gearhog

I have two Harry's holsters. Double clip reduces the rotation while moving without being too wide. Adjustable height and angle. You can swap clip to either side so it works with either hand, appendix, or small of the back carry.

I believe the intelligence service does produce viable information. It is required to. It has to produce some viable and objectively truthful information to protect its existence. But it can also use its implied credibility to lean on the scale. They could call Speaker Johnson in, scare the shit out of him, and he would never be able to refute contents of the classified briefing. If he tried, they'd label him a clown. That's an enormous amount of power. And temptation. "If you only knew what I knew, you'd be praising me for spending public money and intensifying these conflicts." Well.. if the threat is that dire, don't I have a right to be briefed on it? After all, it is I who am being indebted and my friends and family who may be ultimately fighting these conflicts? "Sources and methods. If you were to know, then our enemies would know. Then they might know how we know, and that would threaten our ability to produce the viable, but secret information needed to ensure our continued ability to steer the country's leadership." How long do they get to use that excuse? Whatever small amount of blind implicit trust you have left in our intelligence and leadership is being monetized. It's like giving these people your credit card and telling them to charge whatever they want, as long as it keeps you safe. No explanation required. At some point, they gotta look us and say, "Caveat Emptor. These people are morons, they don't deserve to keep their wealth."

David Sacks is quoting Huge Dixon? Gotta be fake news. I have family in state level politics, and I'm a little involved in this year's campaign. I know my State Rep to the US Congress personally through various events. Legit good dude. He had been staunchly anti-Ukraine funding since the beginning. About 2 months ago, his campaign had an online poll asking what his constituents thought. The poll results weren't published, but the hundreds of comments underneath were greater than 80% against. He flipped on this supplemental aid bill. I called his office twice in the last week. The staffer said he hasn't made any public comment yet and when he does, they'll get back to me. Word on the street he's been compromised and coerced. Not scheduled to attend any events when he returns from DC. Bear in mind that 79% of the funding for Ukraine isn't going to Ukraine. It's going to defense contractors, and not one of us here knows exactly what we're getting for that amount. They spent almost $67 million in lobbying Congress in the just the first half of 2023. Most of it going to PACs and members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Everyone has a price. Imagine the lobbying they can do with an influx of $49 Billion. It's a massive reward for unethical behavior and if they could overcome the resistance to this last supplemental aid bill, they're going to do it again, and more frequently. $1 Trillion in wealth is being transferred upwards every 100 days in your name. You are being robbed.

Don't fall for the propaganda. Ukraine is setting a trap. They're drawing Russia deeper into Ukraine so that in a few months, after our defense contractors have received their funding, established supply chains and increased capacity, they'll begin to produce the much needed weaponry for what's left of the Ukr military. Having baited Russia into occupying more of their territory, they're going to surprise them with a massive offensive. Brilliant! If we're patient, our recent $61B investment is going to pay huge dividends.

The FDIC just published this document regarding its preparations for the failure of a Global Systemically Important Banking (GSIB) organization headquartered in the U.S. with complex global operations. https://www.fdic.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/spapr1024b_0.pdf It basically outlines how the Sec of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and President will transfer all the assets to a Bridge Financial Company. I thought it interesting that they mention they plan to put the company into FDIC receivership on a Friday evening so as to be able to mobilize the plan and prevent a contagion by Monday morning. "The appointment as receiver late Friday afternoon would provide time, while most global financial markets are closed, to form a Bridge Financial Company, mobilize resources needed to conduct business beginning on Monday morning, and communicate with key constituencies (including employees, counterparties, and claimants) around the globe. The FDIC recognizes that a Friday night appointment may not be possible in all instances, and the timing will be highly dependent on the nature of the failing institution, how it fails, and market conditions at the time." The plan says it ensures that only claimants (shareholders and creditors) would incur losses and that US taxpayers would incur no liability. Translation: they'll print the money. "The ability of the FDIC and other regulatory authorities to manage the orderly resolution of large, complex financial institutions remains foundational to U.S. financial stability. While recognizing the progress that has been made toward enabling such a resolution and ending “too big to fail,” we also recognize that the resolution of a GSIB has not yet been undertaken. When it becomes necessary to do so, carrying out such a resolution will come with a unique set of challenges and risks." Any bets on who it's gonna be?

What to do about these University protests? These leftist students are demanding campuses "Divest from Israel" which apparently is code for "Get rid of the Jews". https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/cal-poly-humboldt-gaza-protest-closed-campus/ Here's a vid from the inside of "Intifada Hall" at California Polytechnic University at Humbolt. https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1784282619481383342

"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? 🤣

This dude clearly has his own bias and motivations. Everyone does and we all have narrow limited perspectives. My point being you have to allow yourself to step outside your own and hear an uncomfortable perspective in spite of it's subjective flaws to find an objective truth. In this case, the man has a history that is both credible and questionable. But he challenges the prevailing narrative. If the narrative is water tight, it should stand up to scrutiny. I would argue that the public has largest moral claim to a stake in knowing the answer. Shouldn't we, as citizens of an American democracy know without a doubt that our leaders did not have a hand it this? I don't want my government sabotaging the infrastructure of not just an enemy we are technically not at war with, but that of citizens of allied countries as well, then lying about it... and doing so in the name of its people. He is obviously sucking up to the UN to try an get a public investigation. Or perhaps he's knows an investigation is unlikely, and wanted to vocalize his grievances.

You're presenting this analogy like you're smarter than everybody else because you've figured out something everyone has known since 1980. Are you going to argue Star Wars is fake? No one is pretending that it isn't. Pro-wrestling isn't presenting itself as a fair play competition regulated by a code of rules and ethics. It's entertainment. WWE. Dumb analogy, but congrats, at least it doesn't involve consuming human waste. More progress. It's like raising a child, getting one to make good choices doesn't happen overnight, but if your patient and persistent, you can change their behavior, and it's very rewarding. The second paragraph is almost unintelligible. What specific "on the ground" claim was bogus? You're dancing around the issue again but not articulating it. And who is this "we" that provided "what" examples? You're like the dog that yips and yaps at everyone on the other side of the fence, but is afraid to go through an open gate. Here's a fun one for you. I often watch/read UNSC testimonies just to see what's happening up there. Found this one from yesterday. It's a former State Department and CIA official who also worked counter-terrorism until about 2016. Before you overload your Google search bar in a frantic search for an ad-hominem attack, try to read it and look for signs of factual information and signs of bias yourself. There are both. This guy clearly has a bone to pick, but is he a Russian agent? Is it a complete fabrication produced by a Russian Psyop? I don't know. Let's read it and see. Use your critical thinking skills.

Do you go around telling people they shouldn't be watching pro-wresting? I bet you do. If someone wants to watch it and find out for themselves, why not? Who made you the fact-check police? At least a dozens times I've said it might be false, it might not be. You might be right, you might be wrong. It's impossible to know 100% without first hand experience. No one here needs some little busy-body like yourself up in everyone's business telling them what they should and shouldn't be listening to because you don't like who their friends with. I've never met anyone else on BO.net whose behavior more resembles that of a teen girl.

Here's a simple logic test: So the reason you won't make any attempt to defy something someone says is because they have demonstrated a lack of integrity. But in order to know that they've lied, you would have to listen to what they lied about. You keep saying you're not willing to do that an no one else should, either. This brings us back to my earlier point that you don't have any original thoughts, you have to rely on what someone else thinks who did listen. How do you know that the stories are fabricated if you haven't listened? You keep bragging about how you're only willing to consider infomation that meets your personal standard for acceptability. That means you consume and process a fraction of the information I do, because I want to hear all perspectives and I'll do the sorting myself. You're intentionally being ignorant and trying to justify it to me. I don't think that's very smart.

Would you mind quoting where I have said either of those things? I never did. Do a keyword search, click more options, search by author, and type "gearhog" in the second search bar. You'll get a list of the things I have typed. That's how I found you brought up "Tucker" eight times in this thread when no one else mentioned him. When you find that I have said either of those two things, post it here and I'll be thoroughly humbled. Or you could just admit that your position has become so weak that you feel you now need to straight up lie to defend it.

Because I'm aggressively defending a position I believe in that happens to be contrary to yours, you continue to flail and search for a reason to dismiss, in this case, calling me a "troll." Real original. But I do thank you for recognizing that my position is sophisticated and nuanced. Keep working at it, and you, too, may have one one day as well. I had no idea that podcast existed until you started bitching about it. It isn't my favorite, but I do appreciate the introduction. I'll probably keep listening. Nothing piques my interest more than someone attempting to discourage me from watching, listening, reading something they disagree with. What is it with you and Tucker? You've brought him up a half dozen times when no one else has. It's weird. I haven't listened to Rogan in a couple week so I hadn't realized he was on. You realize what I'm going to do now, right? LOL For months you've been obsessing over him. My reply to you back in August:

That's what I've been trying to say. One bad podcast or bit of propaganda doesn't mean they're all bad. 😄 Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I've only listened to one. I'll listen to the other one you recommended in the morning. If it's decent, I may add it to my favorites. OAN? I don't think "watching the news" is still a thing anymore. At least among serious people. You seem like the kind of guy that watches AFN to stay informed, and maybe flirts with Rachael Maddow every now and then. How many times do I have to tell you that yeah... some of it might be bad info. Some of it might not be. Haven't you realized I'm impervious to bullshit. After all, I've been reading yours for a few pages now. So far, I've provoked responses from you consisting of several thousand words and you've had the courage to mention two, count them, two... incidents or examples of Russian propaganda. MH17 and Syrian chemical weapons or whatever. Even then, you don't seem to be able to articulate anything resembling an original thought. If we were to calculate the ratio of your original critical thinking assessments of actual events and news pertaining to the topic of this thread to the amount of words written, it would be exactly zero. For a guy that talks a lot, you don't have much to contribute. What's your pronouns?

I have the original SIG 365 as my go to CCW for it's, but I also really like the S&W 642 airweight for simplicity and reliability. I also have the PC charger with that brace. I think it may have been that exact YT review that convinced me. I have a Sig Romeo and ordered a Silencer Central Banish 30 can for it back in Jan. Hope it gets here soon. I'd like to swap out the forward grip stop for something more substantial, but not sure what I can get away with.

Hey! You can be taught. I think there's hope for you yet. Instead of a 10 year old event unrelated to the current conflict, you've somehow combed through over 1800 episodes and found a 4 year old podcast unrelated to the current conflict. It ain't much, but it's something. I'm sure it took a lot of effort, so I'll commend you for it. Side thought: Are you at work today? Hmmm. Remember that comment I made about you being the high school debate team's one trick pony? You'll will never abandon your ad-hominem tactic no matter how transparent it makes your unwillingness to address the actual facts or lies. Aren't you even a little bit ashamed that that is your only defense? It only gets you so far. Because the topic of this podcast is so far out of the realm of issues that are of importance in the context of the Rus-Ukr war, I am unfamiliar with this one. But I'm willing to give it a listen and report back to you with an original take using critical thinking that I didn't have to defer to Google for. Understand I have to withold judgement until I verify that the claims within are ridiculous, and I'll even concede there is a probability of bullshit given my commitment to truth and honesty. So I'm already going in with a bias that suits your fancy. Can I get a little appreciation? At first glance, however, I'm suddenly reminded of claimed chemical attacks and WMD that were used as a pretext for going to war. You may have been a child then, so you might not remember. Anyway, thanks for the link. It's in the lineup.

We here in the US just spent $60 Billion to counter Russia, and $8 Billion for Taiwan to counter China. Today, the US is drafting sanctions against China for helping Russia. Our leadership, in their divine wisdom, is effectively forcing two world superpowers into deeper levels of cooperation. If China is going to be sanctioned for providing military assistance to Russia anyway, why would they not go ahead and open up full bore production if the US is already threatening them over the Taiwan issue? I honestly wonder who has the larger industrial production capacity, US and allies, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Intelligence source confidence is rated by assessing the accuracy and reliability information itself. How would you know what the information is if you refuse to look at it and discourage others from doing the same? For the third time, the only example you've given of anything that has a very high probability of being inaccurate is a random irrelevant event from 10 years ago. There's likely a vast amount of information out there from the Duran that has an even greater chance of being inaccurate, is more recent, and actually pertains to recent history. Do I have to go find it for you just to prove that you're lazy? You've spent more time googling dirt on the show hosts than listening to the Podcast. You could have just listened, shot down all their arguments, proved that it's all false Russian disinfo, and saved yourself an enormous amount of time, and we likely wouldn't be having this exchange. I actually listened to it, wrote it all down for you, and put it 6 inches in front of your face. Like a toddler, you scrunched up your face, shook your head, and still... still... elected not to confront the issues. If you believe someone should be forever discounted because you heard them say something idiotic once, you'd have been abandoned as a child. Perhaps you were. You most definitely would have been abandoned here on the forums multiple times over. But I and others are living proof that my approach works better. For pages now, I've been sifting through massive amount of your flawed logic and unsubstantiated assumptions. I can't remember where it is, but you did have a perspective I thought was useful on green energy or something recently. Even a broken clock is right twice per day. The rest of the information you present is mostly garbage, but I can still learn something about the methods and manner in which you deliver it. You operate on assumptions, I operate on first-hand knowledge. It's that simple. That's why you're stuck where you are in this debate and you keep talking in circles. If there is a debate about how to best find out the truth, a position that advocates for evaluating all information based on examining it's content is always, always, going to defeat an argument for dismissing information before it is heard because you don't like who delivered it. "There's not enough time to process all the bad information out there". That's a problem with you, not the method. Disinformation campaigns from Sweden and Finland? Uh, ok... Not sure how that's relevant to my aforementioned concerns about the USA, but I'd be happy to. I'm a voracious reader. Give me a link and I will thoroughly enjoy working through the details with you. That is, unless discussing details instead of broad generalizations and assumptions frightens you.

Oh, the mystery. I'll ask again, what's it like on the inside of a real-life squadron vault? Lots of old dusty scrolls and microfilms? Again, I'm super impressed by your NIPR/SIPRNet access where all the secrets of the universe are held, but claiming that you have super-dooper access to "highly-classified" intel so you can claim authority status without substantiating it is transparent. I did a year as an STS ADO working every day in the SCIF and another year TDY to the third floor vault at AMC/A3 Tactics. Both experiences were about as enlightening as watching you dodge hard questions. Your "access" is about as impressive as the Comm Sq's ability to keep the network running. What did I say "they" are "really doing"? I think it's funny that you know I'm prepared to the hilt to get into the weeds and write extensively on any of these issues, which is why you'll continue to make vague references yet never go anywhere near the specifics of any of them because you know I'll waylay your position. Real clever, and timid. I'll continue to point it out every single time.

No disclosed funding = RUSSIA! We didn't talk about the individuals... you did. I talk about information. You're the ad-hominem guy, not me. Can't you at least switch to another logical fallacy to make yourself seem slightly more interesting? You're the one-trick-pony of the high school debate team. So you're not even going to address the MIC after I've made a legitimate point and say... "Well.... uh... there were other things too!" Weak. I know you'll dodge the question for the 10th time but I'll ask anyway, what other "lines of commentary" are you whining about now? Apparently, you're easily astounded which doesn't surprise me. I have to live in this country. I simply do not care about Russians or Ukrainians. They're not the threat. Poor governmental leadership and the weak-minded sycophants who place a higher value on enforcing an acceptable narrative than the pursuing the truth are the real threat. Don't misunderstand.. I'm referring to you. I, on the other hand, will continue to critically analyze information from a variety of sources in order to have a more well-informed understanding of these events. If it hurts your feelings, you're just going to have to live with it. Neither your life, nor anyone else's is going to be endangered because someone suggested on a podcast that a corrupt corporatocracy is steering our nation away from the best interests of the American people.

But did you die? So anytime anyone mentions the flooding of the military industrial complex with cash, it's Russian Psyop to gain a battlefield advantage? Is this a new subject for you? Pretty sure the issue of war-profiteering has been around a lot longer than you have. These guys didn't invent that narrative. With that logic, you can link any dissent or criticism of US involvement in any conflict to enemy propaganda. You're only interested in stifling dissent. Are you telling me there are no critical narratives that can be had? If the truth hurts, maybe you have the problem. If it isn't the truth, show me. The military industrial complex last year (officially) spent around $12 million lobbying key pro-Ukraine war members of Congress and just received a $50 Billion windfall, in addition to the previous windfalls. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=D There are no concerns there? You have to realize telling everyone "Don't look over there! Nothing to see here!" while implying anyone having a critical position is a Russian shill isn't giving you credibility. You're only shouting down the person, while not disputing the claims. You're only interested in one side of the argument. I want to hear all sides and draw my own conclusions. You don't want anyone doing that. It's becoming apparent that if you had your way, you'd ensure compliance with the Party rules and eliminate any unauthorized information while monitoring citizens for signs of dissent, and perhaps punish anyone who engages in thought crime or holds a belief contrary to the Party ideology. There's a term for that, but I can't remember it. Any ideas?

Good point. Invading a foreign country under false pretenses is the lowest.

Good morning. Well, here we are. My apologies, for I'm about to put you in grave danger, but it's a risk I'm willing to take in pursuit of the truth. I have a full cup of Black Rifle Coffee, Spirit of '76 roast. It's very good. The packaging is awesome, even inspiring. Let's kick this pig. The hosts are starting with the front lines. They report that Russia had broken through the Ukrainian front lines in and captured the town of Avdiivka. Did this really happen or is this false information? Fact check: True. The Russians are (were) advancing on a town called Ocheretyne, which is a small town, but lies on a hill and has a railway junction, making it strategically important. One commenter is saying this breakthough puts Russia in a strong position. He quotes a Ukrainian General that the situations at other places on the front lines are terrible. Apparently Russia is planning a large offensive, possibly to capture Kharkiv. One of the Commenters mentioned former British Colonel Hamish De-Bretton Gordon who wrote this article for the Telegraph detailing how dire the situation is. He goes on to say that the media is full of these types of articles. Now they're talking about the $61 Billion in aid. Some of the funds are for the Ukrainian economy itself, not for the war. The bulk of the money is going to the military industrial complex. He is claiming that only a small portion of the funds are going directly to Ukraine in the form of weapons, and the rest is going to defense contractors to replenish our own stockpiles. Now this is where some propaganda might be creeping in. I should check on this. So he actually underestimated the amount that is being given to the U.S. defense industrial base. He is claiming that the amount being given directly to Ukraine will be used up at once, but the time it would take to DIB to complete the manufacturing process would take years. Debatable, but possible. They discuss the gap between the rate of weapons being used and the rate of weapons being replenished while quoting JD Vance "You can't provide more weapons than you have." He quotes CIA director Williams Burns who said if Ukraine isn't given support it will collapse by the end of the year. Checks out. Their contention is that all of this is about preventing a Ukrainian collapse before the election. That's definitely a biased take, but is it possible? They ask why Mike Johnson capitulated. They assert that key Republican committee chairs have been pressuring him on behalf of the military industrial complex and he ultimately conceded to their demands. He knew that same pressure was being exerted on House Republicans who would be forced to side with the Democrats and vote against him, which would likely pressure him to resign, so he acted out of self-preservation. They again say that committee chairs are close to the defense manufacturers and that the want this appropriations bill passed. They also claim that this part of the Republican party and the MIC would rather see Biden than Trump elected. Hmmm. They say the MIC always wins. They say Mike Johnson's political career is toast for passing this bill while completely giving up on the southern border aspect. They go into what actual systems Ukraine will be getting. They were asking for 150-200 patriot systems and are only going to get a fraction. They make a biased assertion that Russia will simply knock them out with hypersonics and they'll be back to square one. The say this aid bill will slow the war down, produce and effect, the effect wears out, and then you need more. They quote President Kennedy about sending aid to Vietnam: "It's like drinking a glass of water. For a short time you fee better, but then you need another." I can't find this quote. Might be BS. They continue to reiterate that a Ukrainian collapse must be avoided by the election. Anything that happens beyond that is not a concern. And that's it. How are feeling, @Lawman? Was it as bad as you thought it was going to be? I think you're going to be fine. It wasn't a great podcast. Nothing earth-shattering. I did learn a couple things about the front lines and got a new perspective on Mike Johnson's capitulation. There was clearly heavy bias throughout the podcast, but nothing that indicates Russian disinformation. It was simply an innocuous discussion. Some of it agreeable, some of it disagreeable. Take some time to process your trauma, and if you want to comment on the specifics here or point out the false information I somehow missed, I'd be more than happy to listen. Have a good day.