Jump to content

sherpa

Community Member
  • Posts

    3,659
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sherpa

  1. 12 hours ago, LeviF said:

    I think now is a good time to remind everyone that mayor Pete is a spook whose pedigree includes a Rhodes scholarship, naval intelligence, and McKinsey. 
     

    Think of that before attributing his actions to stupidity. Rare case where Hanlon’s razor likely does not apply. 

     

    His service in the Navy is a zero.

    His deployment had him assigned to a forensic accounting group that looked into the insurgency financing.

    In other words, sit in an office and read stuff that others developed.

    He also drove superiors around, which he referred to as being a "military uber."

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Haha (+1) 1
  2. 24 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

    I don’t know much about this guy (apparently a regular on a news network I rarely watch) but I found this to be the best explanation so far of what China is playing at and how it isn’t much cause for concern. The China part starts more than halfway through. The first part (Ukraine) is interesting too. 

     

    24 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

    I don’t know much about this guy (apparently a regular on a news network I rarely watch) but I found this to be the best explanation so far of what China is playing at and how it isn’t much cause for concern. The China part starts more than halfway through. The first part (Ukraine) is interesting too. 

     

     

    I didn't see anything about China or surveillance balloons, and a resume check shows absolutely nothing lending credence to a claim he would know anything about that.

    He was an enlisted Navy guy who was one of the POW camp instructors, and he recently volunteered to fight in the Ukraine.

    What gives him any knowledge of balloon surveillance technology?

    Not that I heard him say anything about that in the link.

  3. 27 minutes ago, BillStime said:

     

    Can you please provide an overview of successes of Trump's Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao?

     

     

    This is a perfect example of the utter vacuous nature of your participation.

    The discussions about our current Sect. of Transportation, whose major accomplishment is spending millions to get NOTAMS, (Notices to Airman), changed to Notices to Air Missions, so as to eliminate the sexism of the original name, in use since Orville and Wilbur.

     

    He then presides over the entire failure of that system, resulting in a complete ground stop, ie., death to the system until resolved. Thankfully, didn't take too long.

     

    He has done nothing.

     

    Anyway, you then assert that people who kind of know about this stuff really dislike him for other reasons, which is preposterous.

     

    You then, seemingly without any ammo to defend him, direct

    your crosshairs on a previous holder of that position who was responsible for the explosion of drone regulations and auto driving vehicles.

     

    What's next?  

    Actually, nobody cares.

    You add nothing.

     

     

    • Agree 1
    • Haha (+1) 1
    • Thank you (+1) 1
  4. 18 minutes ago, BillStime said:

     

    We all know that's not the part they dislike about Pete.

     

     

     

    If I am included in your "they," the assertion is idiotic.

    The man is useless.

     

    He is the typical political appointee with no skill in the area he is responsible for.

     

    Impresses his party by his ability to respond in front of a camera, until someone has the nuts to challenge him, as Joe Kernan did on CNBC.

    He then looks completely helpless, which he is.

     

    If nothing else, stop with the preposterous innuendo that anyone who thinks he is useless gives a rat's about what he does in his personal life.

    That assertion has been tried and tried and tried, and it's a false, failed course.

     

    • Haha (+1) 1
    • Thank you (+1) 2
  5. 14 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

     


    wtf is going on? Can one of the “it’s ok for our adversaries to fly balloons over the country from coast to coast” crowd weigh in here? There were several of you. Hopefully one of you will step up. 

     

    I don't know what "decommissioned" means, but there is a report of another radar hit over Lake Huron that didn't amount to much.

  6. 3 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

    Wouldn't there have been a cheaper way to do it?  Even unarmed those would cost a bit no?

     

    I suppose there would be a cheaper way using the gun, but that would probably result in a much longer and unpredictable drift.

     

    In addition, F-22's fly every day, so no additional expense there, and US Navy and Air Force planes shoot a small number of non warhead equipped Sidewinders and carious other missiles every year to assure satisfactory inventory, so it's one less practice shot to do.

     

    I wacked a drone with one during my days. Really fun. For various reasons I won't confess, the missile hit the full size drone and splashed it.

    The ground operator of the drone was supposed to cut the engine to remove the heat signature as soon as the missile came off the rail, but my call was "late" so he was late, and even the non warhead AIM 9 bulls-eyed the thing.

    A good day for me.

     

    Minor edit..

    By the way, the AIM 9X, which was used in both cases, does not rely on heat signature for guidance. It uses light contrast. The heat signature of a balloon question has been brought up on various web stories by authors who don't know that.

     

    • Thank you (+1) 1
  7. Here's a thought.

    If a being was so enormously powerful that he (pronoun of your choice), could create our universe, it is likely we could not understand him.

    Correct?

     

    Now if that being created the universe and its laws of science to sustain it, all science, he is probably capable of doing other things we are not capable of understanding, or in some cases even considering.

    If those laws of science that the universe he created were to operate, they would require a functioning universe on day one, ie., fossils, fires, decaying plant matter, rivers and all manner of natural phenomena, because the universe would not work without everything working on day one.

     

    So, this being we don't understand creates a universe that is operating on day one as if it were created millions of years ago.

    He says, "Here you go. Now use my laws of science and evolve."

    • Like (+1) 2
  8. 11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-majority-first-time.aspx

    U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority for First Time

    https://news.gallup.com › poll › church-membership-falls-...

    Mar 29, 2021 — There has been a seven-point decline in church membership, from 79% in 1998-2000 to 72% now, among traditionalists with a religious preference.

     

    Walking away...

     

    Kind of interesting that a full four fifths of US think we are on the wrong path, whatever that means.

    These two stats happen at the same time.

     

  9. 8 hours ago, LeviF said:


    Yes the issue at hand at Ephesus was whether the divine and human natures of Jesus of Nazareth were separate, thereby rendering Mary “mother of Christ,” as Nestorius and his followers claimed, rather than “mother of God” as the church had begun to refer to her. The council ruled against Nestorius and re-affirmed that Christ had two distinct, not separate, natures in union together in one person. 

     

    A simple reading of 1 John would clear up the issue.

    It is suggested that the epistle, among other motivations, was written to stop the emerging Gnostic view on the issue.

    I think it's interesting that he starts out by establishing his bona fides as a direct witness, not some guy who was forming a views based on current and developing opinion, ie., Gnosics of the time.

         "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled,...."

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Agree 1
    • Thank you (+1) 1
  10. 9 minutes ago, LeviF said:

     

    This would place you outside of the orthodox Christian tradition, specifically the findings of the Council of Ephesus against the heresy of Nestorianism. 

     

    I'm not certain what you are claiming here, but to make it clear, I am completely OK with Jesus joint existence as God and human, if that is your complaint.

    Not of fan of the early Gnostic beliefs, or others that claimed separation.

    Either way Jesus was presented as male during his human existence, but God has no gender.

    • Thank you (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...