HeyYou

Beth is working on the issue, they are collecting some save games from various folks on the official forums. No word on a fix yet.

Both issues need to be addressed if we want the politicians to act in the best interests of the country, instead of just the select few. I don't have a problem with lobbyists in general, its PAID lobbyists I have trouble with. Considering that some of the highest paid lobbyists are ex-senators, and congresspeople, it looks a lot like influence peddling to me.

You mean the one that sunk near Cork in Ireland(where I live)? The one that caused the Americans to enter WWI? That'd be the one. (I wrote a paper on it in school, several decades ago..... :D)

P-51 Mustang. P-38 Lightning...

I can almost kinda sorta see that if you access things from a school computer, you should have zero expectation of privacy...... However, I am not going to hand my user information to any forums, or mail accounts that I use, to anyone. That's like having your potential employer open your mail at your house. Screw that. I don't use facebook, twitter, or any of the other social sites in any event. I don't need my personal life on display for anyone, even my friends, on the 'net. I just don't see the point.

Wait, the F-35 is single engine??? Really???? For a Naval Aircraft, that doesn't seem like the brightest idea...... at least on a multi-engine aircraft, if one fails, you still have some hope of getting back to the carrier..... not so on the -35....

Wasn't that ratio 1 to 10 with the F-86 in Vietnam?

Most of our air to air missiles have a proximity fuse. And for air to air kills, more often than not, the missile does NOT hit the target, it explodes in close proximity, and shreds it with shrapnel. All ya gotta do is get close, just like horseshoes, hand grenades, and atom bombs.

What version of OBSE are you using? Have you tried using the CS Extender? (I LOVE that one.)

Precisely my point. Lobbying is protected.... not being a PAID lobbyist. I don't have a problem with lobbyists, in and of themselves, what I DO have a problem with is, lobbyists spending millions of dollars to influence congress to get the policies of whatever special interest they represent put forward even though they are probably NOT in the best interests of the majority of the population.

I really don't know which one would be worse...... of course, I can turn that around just as easily..... I don't know which would be better...... But, Romney (mr. platinum spoon) got mis money breaking up corporations, and selling them off, putting folks out of work...... I don't really see how that gives him the qualifications to turn this country around, and get our economy going again. Considering that a fair part of his platform is right from the George Bush Jr. play book...... I don't hold out a lot of hope there.... Of course, for Obama, jobs and the economy are only important in election years. It makes a really good talking point, and you might even persuade some swing voters into believing that you will actually try to SOLVE some problems, rather than treating symptoms, and creating yet MORE problems...... Which is exactly what I have seen him do. (and many others before him.) I am sick to death of BOTH parties. Neither one has a friggin' clue of how to get america back on it's feet. Will, either they don't know, or, are UNWILLING to take the necessary steps.... given that I have seen young folks on here, and a LARGE selection of adults, that actually DO have a clue, (and some good ideas at that....) I suspect that the latter scenario is what is actually happening. They know, but, won't do it, 'cause that would upset their corporate masters, and they wouldn't get re-elected....... And that all works it's way back around to CAMPAIGN FINANCE. Fix that part of the equation, and ban paid lobbyists, and maybe washington could get back to doing what's best for America, and not what puts the most money in THEIR pockets, RIGHT NOW.<br><br><br>Edit: Side note: Being wealthy in and of itself does not disqualify a candidate in my view, it's HOW they got the money that brings up red flags.<br>

oh come on, even friends fight once in a while......:whistling:

Oddly enough, my name is Brian........ :D I think it would absolutely hilarious to be a fly on the wall when the results were announced..... "No one won the election this cycle, so, they all get to go home.".... I suspect you would be able to hear jaws hitting the floor for miles around. Also, Politicians may Start Out as smart people, most of them are lawyers after all, gotta have some smarts to get thru school.... but, when elected to public office? I believe their IQ drops 50%, and if re-elected, it drops yet another 50...... (points.....) Brian for President as a write in candidate! :D

I'll start from the beginning: Obama has set the unemployment rate is the USA the lowest number it has ever been in history, more people are dyeing from hunger and living on the streets thanks to him. He's removing money form the USDOD and military to fund pointless things like banks and companies who don't even have an effect on America. The military is going broke thanks to him. And how many companies has he helped file bankruptcy? A lot. He continues to raise taxes and spend our tax money on HIS pleasures. Parties, dinners, stuff that HE benefits from and no one else. He raised our debt limit when we should be LOWERING it. He's sold us to China, so we're probably having laws passed that were from the Chinese. He keeps spending money we can't pay off in the first place, continuing our debt crisis. Obama dumps gasoline on the fire that America is already suffering from. McCain would've been so much better as a president, better yet, let's put BUSH in the oval office again, at least he TRIED to fix the country. And let's look at his wife too. Michelle Obama, our first lady, someone who shouldn't have much of an effect on our lives, but better yet, she's been bigger than a- OK, with my mind set straight, I'll just continue to the reasons why she is terrible too. Our first lady is RACIST. Please, look up things like that on google and you'll find 100's of pages why. She doesn't understand why Americans fuss over a "damn flag." Our flag has stood up during the worst of wars, and it's a symbol of our freedom, but she doesn't care. She tried to take the USA flag off of the White House once, and yes, that WOULD be horrible. That flag should ALWAYS be hanging there. She believes America itself to be obese and fat, when only HALF the population is fat. I only weigh 175 lbs or so, but that's mainly because I need to be in shape at all times. Who cares how fat we are? If America wishes to be one the fattest countries on Earth, let it be that way, quit bugging us about it. What the? Really??? Bush and his cronies are the primary reason Obama inherited the mess that was the crash of 2008. Unfunded wars, deregulation of wall street/banks, outsourcing, free trade, tax breaks for moving jobs to developing nations, etc. Bush and the republicans went a long way toward economically destroying this country. The middle class all but disappeared, the 'wealth divide' became ever greater, and has reached record proportions. How you can see him as anything BUT the man that did the most to destroy us economically is beyond me. McCain would have been Bush III. Granted, I don't agree with a lot of things Obama has done....... like, continuation of a majority of Bush's policies, getting us involved in a couple more unfunded wars...... "health care reform", which has nothing at all to do with health care.... We are on a path of destruction, and BOTH parties are trotting down the garden path. What's it gonna take for the country to wake up and smell the coffee? And this election year isn't going to be any different. Seriously, Mitt Romney for president? A man that made his money as a corporate raider?? Who has never wanted for anything in his life? Was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth? (gold is just so passe'......) He doesn't have a clue what life is like for middle class america.... or, at least, what's left of it...... Not that I think Obama is a 'better' choice...... It's really unfortunate that "none of the above" isn't a viable option on the ballot.

Bush started the process, (actually, we could go back to Ronnie....) Obama is just continuing on the path his predecessor set. Both parties are burying us. Neither one gives a rats behind about the american people, all they care about is their campaign contributors, and the big money behind them. Until we get some campaign finance reform, and do something about paid lobbyists, nothing is going to change. Trouble is, the only people that have the power to change it, are the very people that have the least motivation to do so. Basically, we are screwed, no matter who gets into the oval office.

While it's true, there are a selection of nations contributing to the war effort there, it was the US that pressed for the war in the first place. So, for the most part, it IS seen as an "amercian" war....... I personally don't think we should even be there..... but, that was the politicians decision, not the troops. I wholeheartedly support our men in uniform, just not the folks that ordered them in there in the first place.

In case you haven't noticed, the opposing party ALWAYS hates the current officeholder. :D I think it's an unwritten law.

Most any ground attack aircraft used the DU rounds at one point or another....... I haven't really kept up on it, so, what they are using today could be either, or both..... Tungsten is awfully light.... whereas DU is rather dense, and heavy...... No idea which has better armor penetration. Would love the opportunity to test it though. :D

The Iraqis are complaining about the DU rounds lying about. No, they aren't 'dangerously' radioactive, but, given the stink some folks have put up about them, you would think that they glowed in the dark....... A-10's aren't the only aircraft that used/use the DU rounds. They are still in use today. In any event, we are wandering WAY off topic here. :D

All depends on whose definition of 'superfluous injury' you subscribe to. With such a broad term, that should also include things like tracers, hand grenades, land mines, anti-personell mines, and a host of other ordinance that is used on a daily basis by our military. And sure, so maybe they only shoot the multi-purpose ammo at vehicles, if you think there aren't people IN those vehicles at the time, that take damage from whatever penetrates their armor...... you are deluding yourself. The slugs travel approx 30 cm before detonation..... I don't know of many vehicles that have armor that thick...... aside from some that float. And what about depleted uranium? Shouldn't low level radiation ALSO be considered 'superfluous injury'? Of course, those are technically only fired at vehicles as well..... but, I haven't seen any A-10 pilots radioing the folks that they are about to unload on, to abandon their vehicle before they fire........ A lot of the 'agreements', 'treaties' etc, that are put into place by POLITICIANS, aren't really worth the paper they are printed on. It's patently obvious that the terrorists don't abide by ANY conventions. Suicide attacks against civilian targets has got to be covered in there somewhere....... But, its war. Bad things happen in war. Whether there is a treaty that says it shouldn't or not.

Scarily enough, I think you are correct..... I am not sure which one is the 'lesser' evil though.... I don't particularly care for either one.

Even some of the 'legitimate' fund raisers for charity's are scams..... Next time a telemarketer calls you, soliciting money for some charity or other, ask them just how much of each dollar donated the charity actually gets. On some of them, it's less than 10%....... You best course of action would be to donate DIRECTLY to the charities of your choice.

I don't like the use of trigger words are used in politics for two reasons. 1. Often they are trying to hid a lack of knowledge, or not wanting to show the whole picture 2. When enough people catch on to number 1, they will under react when the situation really is dire, or not give something important the attention it needs. Trigger words should alert you and make you look for real information to decide for yourself if this really is important, or if they are just trying to sell you something. Crying wolf? Politicians use trigger words to paint their opponents in the worst possible light. (and thereby, supposedly making them look more 'reasonable'....) It's one of those words that has developed negative connotations, and it seems to be 'in vogue' at the moment. Next month, it will be something else. (or, maybe 'next election'... who knows..... it's a lot like womens skirts, hem lines go up and down, as do the relevance of certain words.) Was crying wolf directed at me or what I was explaining? but yeah I agree with the negative connotations part, I meant to include in my last post that using "trigger words" are not inherently bad things but depend on the context in which they are used. Btw... is there any actual term for what these words are called, I'm not sure if trigger word is actually correct, that is just what the instructor of my public speaking course called them. Sorta, more agreeing with you. Politicians wear a word out, to the point that when it is used in a literal sense, and is actually accurate, folks just ignore it, as they have heard it so many times before.

I don't like the use of trigger words are used in politics for two reasons. 1. Often they are trying to hid a lack of knowledge, or not wanting to show the whole picture 2. When enough people catch on to number 1, they will under react when the situation really is dire, or not give something important the attention it needs. Trigger words should alert you and make you look for real information to decide for yourself if this really is important, or if they are just trying to sell you something. Crying wolf? Politicians use trigger words to paint their opponents in the worst possible light. (and thereby, supposedly making them look more 'reasonable'....) It's one of those words that has developed negative connotations, and it seems to be 'in vogue' at the moment. Next month, it will be something else. (or, maybe 'next election'... who knows..... it's a lot like womens skirts, hem lines go up and down, as do the relevance of certain words.)

Erm, I was agreeing with you...... as in, No One follows the conventions to the letter. :D