|
Normal pedophiles are creeps that kidnap children and take them to remote places, or relatives that wait until they are alone with children in their own home. DEMOCRAT big-wig pedophiles spend literally millions creating custom vans and flying all over the world while creating elaborate codes (that are already broken and everyone knows) and emailing each other info, have hundreds of empoyees working around the clock to blah dee blah blah. Christ these people have never even been in the same zip code as Occam's razor.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
I love when these lovely, stupid, racist assholes contradict each other in a race to be the shittiest, stupidest, most racist rear end in a top hat. "Democrats want to use Planned Parenthood and prison to kill off blacks!" "No you fool! Democrats want there to be even more blacks to commit all their voter fraud!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Jagged Jim posted:To: marktwain Ok, I'm tired of hearing this poo poo today. How, exactly, do democrats prevent anyone from education? Last I checked it was Republicans screaming about cutting education spending so they could build another tank for the army Also, side note, I'm laughing hysterically at republican responses on youtube to SNL's latest Trump sketch. Listen, crybabies, you won, deal with it. You can't cry anymore, you won. SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:Normal pedophiles are creeps that kidnap children and take them to remote places, or relatives that wait until they are alone with children in their own home. DEMOCRAT big-wig pedophiles spend literally millions creating custom vans and flying all over the world while creating elaborate codes (that are already broken and everyone knows) and emailing each other info, have hundreds of empoyees working around the clock to blah dee blah blah. Christ these people have never even been in the same zip code as Occam's razor. The whole actual-factual UK pedophile politician ring certainly didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
quote:To: Morgana
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
L the gently caress O L Blacks weren't hated, they were just murdered by klan members that got away with it, segregated, fire hosed, beaten, arrested for trivial bullshit...why no, no one hated them then... I mean there's revisionist history ans scar mongering on freep.....and then there's the same times 10 like this post
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Freepers: and mind you he’s a black man
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Ok, I'm tired of hearing this poo poo today. How, exactly, do democrats prevent anyone from education? Last I checked it was Republicans screaming about cutting education spending so they could build another tank for the army That the army doesn't loving want because in the modern age of warfare tanks are specialized tools only needed in rare, specific situations, but good luck telling the GOP's donors that. See also: F-35, LCS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:L the gently caress O L The usual response, when you can get one, is that none of that poo poo happened until those goddamn yankee commies from up north came down and got black people all confused and riled up with nonsense they didn't understand and gosh, local whites just had to do something to get things back under control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Ok, I'm tired of hearing this poo poo today. How, exactly, do democrats prevent anyone from education? Last I checked it was Republicans screaming about cutting education spending so they could build another tank for the army They're big supporters of voucher systems and "school choice." They believe that Democrats are forcing minorities into lovely public schools instead of giving them vouchers to attend superior private schools where they'll get a better education. They believe part of the reason public schools are lovely is because Democrats are supportive of the teacher's union, which protects bad teachers from being fired so the school can hire better teachers. Thus, Democrats are preventing minorities from receiving good education.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:That the army doesn't loving want because in the modern age of warfare tanks are specialized tools only needed in rare, specific situations, but good luck telling the GOP's donors that. So is the hardware being developed independently of them? Or do they not even get to decide what they build?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:They're big supporters of voucher systems and "school choice." They believe that Democrats are forcing minorities into lovely public schools instead of giving them vouchers to attend superior private schools where they'll get a better education. They believe part of the reason public schools are lovely is because Democrats are supportive of the teacher's union, which protects bad teachers from being fired so the school can hire better teachers. Thus, Democrats are preventing minorities from receiving good education. Well that's the line but they actually support that stuff as a back alley way of making segregation legal for publicly funded schools again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Well yeah but just like "I want all Mexicans to leave the country" they can't flat out say their lovely views, they have to hide it behind things like "We need to crack down on illegal immigration."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:So is the hardware being developed independently of them? Or do they not even get to decide what they build? I think it more comes down to jobs. The army has a ridiculous surplus of vehicles that will likely never see any action, much less ever be used even in training exercises, because those factories putting stuff together for those tanks are in someone's district, and they're going to fight to keep that factory alive. The Army doesn't really put in an order for the tanks they need so much as congress just loving blows their load on military hardware that keeps jobs in their districts. You wouldn't want to be up for election after you cancelled the order for another 20 tanks for the Army when the factory that produces the engines, or the armor, or the electronics systems or any number of parts for the machine are in your district. So to keep your bid for re-election viable, you're going to gently caress the military and the taxpayers by ordering a bunch of poo poo the former doesn't need on the latter's dime. Thanks Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower loving called it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Well yeah but just like "I want all Mexicans to leave the country" they can't flat out say their lovely views, they have to hide it behind things like "We need to crack down on illegal immigration." It helps when the opposing party has assholes that support these platforms like school choice (such as Booker and Clinton maybe she's hard to pin down) so there is no meaningful opposition to hammer in their disingenuous arguments. It's hard for them to say "you support vouchers because you want to segregate public schools! Now I personally want it because gently caress unions and I have friends that would benefit financially from them which is a sensible reason for them" without looking like total tools.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Technical Analysis posted:I think it more comes down to jobs. The army has a ridiculous surplus of vehicles that will likely never see any action, much less ever be used even in training exercises, because those factories putting stuff together for those tanks are in someone's district, and they're going to fight to keep that factory alive. Yeah, if you google map out in the desert areas of the US you can find lots with shitloads of Abrams parked on it just sitting in mothball till needed/sold/scrapped
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Yeah, if you google map out in the desert areas of the US you can find lots with shitloads of Abrams parked on it just sitting in mothball till needed/sold/scrapped Exactly how much security do these lots have?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
I imagine they don't store the jet fuel, ammo or auxillary machine guns with the tanks. Wouldn't surprise me if the electronics and other key components are stored somewhere else too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
out of context Freepquote:In the world of websites, modern = crap. Via
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:I imagine they don't store the jet fuel, ammo or auxillary machine guns with the tanks. Wouldn't surprise me if the electronics and other key components are stored somewhere else too. This All the supplies they use and the secret stuff is stored elsewhere. These storage spots are just like fenced in areas where the equipment gets locked down, just like the airforce boneyard. They can either scavenge parts off the tanks there or bring whole fresh tanks out Bonus fact, our tank boneyard is the largest of its kind in the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
It's also a bit hard to sneak away with a tank on a hundreds of miles drive regardless.  Plus a lot of those tanks might go maaybe 300 miles on a full 500+ gallon load of fuel, and that's in the best conditions. So you'd have to haul all that fuel out there, and maybe multiples of that, if you're not going to instead somehow get a hold of a truck that can successfully haul one of the tanks away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Can't you flat out buy surplus tanks withe the weapons systems taken out?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:Can't you flat out buy surplus tanks withe the weapons systems taken out? Yes, though unsurprisingly it's rather expensive and not the easiest thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Seems cheaper to just buy the biggest truck nuts you could find.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's also a bit hard to sneak away with a tank on a hundreds of miles drive regardless. I figured it would be hard to drive off in an Abrams, but is there anything keeping some schmuck from playing around on the equipment?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I figured it would be hard to drive off in an Abrams, but is there anything keeping some schmuck from playing around on the equipment? And do they host birthday parties?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
I think history needs more pictures of dudes pretending giant guns are their dicks so sure they probably allow it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Technical Analysis posted:I think it more comes down to jobs. The army has a ridiculous surplus of vehicles that will likely never see any action, much less ever be used even in training exercises, because those factories putting stuff together for those tanks are in someone's district, and they're going to fight to keep that factory alive. As for the F-35 and LCS, the military procurement industry in the US is beyond hosed up. The military doesn't need them, but they're getting them anyway because at the beginning of the procurement process both projects did specify something the military believed they needed (though the Marine version of the 35 is inexcusable). And there was never the political willpower to stop either project when it became clear what a boondoggle they had become. The US military doesn't need the F-35, or the LCS, or more tanks, or more aircraft carriers, or more stealth bombers. But the military has never persuaded Congress of that fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
^ Well, the idea behind the F-35 is to build a cheaper, more advanced with room for more advancement replacement for the aging craft we use now that's approaching the end of its life span. The problem really came in when the Marines wanted VTOL which just took a big poo poo on the airframe and hosed the plane forever. To add to the problems the air force hates "low and slow" which makes the A-10 their favorite whipping bitch. So rather than figure out a plane design for CAS, they want this pile-o-mess to do that role too. The Navy wants something that can launch and land on a carrier, be packed away in confined spaces and do its job at defense and attack The Marines want a plane that can pound the gently caress out of everything because they're insecure and take of vertically because "Guadalcanal!" The air force wants sleek and fast, gently caress the ground pounders 2 of those 3 may overlap, but all three are pretty much a no go. And that doesn't even touch on the "100 billion lines of code" for this thing to gently caress up with that controls everything from telling the pilot when to pick his nose to firing a damned gun while mixing in this sensor poo poo to "order new parts" so the first time one of these things goes down (who am I kidding, these will never see combat because anyone that even scratches the paint will end their career right there) it'll spam the gently caress out of the pentagon for moar parts! Captain_Maclaine posted:Yes, though unsurprisingly it's rather expensive and not the easiest thing to do. The biggest hurdle to it, if you plan to use them on any roads, is you have to find a way to attach rubber pads to the treads because the metal will tear poo poo up...and it's not like you can just go to the bargain tire bin at a Walmart It'd be easier all around to just get yourself an armored scout car or something. I wouldn't have any issue cruising around in a Greyhound SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:^ Well, the idea behind the F-35 is to build a cheaper, more advanced with room for more advancement replacement for the aging craft we use now that's approaching the end of its life span. The sales pitch to the military for the F-35 was a new version of the F-16: a smaller, cheaper stablemate to the F-15/F-22 versatile for a variety of missions, able to be launched off small airfields, and sold to allies around the world. That is not what the military has gotten, and there was never a point where seriously opposing the F-35 (or the LCS, or more tanks, or more aircraft carriers, or more stealth bombers) wasn't political suicide, for congressmen or career military staff. We as a country are so disconnected from our military and its needs and problems that it's difficult to credit at times. I think that mentality is also why US foreign policy has become so belligerent: we love our troops and love being the number one military power in the world, but we do not give a flying gently caress about what people in the military want because we try very hard to not think of the military as being made of people. Back on topic, just look at Freep's love-hate relationship with the military. Billions for killing Muslims over in the desert somewhere, not one cent for taking care of our soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Soldiers to them are meatbags that earned the privilege of dying in their stead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The sales pitch to the military for the F-35 was a new version of the F-16: a smaller, cheaper stablemate to the F-15/F-22 versatile for a variety of missions, able to be launched off small airfields, and sold to allies around the world. Well, it's not just the military. Everything gets plarized these days. People only vote for one party no matter how bad the candidate. Topics like gun control are hardlined total freedom or total ban. There's no middle ground and it loving sucks till we can kick all the old fucks off to the afterlife so the newer generations have more say, and hopefully are willing to work with others rather than this all or nothing bullshit
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Well, it's not just the military. Everything gets plarized these days. People only vote for one party no matter how bad the candidate. Topics like gun control are hardlined total freedom or total ban. There's no middle ground and it loving sucks till we can kick all the old fucks off to the afterlife so the newer generations have more say, and hopefully are willing to work with others rather than this all or nothing bullshit Sorry the old fuckers are taking us all down with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
This article was posted in the milhist thread recently and is an excellent look at the disconnect between the military and the public these days, among other things: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ Well worth the read!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Back on topic, just look at Freep's love-hate relationship with the military. Billions for killing Muslims over in the desert somewhere, not one cent for taking care of our soldiers. I mean, it's in line with their actual purpose. They're shipped off or used as a bludgeon to advance the interests of the American Capitalism and hegemony. When they are no longer usable, they they are tossed aside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Tiberius Thyben posted:I mean, it's in line with their actual purpose. They're shipped off or used as a bludgeon to advance the interests of the American Capitalism and hegemony. When they are no longer usable, they they are tossed aside. That's kinda the American system in general. As long as you're useful we'll use you. Once you aren't, well, gently caress you, don't care. Unless of course the person chirping the line is the one that isn't useful, then he demands government to support him because his case is special
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:That's kinda the American system in general. As long as you're useful we'll use you. Once you aren't, well, gently caress you, don't care. Unless of course the person chirping the line is the one that isn't useful, then he demands government to support him because his case is special Capitalism.txt right here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
more out of context Freepquote:They are desperate to drink in Russia due to the American media labeling them as hackers. Via
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
...What's wrong with the Literal Combat Ship?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
Neither of the prime contractors put in a corrosion protection system because they thought it was the responsibility of the others. Extend that to every system on the ship including two complete propulsion systems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 22:50
|
|
