bfargin

The KC-135s also had 2 A/R pumps. Each would offload approximately 3,000lbs per minute. So if both were activated (which we almost always did for large offloads) it was flowing at 6,000lbs per minute (only through the boom). The drogue gave a slight penalty (maybe 10% reduced flow rate). Big Sexy might have had an even better transfer rate though.

Was told by a couple of buddies that the 10 had a way bigger slot (or envelop if you prefer) for receivers so it was much easier to refuel behind than the 135.

When the Harris/Biden administration diverts over a billion dollars to illegal migrant coddling congress had to emergency fund another 2 billion to prop up FEMA.

What the hell are they thinking? We need that black lesbian non-binary general to lead us where no man has gone before. Now we're really screwed.

Another Bee classic

https://babylonbee.com/news/media-worried-that-trump-assassination-story-might-detract-from-plight-of-illegal-immigrants

I was super glad that 1 in 3 alert died. There's always good and bad with any major change.

During Desert Shield, the lead up to the "Storm", my whole squadron (380th AREFS) was based out of Riyadh with the 1703rd ARW (deployed). I was just finishing upgrade so was still in the 'Burgh (got there right as the war kicked off). But, my former crew was there and told me about an early launch in the deployment where the local tower controller was seeing his first wet thrust takeoff (black smoke everywhere) and warned the crew that there was smoke and they were on fire. It was always "fun" to be # 6 or later in a full MITO launch gaggle. I was able to do 2 of these mass MITO launches as a Co- and then one final one as an AC after returning from Desert Storm, before SAC died.

Yes, but ...

Tucker's interviewing. Jeffrey Sachs offers analysis on the whole system surrounding our constant desire to be in a war type stance. Mr Sachs speaks to our pretty constant interference in foreign affairs even when it really doesn't benefit us. The fact we have no coherent foreign policy due to our constant turnover in leadership and so obviously the non-elected bureaucrats end up having significantly more decision making power then our system was designed for. Speaks to what some on here will definitely disagree with in our commitments to Russia on Ukraine and NATO. Our (USA) failure to abide by many commitments we've made to both our allies and to potential threat countries over the years. He draws on his 35 plus years of foreign policy reporting. You might not agree with everything but he knows his stuff even if he also has his own biases. The coverage includes speaking about Cuba, Taiwan, China, Russia, Venezuela, NATO, Iran, Israel ... I watched on 1.25 speed and it was worth the watch if you're interested in our foreign policy and implications to our actions (most of the time) and inaction (very occasionally). Again, nobody is perfectly rational without any bias, but Mr Sachs presents a pretty balanced review/summary of the past 50 years or so.

https://rumble.com/v5czylo-jeffrey-sachs-trumps-plan-to-stop-wwiii-cia-coups-and-warning-of-the-next-f.html

I was kind of expecting Big Mike (BM) too. Kamala is similar to BM in her ideology, but is willing to bow/submit to any authority and do exactly what the DNC dictates. So in that sense, she is more controllable which is why she was chosen. I think BM would have been an automatic shoe in. Kamala is so bad the Rs, even with trump, have a 50/50 shot. The next 4 years are going to be interesting regardless of who is POTUS.

Might be true since he does own the Post, but not sure how he could lose. If she wins and does this, it actually would allow higher prices on really low margin items and keep the basic 1.5 to 2% margin on existing items. A loss for most of us, but Whole Foods would still keep their profits as more groceries go out of business.

When even the leftist Washington Post calls your proposals too far left, you have a serious leftist ideology problem. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/15/kamala-harris-price-gouging-groceries/

The VP isn't in the military chain of command, so why are generals who meet her saluting? Has this changed since I was in 30 plus years ago. To be honest, I don't remember ever seeing a VP being greeted/disembarking before, but it just looked odd when I saw it earlier this week on one of her trips and the general saluted and she saluted back.

First he outed himself as a leftist, and now someone outed him as a bone smuggler. He's a perfect diversity appointment for the current administration. I'm sure there is some Islamic nation that needs a US ambassador.

Sounds like he didn't desert but he didn't fulfill his last re-enlistment of 6 years (bailed early legally when he found out he was about to be deployed). The real issue is claiming to have carried weapons "in war" and retired as a Command Sgt Major instead of his actual retirement rank of E-8. I take issue with the "in war" part since he was never in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I'm not too bothered by the rank issue (he did serve as a provisional CSM for a few months before he retired). Big deal or not?

Brilliant economist as well.

Computer expert too https://x.com/EricAbbenante/status/1819797240052920758

not soccer related biff, but i knew you’d like it. I hope the link works…dibbs ahead of time https://www.facebook.com/share/r/wcgG5vpC5SSk8CDN/?mibextid=0VwfS7

If I had been a non flyer (finance, cbpo, Cyber, Linguist, etc) I definitely would have worn a SHOCLRK patch or similar (e.g. HELPER, CUNLNGST, CHRFLYR, SPACER). If you can't laugh at yourself, you're a psycho.

Thanks for the reply. I still think a compromise early on would have been best for the world, but I acknowledge both sides have merit (early compromise and all out war to free all of UKR). I appreciate you sticking to the topic rather than name calling.

When one resorts to attempting to disparage those who disagree, they've lost the argument. It was pretty well known that UKR was willing to give a little for peace (early on). We might not have liked the potential agreement, but why interject and directly cause hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians to kill each other with no realistic end game (other than kill Russians)? Your liberal western idealism is obscuring your ability to see the nuance in all of the long history of UKR vs. RUS relationship and of course the current conflict. I've not heard any cheerleaders for Putin, but many of us see the historical cause and effect of US and other western "powers" actions, and "situations" all over the world. We've screwed the pooch in just about every foreign policy decision over the past 20 plus years. I'm not (and neither is anybody else) cheering for others, but I'd like us as a nation to begin to slow our roll and at least spend a few minutes before making decisions that put our military members in indirect and direct harms way with no clear goals, no clear threat, consideration of 3rd and 4th order consequences, etc.