sherpa

By the way, this is an extremely ignorant post, and nobody needs any meds, so quit with the high school message board nonsense. You look foolish. The fact is that is that "both parties" are not "religious psycho cults." That is an extremely ill informed, preposterous claim. Israelis are not all Jews, and the Palestinians have a justifiable claim as well. Neither group is as silly as you. The problem is in resolving reasonable claims without exterminating on or the other.

That doesn't address what I said about Yom Kippur or the Six Day war. But...What happened in '48 was a joint war against the newly established state. (by an international body), of Israel by Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. They lost, resulting in a huge amount of Palestinian refugees. They started it, and against a brand new country inhabited by the remains of the Holocaust. They started it. They lost. In 56, Nassar, (Egypt), nationalized the Suez Canal. That was part of the end of of France and England's gross mis-colonization and mismanagement of North Africa and the Med., and we've been paying ever since.

Ya....Right. They kept it going by the Yom Kippur war in 1973 and the precipitating the Six Day war in 1967.

The Palestinians have been thrown out of numerous Islamic Middle East countries who claim to be sympathetic to the Palestinian issue, but only express a proposed solution to this issue as hatred of Israel. I expect they could come up with "very nice areas." What should happen is a resolution that includes a Jewish and Palestinian presence in the religious center, a guarantee that Israel will not be subjected to incessant attacks from very close neighbors, supported by more distant entities, and an admission that the Palestinian issue should be resolved by Muslim Middle East countries. Supposedly, the have "very nice areas."

"Very nice areas" is as wasteful a postulate as it is stupid, in this context. The "Jews" have settled it, owned it, developed it and defended it against countless aggression, against all odds, besides being thrown out of it and enslaved before moving back to it, twice. They are never going to give it up. Nor should they.

It isn't about "very nice areas." The "Jewish ppl," I suspect, have very little respect for an individual who thinks like this, with total disregard for 5000 years of history tied to this land. I'm not judging one way or the other, but to state that some other place would have been "easier" is ridiculous.

Oh contraire! Anchors Aweigh My Boys! Stand Navy down the field, sails set to the sky. We'll never change our course, so Army you steer shy-y-y-y. Roll up the score, Navy, Anchors Aweigh. Sail Navy down the field and sink the Army, sink the Army Grey. And for good measure------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5JdDDxqikU

And here's a "for instance" about using the glasses to watch them. Right after I posted that, I put the glasses on and watched them. They have a real preference for various foods in the birdseed mix, as most people know. One of the items in the mix I am using is cashew, and it is their favorite. You can clearly see the cashew inside the glass feeder because of its color contrast and side. On of them was pecking away at the glass cylinder that houses the mix as it drops out the bottom. The bird was pecking away at the glass because there was a big cashew inside, but at the top of the mix, and and he was trying to knock it down, unsuccessfully. Would not have seen that without the glasses.

Absolutely. It's 20' off the front porch, which is about 8' wide, so the total distance from eyeballs in my dining room window to the feeder is about 28 1/2 feet. You can't see detail at that distance without them, and the interest is in the detail.

I feed them. We have a maple about 20' off our front porch and I hang the feeder from it at about the six foot level. I keep a set of binoculars on a window inside, and I check them out every day. This year I decided to only use high end bird food. Its a little more expensive, but the cost is worth it to me. I always wondered how they eat the bigger stuff, but this year I watched them on through the binocs. The trap the larger nuts between their feet and peck away to break them down. My daughter told me I was getting to be an "old man." Oh well.

Toto's owner got paid more than the Munchkins.

CNBC is a network that has guests. There is no "CNBC prediction." I saw the Larry Summers spot and Ken Langone's rebut. Summer's views are his own. Langone is a Home Depot founder and philanthropist.

Let's not get over dramatic over this. I say we go "Old Testament" on him. A little smiting is in order.

It was completed as I said it would be. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/sd-me-sky-penis-20171130-story.html Convened a Field Naval Aviation Evaluation Board. No loss of wings. Lot's of apologies. Lot's of senseless, wasted training time. The guy who did it already had orders to the training command as an instructor. Not career desirable. He'll be out in a year and a half. End of stupid story.

1981.

Simple. They asked us to. That isn't unusual at all when allied ships are in the same operating area. Flying a landing pattern to a go around is not landing on it. I believe Melbourne had a wooden deck. The A7 would go right through it if you ever touched down. We did one flyby, one landing pattern to a go around, then rejoined for a low, close formation flyby so their sailors could get their pics.

If you do make up that story, don't use the phrase "Navy flyer." Use "Naval Aviator." That's what we call ourselves. Anything else would be suspicious. "Flyer" would be fatal. Best wishes. A7. They invited us via message, and we were in contact with them. Great flyby. As my wingman said, you know its a great flyby when you're at three miles astern and they ask you where you are. They were looking up and we below flight deck level right at mach, so they couldn't hear us. I took the left side and he the right. We went by on both sides at 90 degrees bank, so all they saw was our bellies. Then we joined up and flew the approach, as I mentioned.

Harriers don't deploy anywhere near deployed US Navy carriers, so it doesn't matter. On this subject, we were once invited to fly near the Australian carrier, HMS Melbourne. Gave them the best flyby ever, then flew a landing pattern towards their deck. They waived us off at 500', but I continued to about 50'. Good guys. Good sense of humor.

There is no "generally" about the issue. It simply would never be done. Landing on an aircraft carrier is extremely complicated. Not possible.

That's a weird question, but I have significant carrier experience. The answer is that you would never "crash land," intentionally, on any carrier, your's or otherwise. You would get close by and eject, and let the search and rescue forces pluck you out of the water. You don't, one day, land on a carrier. Most planes aren't equipped for it, and unless trained extensively, it isn't possible. That includes the US Air Force. Simply not possible, and the damage would far exceed a simple "give it back to the taxpayer" ejection.

And as the frog sits, the water gets warmer.

Easy. I flew planes my entire career, and I still root for the same football team. One provided a pretty good life, the other has been "troublesome."

Don't worry about it. It's union leverage after a major internal IT failure.

And in a post-Madonna world. That's gotta be rough.

They don't "land." They crash.