Leaderboard

In my defense...that statement is also true in many scenarios...

No the summation of the arguments he’s making is what is getting him called a stooge. This isn’t “I just want an honest open conversation about…” We can read the real intent his actions through the culmination of stated opinions and what conversations he attempts to advance and which ones deliberately avoided/ignored/bypassed. And while yes examples of historical conspiracy theorists turn out right the vast majority do not. You can’t point to media/social media bias in say hiding the Biden laptop stuff during the election, then turn around and use that as the justification for your belief that Bush did 9/11 or the moon landing didn’t happen and demand to be taken seriously with that. Go read the other thread, dude is seriously peddling crap from Twitter handles, or wild ramblings by Seymour Herch passing it off as part of this mountain of direct evidence that we are being lied to and the US simply has to be responsible. He’s not presenting this as a possible, he’s presenting it as a fact and telling the room we’re all too stupid to put the clues together. By the way if you want a laugh go to his Twitter loon’s page the latest stuff is tinfoil crazy like the US used an Earthquake gun on Turkey. Dude is in this thread repeatedly sharing nothing but examples and stories about dubious Ukrainian actions and downplaying real examples of Russian actions. I’ll remind you he’s the one that started the whole line topic on downplaying Russian involvement in MH17, then kept trying to minimize the realities of that exact situation when challenged on it. So what is his desired end state. Well it’s kinda the joke with the whole “I’m not racist, but” example. Make pleading statements when pressed on it about how you wants Russia to lose, but really he’s only interested in that we modify our support to an isolationist standpoint of delayed or no real tangible support to Ukraine. He and others keep implying this isn’t in our interests and we have no dog in it. We (the US and Allies) have to suddenly be hyper sensitive to some impossible purity standard in the actions/corruption/etc of a foreign state even when it’s interests directly along with our own interests. Establishing that standard we halt our current or future spending and stop delivering any kind of meaningful money or actions to support the Ukrainians. That’s exactly the outcome that aligns with Russian desires, hence why they spend the effort in influence campaigns like the ones mentioned in that Brookings Institute article. And I’ve seen plenty of with that kind of desired end-state at the heart of their efforts on Ukraine whatever their deeper motivation to it. A bunch seem to be the “can’t let the other team have a win” types (Tucker Carlsons types) who just adopt the opposite tact and support or don’t support war when it suits them. Some are the isolationist types that just don’t want us to play the foreign policy/influence game at all or the hard Dove types who just don’t support anybody in this situation but offer no solution other than wouldn’t it be great if we all loved each other… We saw this exact same type of thing with regards to preventing us from taking actions against Isis. “We can’t support the Kurds/Yazidi/Iraqi government because…..” “Isis isn’t hurting us” stuff like that. In that previous example all those arguments did was lengthened the time to actually do something about it and the size and damage of the conflict that was churning with or without us when it was clearly the right thing to anybody that was there fighting it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Naked gunner hugs are an invention and tradition in the Pavelow community.

This whole post reads like an RT special repor…..I mean Tucker Carlson rant.

Fascism according to Mr Webster: "A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." Yeah, allowing constitutional carry is clearly aimed at putting nation and race above the individual (who can now carry his own weapon more easily) and DEFINITELY empowers a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader...who almost universally in history have depended on the removal private gun ownership. ...just on the off chance there's anyone here who cares about words and the means they have...

This is exactly what homeless people need, more weed and booze... Canadian city councilor asks for 'weed and alcohol' donations for homeless camp, calls the donations 'incredible' - TheBlaze It sounds like an episode of Trailer Park Boys...

Just when he got his PTSD under control, you opened it right back up!

We chose Seattle as a neutral city to fight. Street rules applied. Metal chairs, safety cones and two of your closest homeless friends. At the end, we pissed on a car fire and managed to panhandle enough money to buy a few $00.69 tacos at Jack and the Box. Good times! 👍

I was volunteered non-voluntarily to be a T-38 FAIP at Columbus in the magnolia state back the late 80s. I don't remember the students, I don't remember the class, I don't remember the year but I do remember the week or at least 3 days of it. On Wednesday, I had an engine fire. I am with a student and we are the good wingman doing a rejoin when lead says, "2, you are trailing smoke." How I missed the big glowing fire light, I do not know but we execute the boldface and the fire light takes its time to go out. Single engine home and all is right with the world. Thursday appeared with crappy weather and I launch on a contact ride with a student. In the weather, the right generator fails and the left does not pick up the right side. So it's a no-flap ASR to weather mins to get home. I don't get paid enough for this job. TGIF! Friday finds me on another formation ride headed out to the high sectors and at FL330, there's a thump noise, the cockpit fills with fog, and I'm pressure breathing with a cockpit pressurization failure. Sumanabache. Copious quantities of alcohol was consumed at the bar Friday night as my students were trying to tell me as nicely as they could that they didn't want to fly with me anymore.

Congrats to BigRed on his initial Solo in the U-2 on Wednesday. 🥃 He will be known as "Solo 1095". Not bad for an old Navy guy.

Who said it came from the PRC mainland…

Try this phrasing on for size: Forcible insertion of anything into a 14 year old against the will of the parents or the child. Yeah. I get that vibe too. Apparently "No" doesn't mean "No" if COVID is involved.

I heard it was called snoodling...

Bosnia, 18,000 feet in December in the whstling shithouse there were no naked people.

Good work by the Ukrainian ADA this morning

2014, Bundy ranch in Nevada. Armed citizens won a standoff with the feds - the feds finally just quit and walked away (I think because they ultimately knew another Waco would be really bad for them).

Here is the verbiage from the recently signed FY23 NDAA: (c) SPECIAL AVIATION INCENTIVE PAY AND BONUS AUTHORITIES FOR OFFICERS.—Section 334(c)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended— (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘$1,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,500’’; and (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘$35,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$75,000’’. (d) SKILL INCENTIVE PAY OR PROFICIENCY BONUS.—Section 353(c)(1)(A) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘$1,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,750’’.

In fun: “a good man with a guy…” Seriously though: The only reason the second amendment matters is to guarantee the rest of our constitutional form of government. A constitution of only 2A is anarchy, where the ability to consolidate power and use violence reigns supreme. IR theory holds that the definition of a state includes a monopoly on the use of violence internally. In the context of the rest of the constitution, the 2A reminds us that that state and the monopoly on violence (internal to the state) is fundamentally the citizenry’s, delegable to organs of the state. So! @ViperMan that FU only matters because of the rest of the constitution.

Um, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist. Ukraine was not under any obligation to give any weapons left on its territory back because the empire they belonged to in the first place had imploded. Thankfully, some people with the foresight to understand that it was not in the rest of the world’s interests for Ukraine to suddenly become the third or fourth largest nuclear power on the planet were able to convince Ukraine to transfer its newly acquired arsenal to Moscow where it was thought they would be easier to monitor and account for. (Arms control treaties remained in effect with Moscow but would’ve been unenforceable with Kiev.) Make no mistake, Moscow’s claims on those weapons was shaky at best and non-existent at worst. Western nations absolutely had to convince Ukraine to give them up peacefully and Ukraine’s price was a security guarantee. If you believe these were always Moscow’s nukes, do you also believe that the fighters, tanks, artillery, trucks, and myriad other military equipment that made up the armies and air forces of (formerly East) Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, and other former Pact nations should’ve been sent back to Moscow? I suspect you’re smarter than that & know full well that this is not what happens when empires fall.

No American troops are engaged. Soooooooo, what's your point? You're worried about things that aren't happening? Sometimes, country's foreign policy goals happen to align, that doesn't mean they are dictating our foreign policy. By the way, back in the 90s, we guaranteed Ukraine's security in exchange for them giving up their nuclear arsenal - which was the 3rd largest in the world (bigger than China's). Here's a liberal source for you to brush up on: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion So yeah, in some (real) sense, we owe them. Just like some other country would owe us...you know, if we agreed to give up all of our nuclear weapons in exchange for security...but you know, who cares about promises at the end of the day. Amirite?

The naivete of some here is completely incredible. Who the F cares if we blew it up?!? Russia is the aggressor! Do you seriously think that we're just going to let Russia run roughshod over Pax Americana because a couple aging douchbags got their feelings hurt they're not empire they convinced themselves they deserve to be while chugging vodka? Grow up. Some shit doesn't smell right upon first whiff, but makes sense when you accept that bad shit happens in war. We're not above that, nor should we be. We're not about to let Russia undo the last 70 years of history and us being in the right. If we did do it, we out-maneuvered them. You should be happy and proud you have people in our government capable of such foresight with the balls to execute on a bold plan. If Russia did it, then you should be glad they're such unbelievable idiots. If Ukraine did it, that's the price Russia pays for invading it's neighbor without just cause. Stop listening to pundits who have zero skin in the game who cast moral aspersions in realms they wouldn't dare set foot in. I say again: you don't know what happened and you never will. It doesn't matter which source you read on the internet. Pick your side.

Pay attention. There will be more stories like this if we don't fix our shit. https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/china-says-it-will-set-up-yuan-clearing-arrangements-brazil-2023-02-07/ https://thecradle.co/article-view/21245/the-big-stiff-russia-iran-dump-the-dollar-and-bust-us-sanctions

2nd amendment is the only one that actually matters. It's the only one with a meaningful "fuck you."

Best part was the safety cone sword vs. the chair hammer. Our weapons have become less deadly - but more embarrassing - to be smashed by. We're basically the same people we've been for thousands of years.

Two lucky dudes!

I gotta say I think I'm with gearhog on this one. And I leaned towards blaming Russia when it happened. But... More than a few western intelligence agencies have investigated this, and not a single one has come out with an accusation. That's suspicious. The Biden administration unsanctioned the pipeline as soon as they took office, only to watch Russia march into Ukraine. That's embarrassing, especially when they then tried to "get tough" on Russia only to watch Europe keep buying energy from them. That's suspicious. The pipelines were blown up when everyone was worried about Europe going into a cold winter and having to resort to begging Russia for energy. So Russia... Blows up their leverage when they could just turn it off (and back on) at will? That's suspicious. Now if the "America didn't do it" crowd was blaming China, where there is a much clearer motive to force Russia to sell cheaply to them while also putting Europe in an energy bind, well that's a lot more plausible to me than Russia doing it. But at this point, you should always ask "why?" There are plenty of pretty obvious "why's" for blaming the US, as well as European allies that are worried Germany will once again sell out the West to get cheap Russian energy. And like I said, China could make sense too. But I'm not hearing a whole lot of "why's" for Russia, just that they're evil and crazy, which I believe, but so evil and crazy they are now slitting their own throats to... empower the American energy export industry? What is the Russian motivation for this that doesn't play right into the American goals of weakening Russia?

Exactly. It's just censorship. Some here believe they're smart enough to know misinformation when they see it, but large swaths of the public are not. Lawman thinks he is protecting people from scary ideas by silencing the idea rather than educating the reader. The only correct responses to bad ideas are good ideas. If you are able to adequately articulate and support your superior position, my position wouldn't even garner an acknowledgement. However, when another position has merit, it is a threat. If your motive is to "Win" rather than find the truth, you have to attempt to censor the opposing argument. "Shut up", "Stop spreading misinformation", "You should be silenced.", "You're peddling a pro-Russian narrative.", "I'm going to find your IP address and dox you." Those are examples of attempted censorship, I'm not quoting anyone. Lawman is slowly embodying the very things he hates about Russia. You may only speak the government approved narrative, lest ye be guilty of crimes against the state. I asked earlier in this thread, "How can so many have been fooled into supporting tyrannical leadership?" It's rhetorical because it's obvious how. @Lawman when you were googling the logical fallacies I clued you into, did you run across "Ad hominen"? It's commonly used to mean attacking the person, not the issue. But it can also mean attacking the source, not the information. If you really want to be competitive in the battleground of ideas, you're going to have to do a little better by coming well equipped to explain why you're correct rather than taking the easy route and just calling any of us who disagree pro-Russian.

Who cares whose “narrative is being spread?” What does that even mean? I care about the public having access to true information in order to make informed decisions about how we are governed. Ergo, I’m primarily interested in accuracy. I understand Putin is bad and Russia is a malign international actor who illegally invaded a neighbor and I am happy to see their troops violently losing. But I also want to be free to ask questions and engage in discussion about what is best for my country and our interests. It would be nice to have those discussions without being labeled a “kremlin stooge” by fellow service members. Even if we did blow the pipeline (which I doubt but am openminded) I’m game to support if we had good reasons. But I hate being lied to by my political leadership and disparaged by fellow vets. And Bashi’s point bears repeating— many many “conspiracies” of the past 2 years turned out to be true. Just visit the COVID thread… what those cultists put us through us is unconscionable.

Looks like they did it, found the video…

"The US sent up U-2 spy planes to track the balloon’s progress, according to US officials. One pilot took a selfie in the cockpit that shows both the pilot and the surveillance balloon itself, these officials said – an image that has already gained legendary status in both NORAD and the Pentagon." So gonna need that picture

You're losing the argument so instead of pointing to evidence where I've ever said such things when I challenged you, your basis is now "You're thinking it, but not saying it." Falling back to that reasoning is childish. But I guess in your mind, it works. You can literally accuse me of anything and then say "Liar. You're really a communist." Thank you, Senator John McCarthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism Again, you don't have anything at all to legitimately criticize so you resort, as usual, to making things up. I have said time and again that I want Russia to fail. Search my post history. You'll find it. But what I don't want it to lose the principles that made America great in the process. You seem to be willing to accept "skeletons", to excuse criminal behavior, to rationalize and justify any act that harms Russia. That's a Pyrrhic victory. You may be satisfied with one, but I'm not. Everything you don't like is Russian I/O, but I'm the conspiracy theorist. Roger.

When you had to trade funny QuickTime videos with a 3.5 or if you were rich a CD-R… and they went in the hard drive of the presentation computer to watch between power point classes. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was a complete lie, most of his voters will stupidly believe it though. I really liked how McCarthy tried to be the adult in the room. Makes Pelosi look like a petulant child from two years ago . The SOTU is nothing more than political theater. Accomplishes absolutely nothing.

I’m western and I want to finger this one!

That is an extremely niche reference and I know the exact incident you’re referring to. Actually happened twice to different guys. One is a complete goofball and the other is a literal rocket scientist that is also a goofball.

When the SOTU turns into a clown show, circus, whatever…then we shouldn’t be surprised when those in attendance act less than professional. This has been a long time coming and the SOTU has become a joke, and has been for quite a while. All it is now is an opportunity for the President and his party to tell you how great they’ve been doing, how bad the other side is, and their pie in the sky dream list to appease their base. The joke is on all of you who tuned in or are focusing on the show.

@filthy_liar Just so I've got this straight, you were an ALO in Oct 2001 who went into Afgh with the first wave. You claim to be a prior A-10 pilot, which means you're a early to mid-1990's commission - UPT - first assignment - then on to be an ALO. Following that, you had to immediately transitioned into B-1s as you were at Diego launching sorties into theater in 2005. With those combat feathers in your hat, you'd be a sure thing for O-6 in the early 2010s, and then possibly retire in the mid 2010's...which O-6's rarely do. So, as an ALO, a position attached at the hip to the DIV CG, command staff, and most definitely the DFSCOORD, who was your CG during the first push into afgh? I know that's decidedly not classified. The ALO never goes first unless the Div staff goes first, and they didn't. Most definitely not on 19/20 Oct 2001...even with that 30 minute time difference. Where were you during all that? What unit were you attached to? When you went into country, what herk unit hauled you in? I probably know them. You also claim to have been through Ranger School, when we didn't start sending ALOs through that school until...never...and didn't send hardly any AF (there were a very select few) through until post 9/11, most of whom were TACP and an enlisted troops. After that, how'd you transition over to the B-1 at a time when competent and experienced A-10 pilots were at a premium? Sounds like a rather unique path. You don't sound like the kind of guy that would be hungry to hear other peoples war stories with so many of your own to tell. The fact is: Your cavalier perspective and voice don't match any of the individuals I've personally known to tread the paths you claim to have tread. They were all solid, respectful, continuing-to-self-educate professionals. You come off as none of those. Those of us who've actually seen the elephant up close rarely come back story-thirsty. Prone to drinking...definitely. But never thirsty to relive most of those harrowing experiences in so slovenly and exaggerated fashion as you put on. Beyond that, you admitted to being banned here at baseops several times. Care to share the previous handles? If we're to have a solid thread of war stories, I think we'd all prefer to keep the BS out. You seem to fit that bill.

I'll give you a B- for effort, but the content is rambling, disjointed, and non-coherent. I'm glad you're trying to explain your position as I suggested, but it kinda sucks. No one is going to read what you wrote and come away with a clear understanding what your primary argument is. If you have a question about my position or want me to clarify something you didn't like, I am more than happy to give you an honest answer, but I honestly can't quite make out what you're whining about. Are you just mad about my very plain and easy to understand argument that I don't want us sending hundreds of billions we don't have, to escalate a conflict that costs us more than it helps us, just to expand access to wealth and resources by fighting an over-hyped boogeyman? Fine. Go ahead, be mad about. It doesn't change anything. Try posting some links, news articles, or opinions from someone who actually knows how to write. Maybe we can have rational debate over them. Otherwise, you'll just continue to repeat yourself and your poor opinion of me. No one cares about that. Me least of all.