Bob_Church

Spain designs sub that submerges just fine. "Oh, it's supposed to come back up?" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44871788

They don't say anything about how much more processing would have gone into the must. I wonder if the finished product would have been safe.

Ok. Four opinion pieces in which the authors say "I think we still need NATO" But having read all four of them I can't see anything concrete, just the opinions of four people.

"The irony, and I almost don't even want to go down this road, is that Trump on one hand talks about how great Russia is and on the other hand wants other countries to spend more to defend against him. " This assumption that Russia is still the problem reminds me of the 70s when people would bellow "buy a Jap car!!!! Hell no, we just fought those sons a bitches!" Certain sects of Islam are the new enemy. That's why I can't get upset about Russia taking The Crimea. Look at it. It wasn't going to stay independent for any length of time and I'd much rather Russia had it than the alternatives and I suspect most of those who live there feel the same way, at least the ones not looking to kill all infidels.

"The irony, and I almost don't even want to go down this road, is that Trump on one hand talks about how great Russia is and on the other hand wants other countries to spend more to defend against him. " However Trump may feel or not this is a long term situation and needs to be worked out. Who is being defended? Are those who are being defended doing at least their share? And I'm not talking some percentage, that's a number someone pulled out back in the 40s. But are the countries that worry about being invaded doing what they should or just riding on the US' Cold War mentality?

"Right. But the aircraft is still overloaded per the mfr's specs." What are those specs? They must be different from what I was told. According to AOPA "Ask 205/206 owners why they were drawn to such ordinary-looking airplanes, and the answer will nearly always center on load-hauling capability. Both airplanes have generous weight and balance limitations, and generally, filling the seats will not require an hour's worth of calculator time to keep the airplane in the envelope. With a useful load of 1,500 to 1,800 lbs. depending on the model, the aircraft competes with most other heavy singles and many light twins. " The result being that you can't put more skydivers into a 206 than it can carry.

What do you mean by that? Trump's attempt to get other countries to pay in more. I've heard some beliefs that we do not need bases around the world that we should leave NATO to its own devices. Is there a list of which nations are paying how much? No. Because that's not how it works. Nobody (as in no country) "pays in" to NATO. There aren't any dues or fees that some sort of "NATO Treasurer" collects. The idea is that each member country should spend a certain amount (2% of GDP) on their own defense budget. Not NATO, Rammstein. Isn't that a shared facility?

What do you mean by that? Trump's attempt to get other countries to pay in more. I've heard some beliefs that we do not need bases around the world that we should leave NATO to its own devices. Is there a list of which nations are paying how much?

But the 206, and i believe the 207 is similar, is sort of unique in that you can't overload it with jumpers. If you can squeeze another person in the aircraft can deal with it. The aircraft can. The jumpers, not so much. I HATED 206 loads. I'd be nauseous by the time we got to altitude and there wasn't anything anywhere near like a comfortable position once you got six big guys and the pilot in it. And all those times you'd feel your stomach lift then hear that "thump" as too many people squeezed into the back too soon and it went down on its tail.

What? You don't think the DNC had anything to do with it? Yes, she owned the DNC which is what forced out Bernie. If there was a broader field they would have forced out those candidates too. It seems as though Sanders and Webb were the only two who got the memo that the DNC had already picked HRC to go all the way so nobody else ran. I think Sanders was an unwitting shill. They wanted to put on the appearance of an actual, legitimate process so they put someone up there as an opponent but made sure it wasn't someone who could somehow win. I think they overdid the unelectable part myself. But they made it very clear, even introducing HRC as the next candidate before the decision had been officially made and with Sanders sitting right there in the room.

At the World Meet in 1981 I did a lot of eight ways where the only other English speaker was Nancy Dwyer. Planning the jumps got really interesting but great fun. It added another level of stuff to work out. We did a LOT of drawing in the dirt with sticks.

"New boyfriend is due " He's due for what? Just kidding, I'm married and trying to make this one work. Good hunting.

"I do not think you understand fully what that 2% spending GOAL looks like in actuality. There is no NATO bank account or funding line that exists where countries deposit 2% of their GDP to be used at the discretion of NATO. " I think you've stated the biggest problem when it comes to the politics of NATO. Too many people think that it's some standalone force with its own ships, planes and soldiers. If that were the case then why are we depositing our 2% into their swiss bank account but not other countries? But of course it isn't. It is a kind of unique situation, I think, in which to belong to an organization you don't pay money into the kitty, you vow to spend a certain minimum on certain things. It seems more like a homeowners association than anything.

"As I alluded to before, members contribute in different ways to the alliance which have farther reaching strategic implications that spending 2% of their GDP. " It would be interesting to break down US defense spending in ways that showed us how much of it applied to NATO and how much didn't. I doubt it's possible, even if we had access to the numbers because it would be so hard to draw a line between spending to protect other NATO nations and moneys that we'd spend defending ourselves if NATO were to be dissolved. And the other thing I'd be interested in knowing is which countries are spending less than 2% because they're at a point where further spending wouldn't make them any more secure or when it's just "someone will come to our rescue if we're invaded." And as you point out it gets especially complicated when we're talking about a group of countries that vow to help each other when members are the ones they're worried about. In your opinion, is NATO serving a purpose these days?

Funny! My first though is that is how someone in West Virginia would drive, not Virginia; then I realized it was the other Norfolk. Small world though. West Virginia was where I was living when we watched tv by using pliers since us kids always had all the knobs ripped off within a week of getting a tv.

And he even spells it right. He's always been a class act.

Personally, I don't think you can beat Greene County. They're not called The Legend for nothing.

Well, it's nice that you decided to believe Trudeau's spin. Maybe Trump will too. Canada seems to have a leader who understands diplomacy. Canada does not spend 2% of his GDP on military. Nor should it. Why not? I don't mean that as an attack, I'm just curious. There is no public support in Canada for more military spending. Every new weapons system is debated endlessly. Current spending is 1.23% of GDP and regardless of promises to increase it to 2%. Its not likely to happen. Canadians will have a free national drug program long before defense spending is 2% of GDP. Canadians support peacekeeping and NATO operations like the current deployments to Latvia. Canada has additional training and support operations to Ukraine. Which is also supported. The conservative party(like republicans)of the last government could not write the check for a new F-35 purchase. So the current liberal (like dems) Trudeau government bought the castoff F-18's of the Australian air force. Part of that calculation was Boeing's trade dispute filing on the CS300 jet built by Bombardier. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/13/canada-to-buy-fleet-of-30-year-old-fighter-jets-from-australia-in-snub-to-us I'm still trying to figure out why we are. If the other NATO members don't want to, fine. But why sould the US, which arguably has the least to gain from NATO, keep paying the full 2%? You need to reread Eisenhower's message on the military/industrial complex. Or "follow the money". I know about when he coined the term military industrial complex and how prescient he was.

Well, it's nice that you decided to believe Trudeau's spin. Maybe Trump will too. Canada seems to have a leader who understands diplomacy. Canada does not spend 2% of his GDP on military. Nor should it. Why not? I don't mean that as an attack, I'm just curious. There is no public support in Canada for more military spending. Every new weapons system is debated endlessly. Current spending is 1.23% of GDP and regardless of promises to increase it to 2%. Its not likely to happen. Canadians will have a free national drug program long before defense spending is 2% of GDP. Canadians support peacekeeping and NATO operations like the current deployments to Latvia. Canada has additional training and support operations to Ukraine. Which is also supported. The conservative party(like republicans)of the last government could not write the check for a new F-35 purchase. So the current liberal (like dems) Trudeau government bought the castoff F-18's of the Australian air force. Part of that calculation was Boeing's trade dispute filing on the CS300 jet built by Bombardier. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/13/canada-to-buy-fleet-of-30-year-old-fighter-jets-from-australia-in-snub-to-us I'm still trying to figure out why we are. If the other NATO members don't want to, fine. But why sould the US, which arguably has the least to gain from NATO, keep paying the full 2%? It doesn't, the US spends about 3.5% of GDP on defense. Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/07/10/defense-expenditure-of-nato-members-visualized-infographic/#9f7da0114cff We're still fighting an enemy that dissolved nearly thirty years ago.

Well, it's nice that you decided to believe Trudeau's spin. Maybe Trump will too. Canada seems to have a leader who understands diplomacy. Canada does not spend 2% of his GDP on military. Nor should it. Why not? I don't mean that as an attack, I'm just curious. There is no public support in Canada for more military spending. Every new weapons system is debated endlessly. Current spending is 1.23% of GDP and regardless of promises to increase it to 2%. Its not likely to happen. Canadians will have a free national drug program long before defense spending is 2% of GDP. Canadians support peacekeeping and NATO operations like the current deployments to Latvia. Canada has additional training and support operations to Ukraine. Which is also supported. The conservative party(like republicans)of the last government could not write the check for a new F-35 purchase. So the current liberal (like dems) Trudeau government bought the castoff F-18's of the Australian air force. Part of that calculation was Boeing's trade dispute filing on the CS300 jet built by Bombardier. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/13/canada-to-buy-fleet-of-30-year-old-fighter-jets-from-australia-in-snub-to-us I'm still trying to figure out why we are. If the other NATO members don't want to, fine. But why sould the US, which arguably has the least to gain from NATO, keep paying the full 2%?

Funny, that's how we always had to watch tv.

It's beautiful isn't it? The ad in Parachutist points to a very minimalist page that lets you order it and you can use a credit card or paypal. http://selectionsthebook.com

Well, it's nice that you decided to believe Trudeau's spin. Maybe Trump will too. Canada seems to have a leader who understands diplomacy. Canada does not spend 2% of his GDP on military. Nor should it. Why not? I don't mean that as an attack, I'm just curious.

How difficult is it to take them out for the jump? Or is it a problem? I can see how it might be, but I'm lucky enough to not need them so I don't know. At least not yet.

Yep. On the internet nobody knows when you're talking out of your ass. We've created the ultimate "punish them all!!" machine.