Leaderboard

MARSRADIO continues to provide free HF communications for land, air and sea DoD assets as authorized by DoDi 4620.02. We want to say a big THANK YOU to our military, active and retired, for your service to our country. Come up to our net for any assistance that we can supply. In addition to regular official and morale phone patches, we have handled in-flight emergencies and even provided sports scores. It is all about supporting you. While still spotty, conditions are improving into Europe, Africa and the Pacific.

Pawnman simply cannot comprehend false equivalencies. This is not the flu shot. Or the small pox shot. Or any other shot that we've taken as part of the standard DoD regimen. Know how I know? Because I don't take THREE flu shots within 7 months. Putting the MRNA technology, the testing trials, the FDA approval, etc. etc. aside, the number of shots alone puts this in a different category. And if you think it will end with 3, you're on crack. They're already rushing to create another shot that's tweaked for Omicron. And why not..... there's already a line of tripple-vax'd, double-masked basement dwelling covidian freaks clawing to be first in line to roll up their sleeve yet again. Pfizer and Moderna are thrilled, and on and on it goes. I got the original two shots. But now it's clear that the efficacy wanes incredibly fast. 3 shots in 7 months, and more already on the horizon? No thanks. Not the same as other vaccines, and I'm not lining up every 6 months for a disease that the statistics clearly demonstrate is not a substantial risk to me. Likewise, I'm not going to have my kids jumping through these hoops. "OK boys, get back in the truck.... we're headed to CVS for the 3rd time this year..... there's a new variant." GMAFB. The "risks of driving" analogy is another false equivalency. Pawnman, yes, my kids wear seat belts. That's not the same as wearing a mask 8 hours a day at school or taking jabs every 6 months indefinitely. It's hilarious to watch you argue which is riskier, the disease or the shot? Because the risk to kids is absolutely infentesimal, for BOTH. Look at the data for hospitalizations and deaths in the 0-17 age group (Just the raw numbers.....without critical details on BMI/comorbidities, or Vax status.) The risk is statistically zero. Now imagine if the data included health conditions and relative risk to an average healthy kid. And then imagine the data also somehow captured all the asymptomatic, undetected, or unreported cases. Calculating covid risk to kids is an exercise in multiplying by zero. It's stupid. You've been had.

Picture of the ACARS message about it… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, not to be a jerk, but you're not understanding it correctly. Married people are the benefactors in our current tax paradigm because they can make more income subject to a lower tax rate. i.e. a single person starts paying 35% as soon as they trip $216K. A married couple doesn't pay 35% until they make double that. The benefit to filing jointly is that it allows a couple with basically one bread winner to pay less taxes. If a married couple so chose (as some may because they are equal earners, etc), they could both file as single people and avoid the so-called penalty which you identify. Bottom line, a married couple can choose whichever path suits them best. No such choice is available for someone who's not married. Also, this is really how it has always been, under Rs or Ds.

You can throw on healthy adults to age 60-70 as well. Hopefully the courts keep smacking down these bullshit mandates. It’s over, get it if you want and be happy, but you can fuck right off on your high horse opinion of what somebody else should do.

You’re blindfolded and no touching, you have to pick door 1 or 2…totally worth the risk!

Honestly Brick, what good would that do? The Alliance is simply that, a bunch of countries banding together against a common enemy. Do you really think that enemy has gone away? It not only hasn't, but it's gotten worse. Now, what NATO actually does to counter Russian/Putin aggression in the region has yet to be seen. So far it's been a useless war of words (typical NATO). Will the Alliance go to war over Ukraine? Doubtful, no one has a stomach for it anymore; and we know who we can blame for that! You can't make fun of NATO without blaming the US. It's really our "gang" and we have run it for over seven decades. Its failures are our failures.

But, they were good friends. He called him a “terrific guy” and talked about his love of “young women” while partying with him and taking rides on his plane. And Clinton was a good friend. And Bill Gates. And Stephen Hawking. And Prince Andrew. And… Instead of trying to turn this into a partisan issue, maybe we should keep focusing in on how a lot of wealthy people, whatever their political affiliation, seemed to spend a lot of time with a guy who preyed on and abused underage girls? All while having a couple decades of allegations, investigations, and convictions, yet seemingly minimal repercussions. The fact people like this existed out there for years and got away with all they did due to money/privilege/connections makes me seethe with anger at the injustice. I hope she burns for her (alleged…for now) role in this mess and I hope even more that she spills the beans on the high profile people that were a part of it and enabled it, regardless of their political party. F-these people.

Sometimes I get bored and just monitor 13927 and hear some interesting stuff. But yea always appreciate the help with info/phone patches.

You're immediately gonna know whether you guessed well once the gumjob starts, blindfold or not......but since that's a pretty tough qual to get probably still worth it!!

NATO’s always been as much about keeping the Germans under our thumb as it has been about deterring Soviet/Russian aggression. Don’t underestimate the good things that come from keeping virtually all of Europe under one military alliance. A peaceful Western (and now Eastern) Europe is a valid foreign policy goal for the United States and is well worth the money and effort of the last seven decades. I’d even go so far as to argue that a Europe that depends on us for defense is a GOOD thing for the United States. It allows us to continue to dictate the western world order.

That’s enough Internet for today.

Before I give COAs (and not sure there are any good ones at this point), I have to wax philosophic for a moment. One of our biggest faults as Americans and with our foreign policy is our attention span. Unlike our adversaries we suffer from ADHD and Alzheimer’s, we quickly lose focus and absolutely refuse to play long ball. We have the world's most powerful and capable military but we want quick victories with few casualties so we can get home as and back to Facebook/Twitter. We constantly change our goals, shift our expectations and completely revamp our strategy as often as we change a roll of toilet paper. Our adversaries may adjust their approach for the current environment but ultimately, they play chess while we play checkers. China wants Taiwan and has been steadily marching towards that goal since they lost it shortly after WW II. Scholars have openly noted they were employing a 100-year strategy towards reunification. Our tragic flaw has manifest in every conflict since WW II. How many times did we change our Afghanistan strategy (if we ever had one), finally signally to the Taliban (and every other threat), if you wait, we will tire and go home. I think my theory is easily proven when looking at the situation with Ukraine. When the former Soviet Union collapsed and the wall fell, we went to great lengths to sway Ukraine in hopes they would lean to the west. At the time they had a significant stockpile of nuclear weapons which WE convinced them to destroy in return for a paper promise that we would provide security. While we did not offer full-fledged NATO membership, we certainly led them to believe we would be there when they needed us. Flash forward to 2014 when Russia invaded the Crimea and what did we do? Barack Obama suggested that defending Ukraine against Russia wasn’t a core U.S. national-security concern…sorry you gave up your nukes, you are on your own. Obama and his minions finally provided aid, but it was all humanitarian. In total since 2014 we have provided $1.6B in aide but we have mostly stood by and watched them struggle. That strategy came to full fruition in 2017 when Ukraine was forces to sign the annexation of the Crimea to Russia. The Trump administration did change the game in some regards when they agreed to give Ukraine lethal “defensive aide.” Philosophically I wonder, would Ukraine still have the Crimea if Ukraine still had their nukes? Putin immediately tested Biden when he took office, the buildup of troops and equipment along the border has taken time. The fiasco in Afghanistan sent a very clear commitment about our resolve. If Putin does move against Ukraine, you can bet your paycheck that will signal China to speed the clock against Taiwan. As far as COAs, there are only a few and the only palatable one I can see would be to act now at N minus to bolster Ukraine and deter Putin. It is one thing to give Ukraine more lethal aide, it is another to place U.S. forces in Ukraine. Perhaps a game of chicken but it would drastically complicate Putin’s calculus. Barring that COA we will likely melt like butter and Russia will steamroll Ukraine.

I've mentioned this before. I don't know I but have the conversation with my brother-in-law (wife's brother) frequently about a friend of his who's a multimillionaire who never married and never had children. We decided the guy's a genius. Brother-in-law is on his 3rd wife and I admit we definitely don't have this conversation with either spouse around. 😁

Support? Yes Mandate as a condition for enjoying the rights of citizenship? No

Honest question; what COAs do you think we should consider going forward. I have a conflicted view on this. Russia (really Putin's, since he calls all the shots) actions are towards Ukraine are pretty much unceasingly hostile/coercive, and a full blown invasion would violate pretty much any international standard/law. The realist in me says any US military intervention on Ukraine's behalf in the event of a Russian invasion would be illogical. They're not a member of NATO so therefore not entitled to Article 5 status, they're not a powerful conventional or nuclear ally, and they're not integral to US national security. The liberal in me says they're a struggling democracy under threat from an autocratic enemy of the US, they're making honest efforts to be a part of the international order, and most of their people want freedom/don't want to be a part of Russia thus we shouldn't allow Russia to invade its neighbor. I went to ACSC with a couple of Ukrainian servicemembers, they all came across as solid dudes who were proud of their country and willing to fight for it. One of them completed ACSC and was immediately deployed to the frontlines on his return to Ukraine. I think about those guys and my Estonian buddy a lot when I think about this problem. The blunt reality of this is that Russia plainly sees Ukraine becoming closer to the West/member of NATO a direct threat to their national security. The US and probably most of Europe doesn't see things that way, nor does most the US population care about Ukrainian sovereignty. We are not currently in a conventional military position to deter or defeat a Russian invasion of Ukraine, unless we start a force buildup now. If we would intervene in the event of Russian invasion (talking right of bang) we'd have to face the very likely possibility of high casualties and an adversary that may employ tactical nuclear weapons if they feel they're threatened with a loss. All that said if the order's given I'll go without hesitation, would be nice to have a clear goal to fight for for a change.

You know, the thing...!

This one. The rest of their vaccines are real vaccines, against genuinely threatening issues, with significantly more research and no political taint. We even elected to have my daughter receive the HPV vaccine which is questionable for some, but it was our choice and it met my risk reward threshold. given all that, consider how disingenuous it is to label me an anti-VAXXER if I don’t unquestioningly comply with mandates surrounding this vaccine. For children, the cure has been worse than the disease. I’m speaking here not just of the vaccine but more importantly of the forced isolation, school lockdowns, school masking, no friendships, blunted development, etc. The same experts who championed those practices are now forcing a vaccine while hiding the scientific data for 55 years.

They were never really your friends…

Woah woah woah woah buddy! Looks like you need some additional extremist training! I got my eye on you…

Not supporting “white supremacist capitalism” and only buying from Black businesses sure sounds like a not so thinly veiled boycott of any business that is owned by anyone not of a certain skin pigment. Which I guess maybe I was raised weird, but that seems to meet all the hallmarks of racism to me. I like to play a little game to judge the racism level of BLM tweets and causes. Simply replace ‘white’ in any of their tweets and articles with ‘Jew’ or ‘Black’, then replace ‘black’ with ‘white’, and see how uncomfortable it makes you and how much it seems to fit the despicable things said in Jim Crow Deep South or 1930s Germany. That Drake meme sure gets uncomfortable real quick if you do that. But go ahead and keep giving free pass to an openly racist (and Marxist) organization simply because it aligns with your political team of choice.

Agree, but would add in our most senior military leadership for some several decades. Post- Fogelman, name one four-star that has resigned in protest or over principle. The guys who are supposed to provide their best military advice to our civilian leadership. Now, granted, they may have pointed out the issues behind closed doors, which they are supposed to do, but not one has resigned over being ignored. Indeed, it certainly appears that at least one sitting general took it upon himself to conduct different foreign policy than his duly-elected, Constitutional boss. Those cushy corporate boards and revolving very senior gub'mint posts ain't gonna fill themselves...