bfargin

what about sea bass?

Given the choice of saving innocent human life vs losing elections, I'll stand for life every single day. Without life nothing else matters (no rights to protect). I understand losing elections means the democrats get to decide who they allow to be killed, but the principle remains. We just need to do a better job of framing the question/topic and recognize that not every jurisdiction is happy with the exact same restraints (sadly even on the killing of babies). The 2nd amendment in our republic is/was/always has been law, abortion was a made up right to kill innocents. They are not even in the same ballpark. Comparing those two is like comparing the right to own material possessions with the right to kill someone you don't like.

I've seen a few versions of this one. Pretty funny in any format.

Do any of the jets in service still have the aft stairs a la the 727? Ole Joe might have taken a stroll out the back door.

In order to be consistent you’d need to eliminate voting by people on any welfare/gov assistance programs as well.

Dibbs

Apparently he can. It's like shotgun, the first one wins.

I’m shocked they would try something so underhanded.

not even close to either ... just amazed that this dude got away with this swindle.

Crap, maybe I should remove the line in my resume about winning the Mackay trophy and my DFC medal from my ribbon rack display.

When you have to stoop to Russian bot or propaganda accusations to “beat” a questioners post, you might be a zealot. I hope I’m wrong and the country with 36mil remaining citizens (~6 mil refugees) can beat the country with 143 million citizens. I simply wondered aloud if we’re pursuing the best strategic policy, and you guys have assured me we are. I’ll quit watching world news and stick to CNN and Fox.

Some of you def seem pretty obsessed with going to war with Russia. Every single questioning post on the wisdom of our current, obviously less than optimal, strategy and people claim someone’s a Putin stooge or Russian bot. I don’t see any benefit of continuing the current strategy. We’re destabilizing current alliances, risking an escalated war, fostering the complete destruction of a sovereign nation, exacerbating our own financial crisis, and strengthening the alliance between our worlds current primary threat and Russia. Maybe the world new sources are all bought and paid for and Russia really is about to collapse. I’d love to see our strategy actually work for our benefit, but the most obvious endgame doesn’t appear to benefit anyone. I hope they (all the news outside of the US) are wrong and Ukraine wins.

thanks for adding to the dumbassery.

Well as I also mentioned I've been reading more recently and since I have a research background I can buzz through articles fairly quickly to see patterns and at least decently sort out some chaff. But I admit I'm not an expert or that knowledgable about all of the history behind the USSR and her satellite controlled countries/regions. I'm just seeing more and more data that supports the idea that the end is not looking good for Ukraine in spite of what the West keeps saying. A sampling of world news is writing that it's a lot more dire for everyone than we like to think. Maybe its worth it to us to destroy Ukraine while making Russia spend money like we did in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But we're broke and printing money like toilet paper too.

Not sure where it ends exactly, but if we keep going with the current plan I don't have much hope for Ukraine remaining as a nation and if they do, whats left will have 1/2 the population dead or permanently disabled. All I'm saying is we need to reassess and work as hard as we can to negotiate the best peace agreement we can to save Ukraine. This war is def shaking up Russia but they have banded together and won't trust us for decades now. They have upped their in-house production capability and are even selling more oil to Europe than before we "closed" them off and they have more liquid cash than they had prior to the war. From what I've been reading (from European and American news sources) patriotism is up in Russia and they trust the West less than they have since 1989 when things began to crumble for the former USSR. They've banded together with China in a stronger relationship and the world seems less stable than it's been in a while. I'm not a policy expert or a bureaucrat and am not a fan of Putin but I hate to see a country used up and spit out when there are probably ways to establish peace (with some concessions that might not be perfect). If Zalensky dies in battle soon, my skepticism of him might be proven wrong. I don't trust his motives, and he's a biden type "leader" who is all about himself and enriching his own. Towards the end, when Ukraine is completely toast, I see him heading for Florida or Switzerland and moving into a nice comfortable mansion to spend some of the billions we've sent over as he lives out his comfortable existence (similar to other scumbags of the late 1900s...Suharto, Marco, Seko, Aleman, to name a few).

you guys are only ones saying surrender.

Apples to oranges and even I know that. The Ukraine - Russia relationship is not like any relationship we've had as a nation beside possibly with England (though even thats not really the same). There were about 3 to 5 million Russians living in Ukraine before the war started. They speak the same language and were part of the same Nation (USSR) for many years. Not the same situation at all. But, to play your game/question ... If we were about to be completely obliterated and the invader offered us a chance to keep most of the US intact but give back part of the region that already had many of "their people" living there, I'd negotiate peace.

Thanks. I've not studied that region of the world much but I know it's more complicated (Russia vs. europe) than many suggest and it's not a simple Russia bad and Ukraine good situation. Hopefully he didn't actually support or celebrate the Russian invasion of a sovereign nation (I can't find where he's doing that). Russia needs to offer peace to Ukraine immediately, and we need to help facilitate that peace. Some kind of compromise at this point is better than the wholesale destruction of Ukraine.

Ukraine has about 500k dead and injured now, so it’s def not going well for them. If you listened, he does at least acknowledge the complexity and huge risk of not working on a peace deal sooner than later. Again I’m not sure how in the know he is, but he’s pointing out the obvious fact that Ukraine is not winning. He thinks we’re essentially destroying a nation by encouraging them not to seek peace. On the last point, he seems correct for sure.

I have no idea on retired Col Mcgregors pedigree, but he makes some interesting points. He thinks Russia’s military is stronger now, after more than a year of war in Ukraine than it’s been in over 30 years. Increased war production capability and renewed national resolve. Has our plan to weaken and undermine Russia backfired spectacularly? https://x.com/tuckercarlson/status/1693761723230990509?s=46

If it’s Vivek or Desantis, this will be my second time voting for what seems to be a good presidential candidate. Reagan was my first chance voting, and I was proud to vote. Since then, I’ve either pinched my nose and voted, or knowingly threw my vote away voting for someone not on the ballot. I still know my support of Fred Thompson was correct and grounded in 2008!

Not really, but over anything the left offers, I’d take Trump. I’d love an actual conservative.

If line flyers aren’t pressing to test at every opportunity they are getting what they deserve. If your leadership is like some of the “repect my authorati” types on here, I’d wear a dif colored one every day just to piss them off. As an experienced Capt excellent at the mission, we had a pretty good layer of Teflon during my time in SAC, and I’d expect competent aviators still have some today.

That sgt needs a good old fashioned Marine code red (if that is even a real thing) to help recalibrate his/her priorities.