Clark Griswold

Fair enough but I disagree on your hypocrisy charge, do you expect the other side to give you their flaws and acknowledge them openly? I'm not talking shit, I'm making a legitimate point about the Democratic party. You can make yours about the Republican party if you want, I don't have to make it for you. As for checkrides and evaluator and evaluatee experience, I'll stand by statement to hide weak areas if possible from evaluators. Given years of checkrides myself, evaluator in 3 different platforms, if you don't know it and don't have to let anyone else know you don't know, don't. Don't lie, don't embellish but don't show your ass for sure if you don't have to.

Agreed it was a political WMD with a lot of collateral damage, lingering effects and may have been overkill but it kept him from getting a Supreme, in that point I’m not upset I know this is a bad loop for us to be in but I don’t think making the first move to exit will be interpreted as anything but weakness to taken advantage of, I do t know how it ends or if can end well Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes Kennedy was especially awful human being, I never said the Republicans didn't have some questionable fellows on the team but let me know when they cover up something like this for a hypocritical pontificating bloated awful piece of shit Even after this he never cleaned up his act, reference this annectodote from a 16 year old page in the 80s It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy's limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No. How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was "very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary." It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy's invitation surprising. "He didn't even know me," she says. "I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn't expect it to happen to me." https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-ted-senator-profile Gingrich has an interesting personal life and a few other problems/issues (draft deferrals when he espoused hawkish military policy in his adult professional life) but pretty much light years away from anything even like that.... So I put my best foot forward when making an argument and conveniently don't bring up points that would undercut my argument? On check rides do you tell the evaluator what your weak on and advise him/her to pick at that scab? Tell me what school of argument and debate you went to so I won't send my kids there. As to the Constitution requiring Senate approval: Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States Constitution doesn't specify the method of Senate approval just that POTUS must have it to fulfill an appointment.

Pay back for Bork and what they did to Thomas. The hypocritical Democratic party can eat a bag of flaming dog shit for what they've done to decent and honorable men all while protecting gigantic POS's like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. if a vacancy comes up, they should return the favor for what they did to Kavanaugh and not have even have hearings which are not constitutionally required, just a vote in the Senate.

But if SOF modified their requirements and switched to a light and affordable platform, modified / optimized for this mission but still capable of participating at an acceptable / useful role in MCO would that break the ice? There is a logic to Big Blue being hesitant to buy a platform focused on the fight the Civ Leadership / Conventional Joint Leadership is eschewing to focus on the potential big fights. I don't support that hesitation but I understand it. If you can't get rid of an obstacle, go around it to get to want you want. A new fixed wing strike capability independent of ACC that is affordable and relevant to the SOF-centric mission but capable of supporting the Joint Team in MCO. I'm a fanboy for more robust solutions and I realize that changing the question to get a a different answer is to get consensus / buy in is not exactly what we should do but it seems close enough in this case. More capability might mean less austere capability, more care and feeding but maybe not to an unacceptable level. Not telling the SOF community to sell their soul to get Big Blue to buy into, maybe just a lease...

Unfortunately almost everything is accountable as it will be used as a parts bird for the remaining fleet I’ve got a canopy breaker from a Tweet delivered by a bud to the boneyard I flew in SUPT, only thing they would let him take from the jet Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Read Bacevich before but do not actively follow and have read several MLK speeches/letters, not claiming in anyway to be an authority on either men or their work but don't see the problem (perhaps I'm assuming you think I was being passive/aggressive/asshole-ish) in posting it as an example of the next great frontier likely to come from the radicalized left. Not saying Bacevich is the vanguard of that but he is adding his voice to a chorus I don't think he fully appreciates what they are really singing... His wiki is worth a read and I know who he is, not a career academic who never did anything other than pontificate about the theoretical, never sacrificed anything and petulantly judgmental of others who have fought, lost and sacrificed for others. I respect him but disagree with him. Thoughts on the argument(s) laid out in the piece? In reference to MLK's original point on the trifecta of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism being sins the USA is uniquely guilty of and to be expunged if we are to fulfill our destiny? That these are interconnected cultural pathological tendencies that are we suffer unduly more than others from? Quite simply no,. He is confusing national policies with the millions of choices of individuals on what they wish to do with their wealth, doesn't like the fact that most people are not interested in spending an inordinate amount of money on others and chooses to chide them for it in a sly manner by impugning their nation/culture/country is uniquely worse than others, despite about a metric shit of ton of reality to the contrary. Lecturing others on why they should spend their money on others and deny themselves the fruits of their labor, beyond a reasonable point, is ridiculous. It is not his or King's place to berate Americans that they have a responsibility beyond what their personal conscience dictates. If Bacevich were lecturing all other citizens of the developed and rich world, he might have a leg to stand on in this point, but he doesn't so until I see him publish a world wide call to global charity outreach for all, I and other free Americans will do what we think is right and what is legally required with our money. He confuses historical cultural problems that others now long dead created as the sin of the living now and berates them because they live their lives in recognition of the consequences now of those damn mistakes. Certain communities of people have higher rates of anti-social behavior not because they are biologically predisposed to it but because people long dead now made choices that set them up in a worse starting position when we all start the game of life. I believe we can deliver additional resources to those communities in ways that are not punitive to others and generate the least amount of resentment. Decrying Americans as especially racist because they see with eyes the problems our society has and sometimes make reasonable choices based on that, sometimes they could make better choices than they do and rarely they make wrong choices based on that is unfairly high bar. Again, if he applies this judgement to the other developed and wealthy countries, we can have a discussion but singling us out as uniquely bad is wrong, unacceptable and misses on many levels. Militarism, NOT an American sin and if you like the Liberal International Order, he had better come to peace with the fact that the world is not exactly a safe place. Lots of bad people have military power and are willing to use it in ways we and other nations that ascribe to a liberal enlightenment set of values would not. Say what you will, but we are likely the most benign global hegemonic power to date. It's not that we're so bad, it's that the world is so violent. Thankfully it is getting less so compared to previous decades and we can certainly improve the way we and the other usual suspects deter aggression, secure the global commons, promote trade and communication, etc... but it is necessary if we want to be the ones who set up the game, enforce basic rules and try to keep it fair. From what I've seen of the other contenders for our position, the world better grow a brain and help us keep it together, I doubt very seriously they would like it if the other guy takes the helm. That's it, that's all I got. Bracevich and King have a point, just not an argument to judge ourselves so harshly as they opine. America is good, Western Civilization is awesome, the alternatives to free markets and individual freedom/choice are awful.

Copy that. Consensus , hmmm. Are there red headed stepchildren in ACC (attack) that could join forces with AFSOC advocates to define and get validated a requirement that would require a more robust solution? Is the requirement substantially different than Light Attack necessitating very different platforms than the ones being officially considered for LA?

It's coming...maybe... Defund the Police. And the Military, Too. IDK if the left would actually severely cut the American Military or more accurately the globalist puppetmasters who fund and direct the Left in Western Countries would actually allow them as they require an actual force to confront and deter their other enemies in the world, secure the global commons, etc... No offense to Europe but I don't see a massive increase in military expenditures in European nations along with the will to use that military capability on expeditionary missions to perform the roles that a now diminished US military no longer can do Like Defund the Police, the real meaning is not said. Destroy local police departments so our brownshirts can scare the hell out of regular people and control them but keep the FBI and National Enforcement that are centrally directed so we can control them and use them as we want vice independent police departments. Defund the Military means something else, not sure they know exactly what they mean by that except take that money and use it to build further addicts to the welfare state.

Question as this thread goes on, does Light still apply? I think at the beginning of the thread in 2009 we think Light in terms of cost per flight hour likely in support of large numbers of repetitive sorties from a MOB or FOBs as part of a long-term campaign or operation, ala Iraqi Occupation or Afghanistan Stabilization but has that or that concept moved on from that and Light should be replaced with something else? We will likely be engaging via air strike and SOF teams, VEOs and their fighters well into the future in Africa, Eastern Syria, etc... but are we going to be doing that so often that we still need to think in terms of something that inexpensive to fly that we can fly 6900+ sorties per year per theater in said LA that we need to buy something small and relatively cheap to keep the Bobs at bay? Is it really not light but independent strike capability we are looking for (those advocating for this)? Long legs so no AR, Austere Field capability so not tied to MOBs, Cross cue / connectivity so able FFF independently, Low MX footprint, etc...

Short write up on the video and unit that likely flew that training mission: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34845/this-rare-cockpit-video-of-chinese-fighter-pilots-dogfighting-offers-unique-insights

This is great. Woketards showing their biases when they harass and mistake a man of asian descent who is on their same leftist team: https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/07/15/watch-portland-antifa-accost-asian-man-but-its-not-the-one-they-think/ Fuck your "revolution" you pampered whining self-entitled stupid emotionally malformed little shits.

Chinese BFM

👍

This

Nice, this the video or another? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gP8sqgqEFw

More on Irish fighters and how Air Defense / Interception works now between GB and Ireland: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ireland-considering-purchase-of-jet-fighters/ Éire go Brách

I know but just your immediate actions in response to vindictive and corrupt persecution Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What bullshit - guy is a man of means, go buy another and tell them to kiss his ass Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Solid points, haven't flown a looong nose aircraft with a way aft cockpit but that makes sense. Cameras would probably fix that, maybe a trailing link gear system to allow relatively flat fares and absorb a bit more energy in main wheel touchdown.

Flare picture would be tricky on this

https://clearedjobs.net/job/instructor-pilot-a-29-super-tuscano-fighter-san-antonio-texas-477430

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah but.... I prattle on this thread as there is a need as I see it for a manned platform that essentially brings the capes of 4th gen pointy nose without the cost or need for AR for a decent vul time - Bronco 2 and the other t-props are good but limited in speed, range and altitude along with potential for growth, except Bronco 2 as it has an adaptive structure for different mission loads This is the A-7 of our time, an unsexy but very innovative no nonsense attack design we are unfortunately resisting Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You make your point well and while I don’t agree with everything I agree we (on the right) carry political biases like those in the left Concur on Constitutional fixes required as what we have now no longer functions well enough or is ultimately sustainable, I like the idea of a Brexit party for America - formed for one reason to call a Constitutional Convention or pass Amendments Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk