winsor

It's still a NATO 5.56 round, just "enhanced". The Army has issued M14 7.62 rifles to "designated" marksmen, but that's typically one or two per squad, if that. People love to poo-poo on the M4, but it's a hammer. It can drop a target well beyond 600m in the right hands. One would be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn with an AK47 past 200m...piece of junk. I'll take an M4 or M16A4 any day. The 5.56x45 round is inappropriate for antipersonnel use, any way you cut it. The 7.62x39 is a better choice for military application. The 7.62x51 round is possessed of a superb balance of accuracy, range and effectiveness. The AKM/AKS has a variety of fundamental advantages over any variant of the AR-15. Direct-impingement gas systems are strictly third-world - think Hakim. Despite the limitations of the M-60 (full auto only, frame mounted rear sight, fixed gas port, etc.), it is worth schlepping the extra 18 pounds to avoid having to rely on some wretched variant on the AR theme in a pinch. I would certainly take a semiauto M-14 over anybody's full-auto AR-15 any day. People who tout the AR/5.56 combo generally know squat about internal/external/termainal ballistics. BSBD, Winsor

Thank god. I was worried there for a while, but whatever Congress wanted to fix is now gonna get fixed. We are in good hands. The relief is palpable.

I think this guy is an optimist. NYTimes

If you like freefall, you'll LOVE this "recovery." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7857595/RBS-tells-clients-to-prepare-for-monster-money-printing-by-the-Federal-Reserve.html

No, here in America he could just become a fundamentalist Mormon. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Junk science as subject to review by shoddy reporting? It seems everyone is worshiping at the altar of mediocrity. BSBD, Winsor

I think the comparison is completely unfair. Jimmy Carter is possessed of technical competence (he is a Naval Academy grad), and is a fundamentally decent human being. One does him a great disservice by the comparison to the graduate of an overrated Divinity school, whose stock in trade is the dissemination of nonsense. BSBD, Winsor

Muhammad would have to register as a sex offender if he was in most any civilized country these days. "MARRYING" a NINE YEAR OLD?!

Since "denier" has become synonymous with "heretic," I will try to work from the positive. My concern with the models related to AGW is the religious fervor they engender - both pro and con. Something I concluded half a century ago, and of which I have become more convinced as time goes on, is that the truth will withstand any scrutiny. It is only the patently false models that must be protected from scrutiny lest they evaporate as the morning dew. WRT the Heat Transfer models at hand (it is most certainly NOT a "Thermodynamics" problem), one needs to consider all inputs to the system and compare their relative influence. Anyone who has worked the analysis of a few thousand Heat Transfer systems would consider it naive to look at one mechanism, leap to the conclusion that it was the prevailing consideration and discount any and all competing mechanisms as unimportant. Sure, our activities on this planet have macroscopic effects on the material and energy balances of the ecosystem - that is rather a given. I do, however, draw the line at self-aggrandizing nitwits that pick on one factor and conclude they have found the Holy Grail of Saving the Planet (tm). "Yea, verily, they who Deny the Inconvenient Truth are Blasphemers, and surely shall they be Smitten!" Get a life. Any proof worth its salt is a Proof by Contradiction or a Challenge to Fail. That is rather the gold standard, and one that is scrupulously avoided by the AGW faithful. I do not claim these glassy-eyed believers are wrong, but I will state that it does not matter much either way once someone reaches this level of religious fervor. In the general scheme of things, our problem is population. Given the massive extent to which we have overshot a sustainable population, AGW is a non-starter by comparison. The AGW people are about as enlightened as those who would rearrange the deck furniture on the Titanic after hitting the iceberg - even if your efforts result in an improvement in the short term, it does not make any noticeable difference in the long run. Granting the AGW is real (to some extent, at least), compared to overpopulation it is about as significant as acne is to cancer. Dismissing AGW zealots is like throwing a Clearasil representative out of the Oncology ward: "Do you DENY that that poor fellow has a ZIT? You are only trying to RUIN his LIFE by making him a SOCIAL OUTCAST, his face MARRED FOREVER by the SCOURGE of ACNE! Oh, the horror!" "Whatever, dude, he just got a nasty dose of Chemo and is due for radiation therapy. Hit the bricks." AGW is a classic example of how you can be right after a fashion and still be full of shit in the grand scheme of things. BSBD, Winsor

I call a violation of Godwin's Law. I find Fox News to be as monotonous an exercise of navel-contemplation as is Howard Stern, but the sources that identify themselves with the Left are equally dreary. Mediocrity of thought knows no political persuasion. In addition to the tendency to wanting to do my thinking for me, both sides of the aisle are numerically illiterate. This is to say that none of them have any understanding of the numbers they bandy about. I am more comfortable with a group that at least recognizes that turning a profit has merit. Having seen a rather wide range of Socialism/Marxism/Communism in action, I consider that particular orthodoxy to be a bit worse than the Christian Fundementalist nonsense (but still significantly more sophisticated than Islamic totalitarianism). Scientology and Mormon are simply make-believe. Political Science in general strikes me as being but a variant on Scatology. To an expert on the the subject, there are massive differences between feces from various sources. However, if a significant amount of any of it winds up in the soup, it defines the broth. In the final analysis, in the sense that cops and criminals have more in common with each other than they do with civilians (they both make a living from criminal behavior, and neither pay much attention to the rules), the rulers of the 1930s in Berlin and Moscow had more in common with each other than they did with leaders of more moderate regimes. The differences between "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" extremists is a matter of details regarding what they wish to inflict upon the masses, and neither of them has much in common with the more centrist majority. Regardless of the label one applies to a political stance, if it is not based on personal responsibility I am not interested. BSBD, Winsor

Politically, it has been defined with regard to application of government. That is to say, should we address problem X, Y or Z with a liberal dose of government, or should we be conservative in our use of government in seeking a solution? Windsor, you are quite possibly one of the most intelligent and erudite posters on this forum and I've thought so for a long time, even before this forum existed and me having an opportunity to watch you post way back on AVSig. However, you certainly must be aware that what you've written is pretty much only how liberalism has been defined by the "newspeak" of the right since about the time of the New Deal and even then only in the US. What you have posted, specifically about its application of government to issues is wrong in terms of the classic use of the term in political science. Virtually all of the founding fathers of the US were "liberals" in the classic use of the term. Read John Locke. As I previously stated, most people on this forum don't seem to have an accurate description of what "liberal" means. Where we differ is that I provided a definition of the terms I use, so there is some metric against which to evaluate my contentions. You, OTOH, simply claim that I am wrong and that your standpoint is valid because you are in Locke step with the source you prefer - without ever providing another definition. Had you engaged in a study of Logic (and passed), you would be aware that there is are many types of definition - Lexical, Precising, Technical, Legal and so forth - and would perhaps respond coherently by offering a different context for your position. No such luck. If you think it important to have an "accurate description of what 'liberal' means," you would do well to provide one. BTW, I never posted on AVSig, and am not even sure what it is. BSBD, Winsor

Mostly because I don't agree with a number of assumptions they've made, I don't like two dimensional testing as a means for judging ones worth and they've never revealed their methodology. In other words, I think the test is flawed to begin with. I don't think anyone is talking about "judging one's worth.". Really? Because I think that's the entire direction of this thread. That somehow "right wing" equals "right way" and "liberal" equals "wrong way" when in fact most people on this forum don't even have an accurate description of what the word "liberal" means. Politically, it has been defined with regard to application of government. That is to say, should we address problem X, Y or Z with a liberal dose of government, or should we be conservative in our use of government in seeking a solution? I, for one, am fascinated by people who somehow think that a governmental solution is the default best. Robert Heinlein noted that “Government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master," and I think he was, if anything, an optimist. Then again, I think Orwell was an optimist. I consider myself to be conservative to the extent that I am very leery of government in general - its good intentions are of the variety with which the road to hell is paved - and that I begrudge much of anyone the right to do my thinking for me. I really don't give a rat's ass what you and the object of your affection do behind closed doors (no, really - spare me), and think abortion should be kept safe and legal until the fetus can vote, so that puts me out of touch with the religious right. OTOH, I am wildly indifferent to the plight of various pressure groups who strike me as being victims of their own choices (Sam Kinnison did a pretty good bit about "Feed The Children" advertising from the same standpoint). This separates me from the bleeding heart left pretty solidly. I distrust those in whom skepticism is weak, regardless of how they describe themselves. BSBD, Winsor

Well obviously not french settled in Arizona, they are not going to just lay down their arms and say "you win, take what you want" Go to Verdun. Explain how your standpoint is valid when you get back.

When did I ever state I was a believer? I am in fact an atheist. I have found the best way to argue with believers is to have a better understanding of the bible than they do. The scholar I mentioned was a Prominent baptist minister who lost his faith, He is now an atheist and one of the leading authorities on the historical new testament. If you are like minded, I highly suggest his books. Perhaps it's worth a read. My point here is that the Tanakh consists of Bronze Age tribal lore, and was not prepared for general consumption. Most Rabbis worth their salt will roll their eyes if you attempt to get literal with the contents of Bereshit (Genesis), and will note that its value has little to do with its accuracy per se. "We have 5770 years since Creation, based on the ages of the Patriarchs. How did Adam know quite when he came to be, along with the accurate count the days/years thereafter and the understanding of the significance of this measure?" "Don't sweat it bubbie, it's tradition." In a Christian church, you might as well have a big neon sign on the wall that says "BELIEVE!" A Synagogue could do well with a sign that says "Think." BSBD, Winsor

I am not sure what you mean that the scriptures come from the "people that killed him" Romans calling themselves "christians" is about as convincing as George W. Bush calling himself a follower of Muhammad. The Nicene Council had something to do with it. Romans were notorious in their application of flame to anything that flew contrary to their notion of what ought to be "true." Let's stick to "Christian Scriptures" and "Hebrew Scriptures." New implies continuation of the Old, and it is anything but. A study of your newfangled writings holds me in the kind of rapt fascination elicited by tracts on phrenology or astrology. Anything that requires "belief" to stomach is surely hogwash. BSBD, Winsor

Be advised that everything you think you know about Cousin Jesus comes from accounts under the editorial control of the people who killed him as a threat to their power. This is to say that Rome killed him, and later took over management of his franchise. Regardless of the authorship of the Christian Scriptures, there are no originals available and the versions in common circulation are clearly heavily redacted. Whether or not Jesus actually said any of the things attributed to him is questionable at best (Bogart never said "play it again, Sam" and Marie Antoinette never said "let them eat cake"). Quite how Jesus himself would have addressed the issues of political persuasion or responsible firearm ownership is better considered from the standpoint that he was an observant Jew - not a follower of Vatican orthodoxy. WRT the movie, we get even farther afield. While Rome subverted the movement of Messianic Judaism to suit their political agenda, the Book of Mormon was fabricated out of whole cloth. The Christian Scriptures are a badly concocted rewrite of actual events (King Herod died at least three years before Jesus was born, etc.), but the Mormon mythos is a fairy-tale without a shred of merit, narrated by a brazen swindler. Even though Mormons fancy themselves to be a variation on the Christian theme, there is less merit to their credo than that of Scientology (your classic "less than zero"). Mormons and Scientologists are the proof of my thesis that the only inexhaustible natural resource is stupidity, and that anyone who can harness it is set for life. I suppose it worked better for L. Ron Hubbard than for Joseph Smith when all was said and done, but the fact that Brigham Young took over the Mormon flock is probably why the Mormons did not go the way of the Shakers (also, the Shakers were not into sex, but the Mormons are procreating fools). After reading the Book of Mormon, the idea that anyone who subscribes to that nonsense should presume to do my thinking for me is very scary. BSBD, Winsor

Both of you guys are right - the other guy's politician sucks. While the incumbent is more personable than his predecessor, and is neither a blithering idiot nor anywhere near the national embarassment, they have one quality in common - they are both entirely incompetent. To hear people argue about which of these turkeys is better is like listening to a discussion of whether feline feces is markedly superior to canine , or whether cyanide is more dangerous than GB. When all is said and done, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Just because Bush was an unmitigated disaster does not mean Obama is the slightest bit better overall - and vice-versa. If either of these clowns is a reflection of us as a nation, we are truly mediocre. BSBD, Winsor

These laws are already in place. In Mexico.

These late night raids, esp the no knock variant, can easily lead to a shootout (typically = dead citizen) because they wake up to armed intruders. It's especially sad when this happens when the SWAT gets the address wrong. That's -probably- why they made the phone call. What's he going to do, shoot the phone? Even the article said the cops explained the situation to him in a way that would minimize violence. In this instance the responsibility to not escalate things was given to him which is a shit load better than a no-knock visit. I am, as usual, appalled by your standpoint. That you should seek to justify the behavior of the authorities is simply nauseating. If having firearms is a sign of being dangerous and unstable, the assembly outside this guy's house was certainly an order of magnitude more dangerous and unstable. Also, they were there with the express purpose of USING them in a violent fashion if he did not obey with their capricious dicta. The fact that he was threatened with lethal force is okay with you. That he was told "do what we say or we will kill you" put the onus on him from where you sit. That sort of rationale is beneath contempt - but at least you're consistent. BSBD, Winsor

So, the guy has to go on a shooting spree first before the cops can talk to him? I dunno. I'm not for barging into just anybody's house for no good reason at 3 am, but in this case it does look like there was a pretty decent reason to suspect the guy could go postal. This seems a bit overboard, but we're only hearing one side of the story. My guess is there's more to it. Bad guess, as usual.

Then it's apparrent you don't know what Biblical exposition really is...and again demonstarte that you know absolutely nothing about me...how foolish. It's so cute that you think you know anything.

Really? I would like to hear a clear biblical exposition of that. Are you able to provide anything of real substace to back up your claims...oh let me guess, that would be an excersize in futility, right? Then why not just be quiet donny? Explaining Torah to gentiles is casting pearls before swine - most definitively not kosher. If your "bible" reads left to right, it is certainly a waste of time since your translation is certain to be found wanting.

That's simple. Torah makes it pretty clear that vengeance is the purview of the Lord, and those holding his franchise are tasked with carrying it out. In the words of Vietnam-era grunts, "payback is a motherfucker." Yea verily, it is written.

no...you assume too much. may that never be. I was simply suggesting that you get to know someone before you tell them who they are....especially when you can't even explain what it is they are to understand. Aw, shucks, that's easy. When someone makes it glaringly apparent that they understand precious little, "explaining" it is an exercise in futility. It is much more fun to mock stupidity than it is to pretend to take it seriously.

say that same thing face to my shoulders and I'll show you what up... Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force) - I rest my case. "Duh, I'm right, and if you don't think so I'll hit you in the nose." Wow, a logical masterpiece.