with, because all "understanding" is, of necessity, part of "being." Without "being," there is no "understanding."

But what really cheeses me off is the realization that I will not know how all this turns out - I mean the history of the world and the human race. When I was a believer I thought I'd have a front-row seat to the continuing story of mankind. Now I think I won't get to see any of it. It's like seeing the first of the Harry Potter movies and not getting to see the rest! LOL
1
Add a comment...

Dave Grenier

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
What you're saying (quite accurately) is that freedom allows you to do what you will, so long as you harm no innocent person, and that you're responsible for your misuse or abuse of your freedom when its exercise causes harm.

I would add that yelling "fire" In a crowded theater cannot be illegal, because it is the right thing to do under certain circumstances. It's important to realize that any a priori restraint on the exercise of a right is "prior restraint," a restriction not permitted in our system of juris prudence. We don't, or at least shouldn't, prevent someone from performing an act because there are circumstances under which the act MAY be criminal. For instance, we generally frown on the intentional killing of human beings, but don't have a law prohibiting all such killing. We recognize that under certain circumstances, killing a human is appropriate. So we have laws that define the circumstances under which such a killing is considered lawful and the circumstances under which it is considered unlawful, and the law sets the punishment for the criminal killing of a human, but there is no law to prevent you from killing another human in the first place. The law merely reviews the actions of the killer and can hold the killer responsible for his act if it was not the exercise of a right (legitimate self-defense), that is to say, it was a crime. If it WAS the exercise of a right, by definition it didn't harm an innocent person and there was, therefore, no criminal act. (I understand that there are circumstances under which the killing of a malefactor is considered a crime.  But just because causing intentional harm to a malefactor is sometimes considered a crime, this does not refute the conclusion that the exercise of a right intentionally harms no innocent person.) (BTW, I am aware that our government does prohibit certain innocent acts, such as the possession of certain types of firearms that makes them, for practical purposes, illegal to possess. This is a perversion of our system of laws, because it criminalizes intrinsically innocent acts - indeed, in some instances criminalizes the exercise of constitutionally-guaranteed rights - on the presumption that the innocent act is a prelude to the commission of a criminal act. As mentioned above, this is prior restraint - persons are restrained prior to actually harming another person, their property, or their interests.)

The exercise of no right intentionally harms any innocent person. If an act intentionally harms an innocent person, it is by definition a crime, not a right. This is another way of saying nobody has a right to commit crimes.

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
George Washington
1
Daniel Irving's profile photo
 
Well put! I am curious if you believe this should also extend to felons. After all, you cannot guarantee a future act based on a previous act. So, to be more direct, should felons be allowed to possess fire arms after the completion of their sentence? By the way, I'm a felon and cannot possess a firearm for the rest of my life.
Add a comment...

Dave Grenier

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Carrying a concealed child for nine months, were you? Did you need a permit for that?

Congratulations and best wishes to you, Cory, and Noah!
1
Add a comment...

Dave Grenier

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
This idiot's car may have been banged on by some of the riders (who probably didn't appreciate an attempt to mix with them on the road), but his reaction was not one of fear - he had it in his mind "I'll fix these punks." You don't run over dozens of people for what a handful may be doing to you.
1
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
5 people
Links
Basic Information
Gender
Male