Jump to content
Baseops Forums


Supreme User
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mark1 last won the day on November 17

Mark1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

146 Excellent

About Mark1

  • Rank
    Flight Lead

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You've made 8000 posts in this thread. At one point last week you were averaging one post every 18 seconds. Your position is well established. Everybody including yourself knows why you chose to present this specific story in a long line of similarly themed things you've pointed towards over the last few weeks. Feigning offense at the fact that I 'assumed' something because it wasn't explicitly contained within a paticular post won't get you anywhere with me. It's time to face reality. They said it couldn't be done, but George Soros and the New World Order organized the most complex conspiracy in the history of the world, infiltrated Dominion, and unleashed cutting edge CIA technology called Hammer and Scorecoard to surrupticiously steal the election without leaving a trace. An entity capable of pulling that off isn't going to have left enough untied loose ends (like 2600 uncounted ballots in 30+ counties) lying around to make a difference. It's over. They won this battle. Gotta reconstitute for the next one so you can win the war.
  2. You suck at details dude. Almost like it's willfull ignorance...weird. It wasn't 2600 ballots with Trump votes, it was 2600 ballots. The third sentence in your own source says it's presumed to result in approximately +800 differential in favor of Trump. So you'd actually need 17 more counties with similar issues to make a difference, not 4. Except that Floyd County is among the largest counties in Georgia that leans heavily Republican. So in reality, you'd probably need similar issues in ~30 Republican counties to make a difference. This is all assuming that your audit finds 30 discrepancies that result in +Trump differential, and none that result in +Biden differential. 0% chance of that happening. What exactly is your issue? Georgia self-initiated a hand recount/audit to make sure they got things right. They found a discrepancy and they corrected it. What more could you ask for? When was the last time you sorted 5 million items into 2 categories and didn't make a single error? Not to mention that the audit is part of the counting process, so to call it an 'error' isn't correct. It's only an error if it's found after the vote count is certified. Not to mention even if Georgia flipped, which it won't, it changes nothing. Move on with your life.
  3. Shouldn't even have to make the call. They should already be self-mobilizing. If doing everything possible to undermine faith in the democratic process (I'm not talking about lawsuits) isn't quite enough to classify you a "domestic enemy" of the Constitution, then refusing to abdicate would remove all doubt. Not that it would work this way in reality, but there should be 1.5 million members of the military moving on D.C. to honor their oath. I didn't vote for Biden and I'm no longer beholden to any oath, but I'd make the trip if it became necessary. The fact that the electorate put a person in power that would make these kinds of questions less than batshit crazy to entertain is an embarassment for the country. As Robert O'Neill said of Trump's desired military parade in D.C.: that's "3rd world bullshit". So is having to think about this. The international community has been watching 3rd world bullshit from the highest level of government in this country for 4 years. It does no favors to our status as the last standing superpower. China is surging economically but we have always had uncreachable high-ground over them (and others) from all other angles. We're a little less untouchable than we used to be and have nobody to blame but ourselves.
  4. Let's hold off on this declaration until we're sure he's not going to saunter down from the presidential bedroom on January 20th and go to work on his 2nd term in the Oval Office as if nothing has happened.
  5. A good arguement could be made that the sitting president is the greatest acute threat to the Constitution in the entire world right now. Is that preferable?
  6. I don't have concern (if you read my posts, you'll see this). And since we're discussing flyovers and, from your perspective, there's no training involved in flyovers, I don't see how I could be lecturing on how you train. But thanks for the education on your financial circumstances. Must be senile in my 'old' age and have forgotten about that part from when I wasn't John Q. Public. Everybody here is pissed when they see tax dollars being wasted on Obamaphones and pork-barrel subsidies. But when it's them wasting tax dollars for personal benefit and they're called on it, they're just as self-righteous and indignant as the guy who gets told 5 Obamaphones is enough. It's no wonder we're approaching $30 trillion in debt. And for the slow learners: No, I'm not saying flyovers are a waste, and I don't want my $0.0003 back. Just that it's a pretty piss-poor attitude for somebody who does believe they're a waste, to also say, "Fuck it, who cares. They're fun and, let's be honest, it's all about me". Especially somebody who is, ostensibly, 'serving' the country.
  7. I responded to someone who said flyovers were of no training value and insinuated that they only favor doing them because they're a morale boost and "America, Fuck Yeah!". I noted that IF that were true, they shouldn't be happening. I also noted that if this person wasn't learning from a flyover, they were doing it wrong [because there's plenty to learn from a flyover]. Further, I suggested that it appeared a good portion of people doing the flyovers actually needed the training [that you get from a flyover]. Which side of the arguement do you think I'm on? You can unbunch your panties now. The point was that if the person I was responding to was in the jet for no purpose (i.e. not training), then they're "joyriding" and defrauding the U.S. taxpayer.
  8. Um, John Q. Public here. I love a flyby as much as the next guy, but sorry, I'm not paying taxes so that you can go out and have a unique joyride in the jet. I pay taxes to maintain a competent fighting force. Training (or recruitment objectives) damn well better factor into every flight you take. You want to go joyride? Buy your own $200M jet and offer services to the NFL on your own time. And yeah, a flyover might be light on legitimate training objectives, but if you can't learn something from one, you're doing it wrong. Based on some of the atrocious TOTs I've seen on TV over the last few years, most of the guys flying them need the training.
  9. Let me get this straight. You're turned off by people lying to your face and simultaneously you're sure that your vote is going to a person who, if they played a character in a Hollywood movie meant to be a pathological liar, you'd complain that their rendition was too cartoonish and over-the-top? Welp, I guess you've got that all sewn up.
  10. Had no idea that was a thing. Glad I missed out on it. I know that logic is forbidden when you're getting 'chiefed' (especially as a student), but did anybody ever try telling the aggressor that shoe polish is petroleum based? Coating yourself in a highly flammable substance kinda goes against the entire utilitarian purpose of a flight suit. At least it would make emergency ground egresses more entertaining for the tower/SOF.
  11. The fuck? People shined their black boots?
  12. It doesn't. I thought I was clear that it's not an all-encompassing metric. However, at the moment we're lofting 2 incompetant idiots that are also human cesspools to the top of the two-party system with nearly perfect accuracy. Wouldn't it be a good start if we just went with 2 incompetant idiots that were mildly respectable human beings instead? As a side note, you should substitute somebody else for Mother Theresa in future rhetorical questions. She left a lot to be desired when it comes to morality.
  13. Jesus Christ, we're fucking doomed. We really do deserve 2 candidates of the caliber we have in front of us if this is the kind of logic that's being used by the average voter to decide where their vote should go. I mean, in any election this would be a absurd statement. It's plainly obvious why the incumbent would take a rosy view and the challenger a pessimistic one. But in this specific case, this logic deserves a facepalm of epic proportions. The current incumbent was a challenger 4 years ago and his god damned mantra was "Make America Great Again", implying that America was no longer great. Maybe the hat that he wore with the mantra emblazoned on it burned your retinas to the point where you couldn't see it? Every 4 years there's two more manufactured candidates just putting on a theater show during the campaign. The script is written by a team of sociologists and PR people and they all just hope that their horse can rattle of bullshit platitudes for the 9 month campaign without stepping on any run-ending landmines. Landmines in this case being a metaphor for making some social faux pas that has no bearing whatsoever on somebody's ability to run a country. And the worst part is that the voters know they're watching contrived theater, and yet, instead of demanding reality they just get wrapped up in the details of the storyline and cast votes as if the show they're watching was reality. Can we just start voting based on who seems more human before this country goes the way of Rome? I'd ask for decision making at a more sophisticated level than that, but...baby steps. And before anybody tries to decide who's more human between Trump and Biden, I'm talking about through the whole process. Neither of these idiots would have ever been on a primary stage if it required a Turing test to qualify.
  14. No. You're talking about infection and death numbers. I'm talking about transmission rate. It's the only metric that matters because it's the only one that we can control. A small error in predicted transmission rate results in huge differences in infection/death numbers due to the logarithmic dynamics. The error in predicted transmission rate, yes in your state too, is relatively small. It's why you get the NIAID director saying we could see 200k dead and a week later the estimate is revised to 1/3rd of that. It's not because they're alarmist or NWO puppets trying to enslave you. It's because it's that sensitive. Knowing that, the takeaway should be how lucky we are that the transmission rate didn't turn out a few percent higher than predicted. It should be a realization of how close to disaster we came (not suggesting it's over), despite there being no tangible evidence to indicate it. Not that the governor is making haphazard decisions based on bogus data.
  15. The data isn't off by a factor of two. In the only parameter that we can control, it's been off by roughly 5%. Pretty damn good when estimating how 325 million people and a novel virus are going to behave. Given the logarithmic dynamics, that manifests itself in large death deltas, but the meaningful parameter is actually quite accurate. A page back you've got a dude presenting numbers of other cause mortality to suggest that this thing hasn't been a big deal. Never mind that he's comparing annual flu deaths to 1 month worth of this. Yes at this instant, after the 'draconian' measures, after the economy was shut down, after the schools were closed, it's been manageable. Without those things the same models that have proven themselves to be accurate to within 5% of reality would predict that we'd be about 14 days away from a week in which 10% of the U.S. population would be infected. New infections, not total. 30 million infections over the course of a week at a time when the healthcare system would have already been crippled. You'd have people dying of appendicitis in the parking lots of hospitals. Do you think Lowe's garden center and your local Applebee's would be turning record profits in that environment? Or would they have voluntarily closed up shop given that half of their workforce was out sick and 0% of their customer base was willing to venture outside? If you could trust people to handle things intelligently on an individual basis then you wouldn't need to shut down toy stores or close off non-essential sections of essential businesses. But given that you get a reasonable portion of the population complaining to the people who saved their lives that they don't see people dying in the street an therefore it was never a big deal, it's hard to have faith that they'd handle it intelligently. As a result, you get the default position to just shut it down, because a large portion of the population can't operate on nuance.
  • Create New...