Leaderboard

I am guessing you've never been in a gunfight or you are a world class combat tested shooter. It is one thing to drive nails at the range, quite another once the adrenaline starts to flow...trust me. Countless studies have proven the impact of stress on accuracy in real gunfights. The data on police shootings is very consistent, annual hit-rate averages in large departments such as New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Las Vegas, for example, have typically ranged from 22% to 52% over the decades. A more recent study in Dallas examined 149 real-life OISs recorded over a 15-year period by Dallas (TX) PD. In nearly half of these encounters, officers firing at a single suspect delivered “complete inaccuracy.” That is, they missed the target entirely. At 120 BPM – You begin lose fine motor skills. You are unable to dial a phone or aim a weapon. At this level, gross motor skills are generally unaffected. At 150 BPM – You begin to lose your complex motor skills. Hand-eye coordination and timing deteriorate. Practiced techniques that do not require fine motor skills are still generally available. A 180 BPM and above – At this level you begin to lose rational thought processes. Though trained gross motor skills are not drastically affected. In the 134 cases where researchers were able to calculate the hit rate, “incredibly” it was merely 35%. Another study examined fire rate, as stress increased so did the first rate, by a factor of two. Combining these too factors together, it is usually better to have more rounds. We can also discuss actual stopping power of the .45 versus the 9MM. While the .45 is a larger projectile it is moving at a slower velocity and has less penetration than the 9MM. Hollow-point 9MM rounds typically penetrate deeper and interestingly expand to almost the same size as the .45. I am not hating on the .45, I own several but from personal experience I would rather have more rounds. It really is. The size, portability and maneuverability beat anything else I've tried when using as a vehicle weapon. I was lucky to do a lot of training with the "lads" and did the driving and shooting course...I felt like a complete stooge the first couple runs. The charger allows me to easily control the weapon pulling it from behind the drivers seat, across the front of my body without the muzzle banging into the steering wheel or getting hung up int he headliner. A few of my collection (anyone want a Glock 30, WAY to small for my hand), for size comparison, as you can see folded up it is very small and the stock folds out in one fluid motion, making transition very easy.

The inability of the USAF to fix issues of "specialization" in career fields without feeling the need to create yet another rank structure is simply failed leadership.

I already said I’m against the income tax, you don’t have to sell me on it.

What is the alternative? Do we leave the Pacific except for remaining in Guam? What position does that put our allies in the Pacific in vis a vis an ever growing China? If we leave the Pacific we will resign our status as a Global Super Power that has sustained the current International Order and acknowledge a bipolar or multipolar world. Is it in our nations best interest to do so? In Ukraine, do we give up and allow Russia to take it? If we did nothing at the start isn’t that akin to Neville Chamberlain and Hitler? I’d argue each nation with interests has its own agency in the matter and is acting in accordance with what it believes to be its own best interests. John Mearsheimer 101. It’s a zero sum game — it’s all about power and security. Both domestically and internationally. You could make an argument that we are already at a low level of or run up to Word War currently with Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Hamas, Iran and Israel and the Houthis. The only powder keg that hasn’t kicked off yet is in the Pacific. But, it could easily. Imagine a scenario like the P-3 colliding with a PLA aircraft in today’s geopolitical landscape. I think the best case scenario is a rapid realization that we have deliberately set up our military to be sized for a war in one theater and deterring in another. We did that because we were still the leading superpower. We are facing a challenge that calls into question our ability to win with our current force structure given the problems around the world. Whether our politicians are marching us steadily towards wider conflict isn’t as important as whether or not our politicians are equipping us to win that conflict and if we will have the political will to see that conflict through. If we are successful we delay or defeat the pattern of Great Powers not remaining Great Powers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The real question… does the T-54 have a “god box”?

How about a win-win and just abolish both? Obviously that would also entail firing everyone that currently works for both organizations with a life-long ban of those individuals ever working for the federal government again. The country would be a better place. Send the Capts to a spring break destination of their choice for the entire month of March and watch retention skyrocket and have zero loss of learning.

My Bud went to the T-1 retirement event they had at RND a few weeks ago. He said that they (ATC Brass) told the crowd the T-7 was still a few years away, like 2030ish! And that in the future the AF was looking at UPT being T-6 to T-7 for all pilots, like the old T-37 to T-38 syllabus of yore. That was from the mouths of the AETC Commanders. I’m sure some of you guys attended as well.

No, they haven’t but that doesn’t stop them from trying when the alternative powers are not friendly. I think things would have been much different had the UK and USA had not been on good terms post WWII. During the Civil War, England recognized the Confederacy’s “Belligerent Status,” stopping short of recognizing the sovereignty of the Confederacy. The Confederacy had envoys on British Naval vessels, Ala the Trent Affair. At risk were lucrative trade deals etc, but you could also argue that fomenting conflict between the two sides by respecting a belligerent status and remaining neutral was sacrosanct endorsement that either the South could win or a stalemate could emerge. Otherwise they would have supported the North. Neutrality equates to not caring about a return to the Status Quo - Ante. Applying a realist view to this, smart on the part of England because a divided America would have reduced the overall power balance by shifting it two nations instead of one. Thus increasing or safeguarding its status as the leading world power at the time ala Pax Brittanaca. Also we are not an empire. IMHO. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"The finding is broadly accepted within the intelligence community and shared by several agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department’s intelligence unit" If you can't trust these agencies to prop up your narrative, who can you trust? 🤣

'Putin did not order Navalny death,' US intelligence agencies report https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/alexei-navalny-death-us-intelligence-71bc95b0 "Reports of his death, if they’re true — and I have no reason to believe they’re not — Russian authorities are going to tell their own story. But make no mistake — make no mistake, Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death. Putin is responsible." - Biden https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/02/16/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-reported-death-of-aleksey-navalny/ WSJ saying putin didn't "directly" order his death...a little grey area, but biden on record saying Putin is responsible.

Eagle drivers, nuff said.

Okay. Way ahead of you here. Economic: They achieved multiple milestones from the 80s to present day ahead of schedule. They have delivered on promises to virtually eliminate poverty and increase the quality of life of their society. You said that we don't have to do anything to beat China economically except wait. I think a lot of other countries think that about the US. We are not closing our debt gap and we are not becoming more competitive (except in niche areas in tech). Also, our middle class is shrinking while theirs is growing. As one example of international competitiveness, Tesla is getting F'd because they can realistically only compete with the 15 other Chinese EV makers in a tariff environment like the US, where we make it cost 25% more for them to deliver. In Asia, the EU, and everywhere else, American industry is becoming less competitive. As another example, we lost the Chip War for microelectronic chips in the 70s through the 2000s. We literally only have Micron, which produces RAM, because we were not competitive with other countries. Military: They have achieved multiple milestones from the 90s to today. They are set to deliver on future milestones that challenge US dominance. They also don't have to maintain an empire, they get to operate in an A2AD environment or within the bounds of close asia environments to achieve their goals. I'm good not talking about specifics here, but I am sure you'd rather us not go to war in an away game with China and understand how it wouldn't be a good thing for us. Also, good luck closing the Strait of Malacca and just chillin. First, doing that militarily is not trivial especially with anti ship systems the Chinese have. And we live in a glass house too, you know? Don't think our society or economy would like it very much either. Diplomatic: They are actively shifting the tide of public perception in ASEAN, Europe, and Africa. Just this year, perceptions have shifted, unfortunately not in our favor, with, for the first time ever, most ASEAN countries saying that they would choose to align with China over the US if forced to choose. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/03/us-loses-its-spot-to-china-as-southeast-asias-most-favored-ally-survey-finds.html Information: They control the information narrative in China. We control very little here. This is unarguably an advantage for a great power competition. https://freedomhouse.org/report/beijing-global-media-influence/2022/authoritarian-expansion-power-democratic-resilience Pay: https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/global_labor_rates_china_is_no_longer_a_low_cost_country You'll like that because the title supports your point that China isn't a low cost country. But then the data inside shows that managers in the US are paid 6 times as much as managers in China, and it shows that they do production for $12,000 a year. They say US machine workers will work for $33,000 but give me a fucking break. Not a chance. You know literally no skilled blue collar worker that would accept less than $60k a year. There is no realistic factory lifestyle young people can go do. Here's another one for you to look at, again, biased to the US because it was created by us: https://reshoringinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/GlobalLaborRateComparisons.pdf I'd love to see a non-biased, non US produced (without a political agenda), source that shows that wages are near parity. You aren't gonna be able to find it. I'm not going to argue that there are cheaper places like Mexico we can exploit. Great, let's go do it. But they can do that too (what is stopping China from finding a country like Mexico for these types of tasks?), and their population doesn't need their decadent wages to stay happy. We are still at a wholesale disadvantage. And if you want to talk about military, nationalizing defense companies turns out is getting to be pretty fucking effective. Try to argue with me that Lockheed and Boeing are better than their companies. I will have to disagree from a cost effectiveness perspective and a time perspective. There are many estimates that their $200-300B they spend a year goes significantly farther than the $800B we spend a year. And they have been able to develop truly disruptive capabilities like hypersonic missiles and other assassin's mace weapons because they don't have to get 50 senators to agree to cancel an outdated weapons systems concept like the Carrier. https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/china-isnt-just-spending-more-its-spending-smarter https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/hypersonic-missiles-america-military-behind-936a3128 Remind me what hasn't followed plan again? Demographics: This is our one point of potential advantage. But this isn't going to happen for decades, and if they can keep their population mentally prepared to work by identifying the problem early and banding together (their society is infinitely more collectivist than our individualist society), they actually have a chance to emerge victorious. And for us to maintain our advantage here, we have to accept significant immigration to bolster our deadening birth rates. While Hispanic and minority birth rates and population growth make up a huge portion of our young demographics, we are currently becoming more isolationist and closed-borders. Yeah, and they have an inherent anchoring bias. Ray Dalio paints a picture that the US is on the decline - not that China will long-term supplant the US. He says it's likely that China will supplant us in the short term, but he doesn't really talk about the longevity of their empire other than to promise us that, one day, they too will fail. That is the argument. I am fine with believing that China can only momentarily usurp us, if at all, especially due to demographic issues. But then someone else will take over. It won't be us. Again, I ask, has an empire beat the long term cycle? Why will we be able to sustain power forever?

You're thinking short term. In the long term suppressed interest rates have inflated the assets that are usually financed, such as houses and cars. And now the workers can't afford those things. Inflation affects everyone, but when the wealth y have quadrupled their wealth, even a 50% haircut due to inflation means they're twice as well off. The rest of us however have not experienced a similar increase in wealth, and are there for much more affected by inflation. Fuck with the economy at your (our) peril. Food is not financed, so that's not a factor. And for those who are financing food, they are way past the interest rate mattering. You are delusional if you think property tax primarily affects people who are "entirely way too well off." Honestly it's kind of hard to conceptualize anything after that statement. It indicates that you live in an alternate universe. Also, ethical arguments don't have to take into account second and third order effects? What? So ethics only matter on the date of legislation? Honestly if this is how you think about anything it starts to make a little bit more sense that you support these emotional "fairness" policies. Sure, this is a Biden problem. It was a trump problem. It was also an Obama problem. And it was definitely a bush problem since QE was invented under his watch. But really this was a Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and Bush H.W. problem too since we unpegged from gold in 71. Yeah dude, once again, second and third order effects. I care more about my children and grandchildren having a brighter future than I do the continuance of cheap TVs and meme stocks. The sooner we jam a stick in the spokes of modern monetary theory, fiat currency, and Keynesian economics, the better. We are now in a economic cancer situation. Taking the chemo now is going to suck, but it's going to suck a whole lot more if you wait till stage 4. Biden is not tightening. Powell is tightening. To the great consternation of many Democrats. And don't worry, when Trump wins the election it will be the Republicans spending trillions that we don't have. There are no responsible parties anymore. However the real problem is that we aren't actually tightening yet. The drawdown of fed assets has been exceeded by the drawdown in the reverse repo facility, which is why liquidity has increased rather than decreased. Once the RRP runs dry, if, and it's a huge if, the Fed continues to tighten, only then will we see the effects.

You apparently haven't been paying attention to what's actually happening in China. They have none of these advantages anymore. The one thing they had going for them was being the world's workshop...but that was economics planned by central committee. It came at many costs, one of them being technological innovation, and it's over. They are in the process of a demographic collapse thanks to 40 years of the one child policy. Even if they implemented a national breeding campaign, it would take 30-40 years for them to reap the economic benefits...and they haven't. The wage 'advantage' is no more. Mexican labor is cheaper by almost three times now. Mexican production quality is ALSO better. China may be able to make things, but they can't do it cheaply anymore (their middle class wages have skyrocketed) and they can't produce anything of high quality. What's more, they never had a national unity advantage. Everything their government does it to control their people, not dominate the world. We don't have to do anything to beat the Chinese economically besides wait. Militarily, all we'd have to do is close the Strait of Malacca and watch them starve in the dark, as they import so much food and energy. Oh-by-the-way guess what kind of weapons we just leant to the Australians in Darwin: Cruise missiles that can hit ships in the strait of malacca from over the horizon. As for national debt? You think we're hurting? Go google Chinese hyper financialization. The dollar may or may not remain the reserve currency, but the Yuan will NOT be taking it's place in our lifetime. Yes, the Chinese are great at long term intellectual planning, but NONE of their execution has followed any of that planning. They are screwed and all we have to do is not save them. Multiple historians, demographers, and geopolitical analysts have reached the above conclusions. Ray Dalio would be one exception, but reading his work it's clear his love of china is underpinned by strong emotional ties that clearly color his analysis. But even he doesn't paint a very rosy picture for them, specifically because of their economics and debt. Don't listen to the rhetoric, look at the details and facts.

Pretty fucking good? Best economy in history? One of the greatest increases in QoL ever seen in history? You mad you have to pay $50k of taxes on your $200k salary so that you can still take home more than 99% of the rest of the world? Also, good luck funding the Manhattan project or global military without an income tax. If you want to go back to pre-1913 US, I hope you're equally ready to experience the significantly lower quality of life that comes with not having a funded government or military that can wield national power. Frontier living wasn't that sweet. Double edged sword here (regressive policy) that hurts the working class more. Billionaires need low interest loans to keep wealth they don't need. Workers need it to purchase essentials like housing, transportation, and food. Raise the interest rates and the only people that actually may starve are poor people. Sure it does. Want to talk about ethical frameworks? From a utilitarian approach, it is beneficial to the group (society) and only marginally affects people who are entirely way too well-off, therefore it is most likely in the best interest for the largest number of people. There's an ethical argument. From a common good approach, it seems to make sense that people with means that are significantly greater than others should contribute to their fellow citizens. There's an ethical argument. Now you can argue that it is unethical from your point of view or from a specific framework. But in the end it's all just feelings. That's ethics. Ethical arguments do not have to take into account second and third order consequences, but I would love to talk to some of them if you'd like. I will point out that your statement about Democratic legislation also can easily be applied to Republican legislation - it's a useless statement with no evidence or warrant. But you always throw some baseless point in your arguments about the dems being the problem (with essentially no proof or evidence). If you are saying the US government, as in the federal government that has existed since the 1930s, is ineffective, then I agree and disagree. If you are saying that this is a Biden problem, I'll disagree. I do agree that you have to lock your currency to something that doesn't let the government devalue it. But once you've left, you can't go back. Have you seen the government operate even on a CR where they don't get their 3% increase? The Air Force modernization folks damn near shut down. If you lock the currency now, you are effectively stating that you will significantly curtail spending in every single government expenditure for the next 50+ years. Which, sure, might be necessary, but not if you want to maintain the quality of life you have or the benefits of the American empire. The natural progression of fixed currencies to fiat systems has been seen for millennia in countless societies from the Romans to the Chinese to the Dutch to the British to, now, us. While you are correct that it is partially driven by the ultra-wealthy, it is also driven by populist governments and the middle class and working class demanding their lives be improved. When you run out of real growth, you have to create it with Fiat. So you as the government decouple and you pump money into the system to continue the growth. There is literally no stopping this in the natural cycle of nations. Show me one example. Obama did quantitative easing. Trump did a shitload of quantitative easing. Biden is actually tightening, which is a laudable act, but there's still $7T on the balance sheet. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm It's the old saying hard times strong men, strong men easy times, easy times weak men, blah blah blah. Well we are in the weak men times. And you are the weak men. And I am a weak man. I EXPECT to be paid $250k a year for a job that lets me telework part time. It's actually absurd. But I expect to be paid that because my fellow countrymen have equally ridiculous expectations. I can't get fast food now without paying $15. This is a positive feedback cycle that cannot be fixed in a pretty way. You either have the country explode into revolution to do what you said, or you choose slow relegation to a shit economy like the UK has been seeing the past 50 years. No, it's not. You don't understand stepped up basis. This is what is done. 1) Buy: buy an asset and have it appreciate. Say you spend $1000 on a stock and it is now worth $2000. This is $1000 in capital gains 2) Borrow: instead of selling $1000 of stock and paying capital gains tax on $1000, pledge $1000 of stock as collateral for a loan of $1000 that you can spend as you see fit 3) Die: keep holding the stock and loan until you die. Your heir can sell the stock for $2000 with no capital gains due to step-up basis rules. Look at this rule, this is what you don't understand, and I didn't understand for a long time. Using the new basis, pay off your $1000 loan, and have $1000 leftover in cash (the original value of the stock) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stepped-up_basis Stepped up basis allows inheritors of a stock to change the basis to the value at the time a person inherits it rather than the value of it when it was originally purchased. No capital gains are paid on inherited stock. You have spent $1000 on a stock, used $1000 of the gains to buy stuff with, and passed the original $1000 to your descendants without ever paying taxes on those gains in your lifetime. They happily go into your estate intact and with no capital gains tax due.

Grab a 'plastic' gun and smash yourself in the skull. Tell me how it turns out. Also, obligatory quote

I need some song suggestions for a morning alarm clock. I have an unnecessarily complicated morning automation to wake up our 14 month old, and it ends by playing a song randomly selected from a list. But I need more songs to add to the list. And ideally something a little less... assertive than this, which is the alarm I use on my phone:

It’s not surprising, each of their communities did what anyone would do - expel the garbage to somewhere else ASAP. And smartly they sent them to AU where they can have the least impact. Related note, I’m still undecided who’s the most useless - AU or the ATF.

One more thing to snag on clothing or dig into your body, especially considering many carry with the hammer back. My opinion is simple is better, especially in high stress situations, which is why striker fired is generally better suited for most people. But, all training and personal pref as you said, so totally support people carrying whatever they want - just train and maintain proficiency.

I don't know how you guys have the energy

Back from the gun shop. Went with the P365X. Night sights, thumb safety, 12+1. Fits hand perfectly. Think I’m going to like it. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

More loans? That don’t get paid off til they die, then the estate pays them with probably some sort of generous tax advantage. You know though, a good way to ensure everyone (ultra-rich, poor, legal, illegal) pay their fair share.. a national sales tax—tied to the elimination of other taxes of course.

Taiwanese U-2 pilot Johnny Shen died last Thursday, age 92 He was a U-2 pilot with The Black Cat Squadron on Taiwan from 1968 to 1973. He was admitted to the CAF Academy in January 1952, then trained in the PT-17 and the T-6. After his graduation in December 1955, he was assigned to the 4th Tactical Fighter Group in Chiayi. He was first sent to Tainan to be trained on the T-33, then returning to Chiayi to fly the F-84 in 1956. Later he converted to the F-100. He left the 35th Sq in 1973 and became the vice military attache in Vietnam. After the loss of Vietnam, he returned to Taiwan to served on several desk jobs. He retired from the CAF as a Colonel in 1977 and joined China Airlines, where he flew the Boeing 707, 727, 767, and 747, and Airbus A-300. He transferred to EVA Airlines in 1992. Then he returned served in Taiwan's Civil Aviation Administration until 1998. After retirement, he emigrated to Canada and lived in Vancouver. These guys flew some really risky missions. Him him...

It goes way beyond Plastic. A society without soaps… most medications… superior lubricants to machine parts… fertilizers growing 8 billion people in food. The sheer stupidity of somebody that thinks human existence can exist at this scale without petroleum is just unaware of anything petroleum is used as a precursor or provides the bulk chemical make up of. They just think a barrel of oil = gasoline = bad stuff for global warming. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most of us spent time in special ed. Lot's of arts and crafts time.

Are helo pilots naturally more creative, or something? Those patches are better than all the others posted on here…Skid marks cracked me up.

Woop woop.

stract, Great patches…Love the one that says, “Only Place Where Skid Marks are Cool” 😀

Yes it’s the Russians that are gonna tell you the real truth. You know you are literally a vignette characature we have to do annual training on for insider threat? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The US gov already does tax unrealized gains with home valuations and property taxes. Is that unconstitutional or unethical? What do you guys propose to do about the ultra wealthy who never cash in equity and take cash loans on their unrealized net worth? It is clearly tax evasion that is harmful to the US gov and not in line with the intent of the tax system. Also, I hope you are being honest brokers in this debate and are aware that the changes only apply to net worths >$100M. It is likely literally never going to directly impact any of you, the middle class, the upper professional class, or anyone in your family. It is aimed at only the ultra wealthy. Not to mention, the proposal makes these taxes prepayments for future gains. If they have future realized gains, they get to deduct previous payments. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/biden-billionaire-tax-unrealized-capital-gains/ Now explain: - How is this bad for the working class (my definition includes everyone from McDonalds to Anesthesiologists making $1M a year). People that have to work to live. - What are the negatives to the economy? You won’t get trickled down on? - What is your solution? If you don’t have a solution, why is the current state better morally or ethically?