The_Dude
-
Posts
4,110 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The_Dude
-
-
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:
It was a concession in a compromise. And Schumer wasn't running around demagoguing the issue by scapegoating immigrants. That is racist
Correct me if I’m wrong, but when Reagan gave amnesty to illegals wasn’t a Wall part of that concession that hasn’t been fulfilled?
And illegal immigration is bad for a country. We need to stop it.
-
Just now, Tiberius said:
And what a waste of time that was. Border fencing? That's not a stupid wall. More right wing lies
Uh-huh. So a border “fence” is sensible but a wall is racist?
-
On 2/24/2019 at 11:37 AM, TPS said:
I’ll make sure to only post from sources you trust then, like Breitbart...
Now it's posted on my Libertarian site, so will you change your mind now?
This article is trash. Jews haven’t been terrorists for a couple thousand years. Crap article.
-
7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Link please
I’m pretty sure you could copy and paste what he wrote into google.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, DC Tom said:
Of course I know. I-400 class, carried two M6A Serian planes. They were specifically designed as special-operations subs for the sole purpose of attacking the locks in the Panama Canal. Stupid idea, even for the Japanese - lots of effort put in to a plan that was militarily pointless.
"Carrier submarines" are a non-starter, for a few reasons. Incompatible doctrinal mix, incompatible logistical needs, the technical needs of either are incompatible with the other (how are you going to quietly maintain planes?) Ultimately, the point of a carrier is to operate an air group, which at its simplest means "generating 180+ sorties per day," which you can't do from a submarine.
I don’t know if the idea is outdated, but if you had modern versions of these subs, and heavy bombers, I’d make em. Imagine being able to pop-up and launch heavy bombers, then dive and rendezvous at another point. Huge. But I might be outdated.
1 hour ago, DC Tom said:I already said it was pilot error. I know she caused the compressor stall - she banked left, and disrupted the airflow to the left inlet. Her big mistake wasn't that, it was increasing thrust to the other engine, which was a big no-no because it induced yaw beyond rudder control. In her case, at landing speeds, it stalled the port wing. All obvious from the film.
What I did not know was if it was a one-time panic, or if she was truly unqualified. Which you just answered by saying she'd done it before. That makes it pretty obvious incompetence: if I know you don't firewall the remaining engine on an F-14A, it's not exactly an obscure point, and a pilot shouldn't even have to think about it.
If she panicked over that, what would she do in combat?
Im telling you dude, I’ve seen women lose their damn minds, on FOBs, when they hear something go boom. I’m talking ready to surrender. Imagine women during an artillary barrage...
A battlefield is no place for a lady.
-
8 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:
FIFY
Thank you, sir. You are ALWAYS lookin our for me.
-
1 hour ago, sherpa said:
I was a pilot, so the way we fought against ships was to set up a strike and try to get to them before they shot us down. Easy to determine who got who first.
Only at sea though.
Subs are a different breed. You know when they are around, and they are always around when there's a carrier involved. Usually get picked up as soon as we left Hawaii, but our subs and anti sub airplanes are on them at all times.
After my sea tour, I was fortunate to go to TopGun as an aggressor. Those are the guys who fight the class. In the movie, its the guys who are running the scenarios and the guys Cruz fought.
Had the great opportunity to fight many different Air Forces all over the world, as well as our own Navy and Air Force hundreds of times.
Many different scenarios.
A lot of fun.
In international waters, do we let subs get near our carriers? At what point would a warning to back up escalate? Can/do we fire on subs near carriers?
Also, are “carrier-subs” a stupid idea? The Japanese built a sub that could hold and somehow launch a couple of bombers towards the end of WWII. Not sure it was ever fully operational. Apparently we scrapped it. Not sure why we haven’t done that. Seems like an awesome idea to me though. But I know nothing of arial combat or boat war. @DC Tom you know anything about that sub the Japanese has I’m talking about? And is a carrier-sub stupid? I may want to punch your face, but I appreciate knowledge and perspective where it can be found.
-
34 minutes ago, sherpa said:
I was a pilot, so the way we fought against ships was to set up a strike and try to get to them before they shot us down. Easy to determine who got who first.
Only at sea though.
Subs are a different breed. You know when they are around, and they are always around when there's a carrier involved. Usually get picked up as soon as we left Hawaii, but our subs and anti sub airplanes are on them at all times.
After my sea tour, I was fortunate to go to TopGun as an aggressor. Those are the guys who fight the class. In the movie, its the guys who are running the scenarios and the guys Cruz fought.
Had the great opportunity to fight many different Air Forces all over the world, as well as our own Navy and Air Force hundreds of times.
Many different scenarios.
A lot of fun.
Thats awesome man. Well, this might sound weird but thanks for giving a ***** and for your service.
29 minutes ago, sherpa said:Tom. I like what you you do here. but your conclusions are from reading reports.
She caused the compressor stall, which was never proven, by the way, by jamming full left rudder during an overshoot of the center line of the carrier.
This is a Cessna move, and she had done it before.
She had dis-qualled before for the same reason.
She jammed the rudder, never done in a jet airplane, stalled the airplane and the RIO command ejected the both of them.
She was totally incompetent, and the F-14, again, was a relatively easy airplane to get aboard.
Whats your take on women in combat. The only ones I knew of that were even a little competent I never met. They were helicopter pilots that I talked to on the radio. Seemed ok up there. I don’t trust them though. Never have. They just don’t make split second decisive decisions like men.
-
24 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
He doesn't even know how many work weeks there are in a month so good luck.
Well at least I have a starting point. I used to make private’s soldiers. I can teach Tibs.
-
13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
The 70% is only charged on the earnings over $10,000,000. Income under $10,000,000 is charged at lower rates.
I think I can talk smarts into Gator. He’ll be my Helen Keller. I’m gonna talk some smarts into him. There’s hope because his ideas are dumber than he is, so there’s potential. He’s just gotta ask himself questions he doesn’t want to. Like how many work weeks out of the year he should sacrifice to taxes.
-
11 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
That is wrong. AOC called for a 70% tax rate on money earned over $10,000,000.
As far as your conversation with Gleeful Gator goes, you need to start slower. It's been 3 years and he still hasn't figured out why there are 52 weeks in a year if there are 4 weeks to a month and 12 months to a year. I once thought I had made progress with him when I got him to take out 52 quarters from a dryer at the laundromat and lay them out on his folding table but he then argued that there was 13 months in a year. I gave up when he tried to make Gatorary as the new month.
Fine, $10,000,000.01
....also, I sincerely hope you’re joking.
I dont know why but that nonsense reminds me of the hillarious Roman “hour” which was hardly ever 60 minutes.
-
1 hour ago, sherpa said:
Ground guys can answer that. I can't.
My experience is in Navy carrier based fighters, and the experiences involving females in that arena, along with other very bad experiences attempting to get other special situations into an area that has no margin for error.
I have so many questions. I’m fascinated with the Navy. I’m terrified of the air and I don’t like the open sea so I would never join the navy. I like my boots on the ground. So, stupid question, how do you guys do pretend fighting? Like in the army we’d wear awful laser gear crap, we’d set up an opfor, and then shoot at each other with blanks. Do y’all do something similar only with boats? Also, what happens when there’s a foreign sub around y’all? I know nothing of boat fighting. Forgive my ignorance.
-
18 minutes ago, Hedge said:
I'm curious, is there a requirement to see if someone can (solo) carry a body that weighs ~200 lbs? It would seem to me that being able to haul someone who is wounded and can't walk would be paramount. I highly doubt any small units would want someone in them who couldn't do this.
That is correct.
One of my best buddies is a big fella. 6’4”. I’m 5’6”. In training I was constantly fireman carrying his big ass. Everybody needs to be able to evacuate anybody. I’d like to see a 5’6” girl carry a grown man that’s 6’4” in full battle rattle. That ain’t happenin.
-
2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
Generally, you don't evacuate team members. At most, you stabilize them, then let the medic/corpsman treat them while you continue the mission.
Not a hard rule, of course - I know someone who engaged a shooter in Iraq, then carried two injured men to a Humvee (with a shattered arm of his own) and evac'd them (deserved a Silver Star for it, only got a Bronze Star for some reason.) But generally, you're not carrying the wounded to safety. But generally, you want the troops to continue the mission, and leave evacuation of the wounded to the people who's mission it is. Plus...the average combat infantryman is carrying far too much ***** to carry a person besides...
Wrong. Wrong. Just wrong.
So much wrong here. But how would you know? You’ve never evacuated anybody, little lamb.
-
6 minutes ago, Foxx said:
This is diversity. This is just another drop in the bucket of proof diversity is devastating, and to nobody's benefit. All John Wilkes Booth's fault. Nearsighted moron.
-
6 hours ago, Capco said:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, thus limiting their ability to use fines to raise revenue.
The court's decision, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was announced by her on her second day back at the court. Ginsburg missed in-person arguments at the court for the first time in her quarter century on the Supreme Court bench after undergoing surgery for lung cancer late last year.
The court's opinion came in the case of Tyson Timbs, whose $42,000 Land Rover was seized by the state of Indiana after he was arrested for selling a small amount of heroin to undercover cops for $400.
An Indiana trial court ruled that the fine was grossly disproportionate punishment on top of other fines and a year of house detention. The state Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines does not apply to the states.
But Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court, open during a snowstorm, disagreed with the Indiana Supreme Court.
"Forfeiture of the Land Rover, the court determined, would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Timbs's offense," Ginsburg wrote.
She also noted that the ban on excessive fines was added to the Bill of Rights for the purpose of protecting individual liberty. "Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties."
She noted that those fines could be used to retaliate against political enemies and have been used as a source of revenue.
The ruling effectively means states and local municipalities cannot use fines as a mechanism for raising revenue, something many local governments do.
As for the snow, it's not unusual for the high court to be open when the rest of Washington is closed. It's sort of a tradition.
The last two chief justices were raised in the snowy Midwest, and the justices seem to enjoy being the hardiest branch of government.
(sorry if this was posted elsewhere already)
This has been a problem for years. Glad to see headway.
-
13 minutes ago, Foxx said:
i'm guessing you missed the sarcasm due to the many blows to the noggin you have endured.
I caught it.
Honestly, I've been mildly concussed a few times from punches, but you should have seen the other guys hands....it's actually the indirect fire that worries me. I've no idea how many concussions I got from that *****, but I'm a man about it. Charlie Mike.43 minutes ago, DC Tom said:I consider a custodian of blunt head trauma.
You're a loud guy when not being called out for inaccuracies.
-
12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Would your rate of taxation mean my mom couldn't get medicare?
I advocate for living within our means. I believe we need to do so soon. The earth isn't going to end in 12 years, but I'm not so certain the debt isn't going to cripple the nation by then. A nation too broke to wage war is no longer a nation. Venezuela is learning that as we speak.
9 minutes ago, Warcodered said:This is a weird way to ask about tax rates at different income levels.
is it invalid? I look at things differently than a lot of people. Putting tax brackets into units of work weeks is fitting.
-
Just now, Tiberius said:
I already told you I don't know.
Well think about it, Tibs. Because it's an important question. I don't even care what your answer is, I just want you to confront the question because maybe you'll realize that taxation isn't that much different from theft or slavery. Unlike theft or slavery, taxation is a necessary evil -- to a point. It's necessary to fulfill the social contract, but beyond that its oppression.
-
2 minutes ago, Foxx said:
really?? i'll be damned, who would have guessed that.
People think just because a dudes 5'6" he can't scrap. I can scrap. Plus, I'm including a LOT of MMA. Do I like MMA? Not really. I don't watch, but I believe it's good for character. A man who has never been punched in the nose is not a man. A man who gets clocked and gets up ready to scrap -- that's a man. I'm just that sort of guy.
-
2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
It's a dumb question.
Actually it's not. You're ducking it. It makes a lot of sense. Now, if you're like me, a small business owner, you'd definitely ponder the question without being prompted. Why? I can't tell you how many times I haven't had money to pay myself after making payroll and payroll TAXES on the ides of every month. So let's look at it....
If I'm taxed 20% which I think is fair, and I convert money into different units, say "work weeks," then 10.4 work weeks a year I would labor and give all my money for those weeks to the government. Over 2 months a year, 20% is. But I'm getting taxed way more than 20%.
So, Tibs, my question to you is how many work weeks should you work for the government and reap none of the fruits of your labors? How many. Quit being a *****, and answer the question. It's not hard ya know.
Then, I want to know:1. How many weeks should a man making $100,000 a year be forced to labor for the government?
2. How about a man making $1,000,000....how many weeks a year should he be a slave?
3. $10,000,000? AOC wants that man a slave for 36.4 weeks per year. You?
-
19 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
Ironically, the point at which gator and Dude start responding to each other is both oppressive and taxing.
I like you more than I respect you, and I don’t like you even a little.
I appreciate wit wherever it can be found, and as a truthful person I must say I appreciate your wit. But that’s where your positive traits end. Abruptly.
The thing about you is you only seem to chime in with insults and rarely add anything of substance to any conversations. It’s as if you’re completely void of convictions. To me, the most pathetic kind of man is one void of convictions. But that’s why you’re you and I’m an achiever.
-
5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Government does a lot for us, that has to be paid for. My mom is on Medicare, so I don't mind paying for that.
Trumps tariffs are oppressive, right?
Dude, again, how many work weeks proceeds of yours should be confiscated by the government. That’s all I’m asking. How many work weeks out of the year? You’re scared to answer because you’re scared to contemplate the question.
-
2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
He punches like a man who's never been punched back... so, I'd agree.
Well, I’ve been punched loads of times. More than I can count.
India v. Pakistan
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by The_Dude
Churchill said this would happen. He said the uncivilized savages would be at each others throats if they were left to their own devices. Churchill knew the kindest fate for all of them was for them to remain subjects of Her Majesties Government. It’s not like the Irish who were obviously civilized. They’d be better off under British oversight. The biggest issue with colonialism was that it didn’t last long enough.
This could be nothing. But it could also turn into July 1914 quickly. Nobody in Europe in July 1914 thought war imminent.