Andy9o8

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    24,277

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by Andy9o8

  1. regulator

    ***

    Quote

    Sarcasm dude. As stated one was a war hero. I think if they had am M-4 instead of a sign, the results would have been different



    My point was that the "Gun Free Zone" was not in place because the Marines are anti-gun lefty nutjobs, which is the common place people are getting ready to go when they bring up the gun free zone thing.

    Most likely, the Marines decided that having recruiters armed would not lead to the welcoming atmosphere they are trying to promote at a recruiting station. On most military bases, soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines are not allowed to have privately owned weapons in their residences. The DoD has decided that the risk of suicide/accident/fratricide is higher than the risk of the base being attacked. So far, they are right.



    The individual marines didn't get to decide jack squat. That was DOD mandated.

    I'm pretty sure he was referring to the Marine Corps.

  2. Did you fact-check that snippet? It's a bit massaged.
    2 of his crashes as a young pilot could & should probably have been avoided.
    3rd crash was an engine-out of undetermined cause. Yeah, he was an arrogant hot shot back then.
    But in any event, then he went to Nam. Pretty much voluntarily. As contrasted with Trump, who availed himself of multiple deferments, Cheney-style.
    The 4th incident which the author smarms up was when he was in a plane on the Forrestal deck when another plane on deck accidentally fired off a missile and hit the plane next to McCain's. I find the article author's characterization of that incident, and McCain's "involvement" in it, to be pretty scuzzy.
    Then he got shot down. You know, while placing himself in the line of enemy fire and staying on bomb run instead of juking when he got toned.
    PS, while he was a POW, Charlie offered to release him out of turn because he was an admiral's kid, but he told them to fuck off, and endured quite some more turture as his reward. Yes, very cowardly.

    No doubt, McCain has used his POW status to give himself quite a ride. He turned himself into a classic politician, and in his personal life was apparently somewhat of a philanderer. But facts are facts, and spin is spin, and I see the latest swift-boating of McCain as pretty scummy. I'm very glad he and Palin lost the election, but he really doesn't deserve this installment of smear.

  4. DanG

    Quote

    Generally, a self-inflicted GSW most often.



    Thank you for being honest. Access to guns makes it easier for suicidal people, especially men, to commit suicide.

    To all the kneejerkers, I'm not saying soldiers shouldn't have guns, or all soldiers are suicidal. I'm simply pointing out that the suicide rate would likely go up if servicemembers were required to be armed at all times. It's not a value judgement, it is a statement of fact. If you're okay with that as the price for making recruiting centers "harder" targets, then at least be honest about it. I personally don't think arming all soldiers in garrison would solve anything, but would create a whole host of other problems.



    Raw data from CDC.gov - open to interpretation:

    Age-Adjusted Suicide Rates, by State — United States, 2012

  5. Quote

    having tact is a requirement in politics.



    Whaaa?? Seriously? In what world?

    OK, my reply is over-stated, but shit, man, some of the most successful politicians have been fucking assholes who behave like fucking assholes. And it's not just US politics, or some Third World countries. Look, for example, at politics in Australia. Everybody at the top echelons of national and provincial politics keeps their long knives well-sharpened, and bloody.

    But get back to US politics. Joe McCarthy, Lyndon Johnson, George Wallace, Newt Gingrich, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz... you think they got ahead by being tactful? Certainly not.

  12. billvon

    >A creationist in charge. How any rational, reasoning, even remotely critical thinking
    >person could ever believe in such nonsense is beyond me.

    A lot of people don't see it as a scientific or educational issue. They see it as "our side is losing" - and they don't want to lose.



    And they have a battle flag.

  14. johnbamburg

    We have both a King Air and a Caravan at the DZ. Both of these ridiculously poor Hop and Pops were out of the Van. And yes it was from a "floater" position outside.



    Not to contradict your instructors, but the general point of (a) low hop & pop(s) as part of training for AFF students is for at least one such exit to be un-poised, to simulate the conditions of an emergency exit.

  15. Quote

    This is pretty sad...



    Really?
    I grew up as a suburban baby-boomer, so I learned to swim and ride a bike at a very young age, so that now they're both completely natural to me. But no, they're not intuitive abilities, they're skills that have to be learned, and before you learn them, you generally can't do them yet. I know a couple very active, athletic people who for whatever reason simply never learned to swim or ride a bike as kids; and as adults, they still can't do it. Doesn't mean they're pampered slugs, they just never learned those skills.

    The folks in the article/video are overcoming their awkwardness and embarrassment to take the time to learn something new as adults, and even get videoed doing it. I think they deserve praise.

  17. AndyBoyd

    ******Before you make any more jumps, you must get checked out by a doctor to make sure the symptoms you described are not due to some sort of medical condition that would make it unsafe for you to skydive. You will not get competent medical advice on an internet forum, especially this one. For what it's worth, what you are describing sounds to me like normal first jump anxiety. But you indicated that you have medically related anxiety issues. Do not take my word for it, or anyone else's word for it on this forum. Go get checked out by a doctor, and specifically ask the doctor if it is safe for you to skydive.



    You know how that conversation goes.

    "Hey doc! I need you to OK me physically to go skydiving!"
    "NOOOOPE!"

    ?? I chucked drogues for a long time, and had no trouble whatsoever finding a Dr. to check me out for my FAA Class 3 medical certificate.

    For reasons I'm at a total loss to fathom, sometimes American doctors can be a little risk averse.
    Back in the day, when I was in college and was already jumping, I asked our family's long-time doctor (my parents' generation) whether XXXXX would inhibit me from skydiving. His unhelpfully non-responsive answer: "I'm not going to tell you it's OK for you to skydive." Lesson learned.

  18. winsor

    ***The act of rebellion is what?
    They were traitorous against the federal gooberment were they not?
    I'm not sure everyone understands that word.



    Freely joined and freely left the Union. There was never any attempt to overthrow the Federal Gov't.

    You use an overly-narrow historical revisionist's definition of "traitor". (Same would go for the word "treason".) No, it's not mere semantics, either. See my post #77 above.

  20. billvon

    >You don't give a country who chants death to America, death to Israel, and has
    >down with America murials plastered on their buildings a nuke.

    No one has suggested giving them a nuke. What is on the table is what we can do to stop them from building or buying their own. This, at least, will slow them down.



    As long as it can be timely verified.
    Can it?

  21. Quote

    Do you really think Iran would be stupid enough to use nukes if they got them?



    (I'm not your target addressee, but): That misses the point. I mean, yes that's part of the point. Because if a nuclear-armed country destablizes sufficiently that a Taliban-level power gains control of the nuclear arsenal, then yes, they might be nuts enough to use them.

    But the real point is not so much that Iran will use them, but that having them will allow them to use their nuclear arsenal as a shield behind which it can do even more serious damage with its mischief than it's been doing for the past 30 years. And that's what makes it truly dangerous; it provides Iran with greatly enhanced freedom of (mischievous) action. You see, it's a lot harder for the US, or NATO, or Israel, or whomever, to say to Iran, "You cross this line, we will fuck you up" if Iran has nuclear weapons than if it does not.

  22. billvon

    >Seems to me that a "right" to verification, without the absolute right to snap,
    >anytime/anywhere inspections - without advance notice, delay or appeal - is weak at
    >best.

    While I agree, it's not something that we would agree to, so we'd be somewhat hypocritical in demanding the same of others.



    Well then, logically, that indicts the entire Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. And, I suppose it does. But that's really beside the point.

    Principle aside, the unvarnished reality is that life isn't fair. Our side had the superior negotiating position.

  24. quade

    ***This particular treaty will have to be ratified by the US Congress.



    Only 2/3 of the Senate; right?

    So, at least the more grown-up part.

    Actually, not in this instance since, apparently, it doesn't qualify as an official treaty (so maybe I stand corrected and should have used the word "agreement" instead). In this instance it appears that it will be subject to a majority-only vote of both houses of Congress. My (quick!) source:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/14/heres-how-congress-could-kill-or-preserve-iran-nuclear-deal/

  25. Quote

    -- no anytime/anywhere inspections



    While I generally think the rest of the deal is... something I can live with, this is the part of the deal that does concern me.

    From a BBC article summarizing the key points:

    Quote

    As part of their investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme, IAEA inspectors will also be able to request visits to military sites. However, access is not guaranteed and could be delayed. Iran will have the right to challenge the IAEA request and an arbitration panel will then decide on the issue.



    Seems to me that a "right" to verification, without the absolute right to snap, anytime/anywhere inspections - without advance notice, delay or appeal - is weak at best.
    This particular treaty will have to be ratified by the US Congress. More than any other issue, the verification issue is one that runs the risk of peeling-off valuable Democratic votes over to the expected GOP opposition.