sherpa

Anybody recognize this guy?

The deer where I live in VA are only grass fed. The venison is excellent. It used to be the favored meet of European royalty. We don't "hunt," we merely choose to grab one of the many deer that roam our property, and there are plenty. We don't eat bucks, only does, and head shots to keep the meat from getting blood on it. Just one or two a year, but the backstrap is excellent.

I've got one of those. A 64

Not competitive. Rock bottom.

I haven't been paying attention. What got my attention was showing a subsurface launched missile, which is not germane to the claim at all, and my disdain for using cui bono arguments as stand alone evidence of some conspiracy. So much of that is used in the 9-11 crap, and it's never proved to be of any value or legitimacy.

You have "operators on the ground?"

You're a confusing one. They didn't "upgrade" the terror threat vis a vis drones, they updated it mentioning that platform as a potential threat. Should have been done months ago. And regarding your "ballistic missile" impossibility claim, I'm confused why you keep posting pictures of a subsurface launched missile, when that isn't the claim. The claim is that it was a Burkan 2H, which is a pretty stupid scud type missile with a good bit of range. Certainly nothing sub surface launched.

Point?

All ACC, and specifically..... U.......V........A..... Go Hoos!

I don't think AT&T cares much about CNN at all, as it relates to this.

Flying isn't "very risky" when done by people who know what they're doing. I'm not sure what you mean when you claim that if "you make enough $$$$ they let you be a pilot." You are tested and granted the certificate after a thorough practical exam and display of requisite skills. Your net worth has zero to do with it. This guy was flying a very low performance airplane. He had emailed his father that it was "like flying a fighter." That is a grossly uninformed viewpoint which I hope had noting to do with his accident, but I'm suspicious it did.

I understand your point, but you are missing a major distinction. That isn't your fault because the media failed to report it in many of their reports of this. The "missed" difference is that this would be voluntary, whereas a draft isn't. "Officials stress that returning to active duty is strictly voluntary, and the service does not intend to implement a stop-loss measure." http://taskandpurpose.com/air-force-can-recall-1000-retired-pilots-new-executive-order/ All pilot positions in the military are voluntary. All they did was change the number.

No "emotion" whatsoever. Pat Walsh is no more "ensnared" is this than you are. Pat was a four star who was Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet. The guy in question was a rich contractor who had provided services to the US Navy. In your link, Walsh states that he didn't know who invited the guy to his change of command, but said that the guy had a knack for showing up at a lot of different events. As background for you, when extremely high ranking changes of command occur, a protocol office handles a lot of the invites. He also states that the guy invited him to dinner when he was commander of the USS Stennis carrier strike group, but he didn't attend. What your link does is show pro forma receiving line pictures and claim these folks are "ensnared." It is this type of ridiculous false linkage that underpins a lot of these idiotic broad brush conspiracy suggestions. Pat Walsh is successfully retired and not at all concerned.

What I understand, or at least surmise, is that you are way off on this, and wasting your time. I know Pat Walsh pretty well. He is referenced a few times in your link; quoted and pictured often. This is absolute nonsense, but it is your time.

Actually, it makes me wonder what your agenda is. The story is the broad brush smear of all time.

What a useless link. Pictures from receiving lines at changes of command. No linkage to this individual whatsoever. Just pure smear. One of them was a friend of mine, and laughable that he would be included in this nonsense. The only thing more stupid are the comments below the link, especially the one about Tailhook, which is grossly ignorant and ridiculous.

This is a complicated issue that has absolutely nothing to do with a "draft." Military pilots are not "drafted."

Brown's fan said tonight" " Alexa.....Disembowel me,"

Its an easy three hour thing, and they're probably more focused than if it was a home game. The travel is simple. Not much more than a commute. The issue is coaching and the pre-travel prep for something they should have seen months ago. I'm sure they did.

I don't play message board games. If there's something somebody has to add to what I have posted, have at it. Not understanding carrier transitioning fleet geographic boundaries is not an argument.

Do you have something to add to this? Are you at all familiar with how this, (US Navy ship transits), usually works?

Ya. Roosevelt just in-chopped to 7th fleet on its way to the Western Pacific for a long scheduled deployment. Nimitz just in-chopped on its way home. Nothing magic about this.

It happens, and sometimes it's just schedule coincidence. To answer your question directly, in 2007 three carrier battle groups were in the Pacific and didn't get "used." The explanation is quite simple. Carrier schedules are planned well in advance, more than a year, Occasionally, one will be on the way home and one on the way out. That is exactly what is happening now, but the media prefers the suggestion that it is something other than that. 1. Reagan is in Busan, South Korea on a port call. It is based in Japan and almost always part of the 7th fleet, the fleet responsible for that area. Named fleets are responsible for specific geographic areas. 2. Roosevelt just left the US on a scheduled deployment. Ships "in-chop" to the 7th fleet shortly after leaving Hawaii. 3, Nimitz is on it's way home from the Persian Gulf, and left the 5th fleet, entering the 7th fleet area on the 23rd. Simply transiting on its way home. So, you have three carriers in the 7th fleet because one is permanently based there, one is transiting on its deployment, and one is transiting home. Another case of the media overlooking the obvious for a suggestive headline, and people always bite.

I get that, but you mentioned you had purchased the wine after a barrel tasting. From reading your posts, I think you are a bright guy with discriminating tastes. As a producer, I know that wine goes in the barrel after a minimum of about six weeks of fermentation and clarifying. I have four week old petit verdot sitting right behind me in secondary, anaerobic fermentation. The same stuff we sold that will end up at over $25-$30 per bottle in a couple years. Initially, the tannins and other proteins are so overwhelming that there is now way for a consumer to judge the final product at that point. So...If I was going to make a purchase decision on fresh wine just put in oak, I would ask what the chemistry was at harvest. Without going into specifics, they would have the three or four data points involved, and knowing the appellation and the specific wineries history, I could make a decision.