ViperPilot

Ok, but since when do you need NAV equipment to know where you can't fly b/c of a TFR? You read the TFR, find out where it includes, and then don't fly there. You don't need to use a VOR/DME, GPS, TACAN, whiz wheel, holding your wet finger in the air, or anything else to figure it out.

Maybe I'm just out of it today (it is Sun), but prescribing a XX nm radius in which aircraft can't fly is not only the description of what a TFR is, but is also not hard to follow. From that statement it seems to me that Kallend is complaining that some dude's 430 isn't going to show the TFR boundary. Are you kidding? Yeah, that'd be cool if stuff worked like that, but guess it's just back to the good ol' fashion days of not relying on a screen with a pink line to tell you where you can and can't fly. Kallend, if I'm confusing something, let me know, that's just what I'm getting from this.

I like how you responded to me w/ that even though all I said was a draft is a bad idea. If it was in sheer laziness since my name was at the top of the page, then that's cool. But, just for fun... Yeah, some idiots are running around torturing people...say it ain't so! These cases are limited and are nothing close to the numbers of Saddam. The torture/abuse is as bad as what was seen in Saddam's era, but not even close to the volume of what was done. It's as easy as 2 scenarios: 1. People tortured, used in medical experiments and just plain executed on a daily basis...caveat: This is all in massive numbers. Your daughter/wife will most likely be raped, in fact, it's pretty much a given. You're so poor you can barely feed your family, lucky for you Saddam is taking all the aid money and using it himself. An education system is almost non-existent, power and clean water...what? A country ruled by the deathgrip of a mad man. 2. FREEDOM! Massive progress in education, clean water, good sewage system and a growing electricity system. Jobs are up greatly, you're guaranteed to have one if you're not picky. You have a democracy which is working hard to turn your state into one of freedom and peace, not one of a perpetual dictatorship. Yes, there is violence, destruction and sadness. But, if freedom and a better life isn't worth fighting for and dying for, then what is? Well there ya go, two choices. Neither is perfect. One is easy to pick, but harder to do. One is hard to pick, but easy to do. It's too bad so many in this world today are always looking for the easy way and find nothing worth fighting for. Below is the single quote that best describes a growing number of people in this world today...sad. "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

How can it not be complied with? I read the TFRs and they didn't seem uncompliable. Can you paste in the parts you are referring to and give an explanation?

Well if you're so against calling a Christmas Tree what it is, then call it a Sun God Tree or whatever the hell you want to, just don't make an entire city do it to make you happy. I'm willing to bet 95% of people who celebrate Christmas see it as a holiday season to see familiy and friends, relax, go on vacation, give presents, etc. I'd bet only 5% see it as a massive religious holiday with overlording religious tones and who feel all they should do is pray or whatever. I'm a religious person, and yeah I realize that it's Jesus' birthday (or so they say), but nonetheless, I don't view Christmas as some massive religious holiday, I see it as what I listed above. I bet most people see it that way. It's complete BS to say Christmas is all religious...it only is if you're a jackass and make it religious. No one cares what some sun worshipper said thousands of years ago...that day is over, this one is now. I don't give a shit what some minority crowd of sun worshippers think. They can call it a Holiday Tree or whatever, but the public should sure as hell not bend to political correctness and call it something else just for a bunch of whining idiots.

Highly doubt it...at least your 5 year assessment. The Chinese govt has very little support from its people, so the whole "billion man army" coming to enforce China's will is ludicrous at best. At this point, China does not have the technological capability to even come close to taking over the world. Thirdly, the Chinese govt is so obsessed with the country's future (and its survival) that they will think too much for their own good, leading to second guessing, and change of plans/direction (has happened consistently for many years). All of this will keep them in possibly a regional hegemon state, but certainly not a single hegemon in the system (at least for any time in the foreseeable future).

Lets all rub one out for political correctness! Yay!!!!!

Never heard of coraframs, eh? Polished shoes...what a crock of retarded shit.

Maybe they stopped using TVs and radios as training aids. Guess you forget how to run fast w/ an object after you've been out of the loop for so long.

Depends on what level you're looking at. The reasons are completely different for a politician than a soldier. And to the money argument...yeah, a few old guys make a nice buck, but to say the US as a state makes a ton off war...get off the crack pipe. It costs a fuckload to run a war, as we all know. The US isn't making that money back and then some, no matter how many damn rifles Colt puts out or how many jets Lockheed puts in the air. We're not making enough billions to match the billions we've spent. That's just what war is, and I don't think that's a solid reason to not go to war, just pointing out the economical facts.

Come on guys, it's the govt. It's all complete Bullshit and the truth is somewhere in between, never to be found!

Sure, why not have more stoner kids who will be lazier than they were before, who won't get jobs they could have gotten otherwise, who very well may flush a future down the toilet they could have had? It makes total sense to make pot more easily available to kids! Why not!?

That's what happens when the President comes to town. It's a priviledge to fly, not a right.

In case you didn't catch it John, I was being incredibly sarcastic. Cops running around w/o the proper means to defend themselves and stop criminals is just lunacy. P.S. I own several guns and couldn't live w/o them!

Three pages and no one has said it yet, so I will...freedom.

Yeah, I wasn't sure, so thought I'd be cool and state my superior knowledge on our system of law

Apparently avoiding the bad guys and just running from the problem altogether is the European way to do things.

Do you really want a bunch of idiots who probably can't shoot worth shit watching your six? One of my buddies who just got out of the Marines said one of the biggest reasons he got out is because he couldn't stand going down an alley with 4 guys he didn't really trust to do their job well/protect him. I don't blame him for it. A draft is a bad idea...just means more people who don't want to be there, but on top of that, suck really bad.

It's only a city law, and state law supercedes city law. Thus, it's merely setting a precendence and really does nothing at all for the time being. Until the state of CO legalizes pot, the city law has no weight.

Well, the contractors have reason for what they're doing, some jackass standing in the road (i.e. you) has no reason to do that.

But apprently 80% of cops don't want guns. Maybe they like the odds against them.

I like the choice of: "It doesn't matter what the reasons are for going in, we're there now, so lets stop arguing about it, finish what we started, and then get out." It's that simple.

Well that's the info I was looking for. If 80% feel they don't need them, then fine, it's their decision. I realize violent crime is lower in Britain, I personally would just rather have a gun just in case, but if they don't want...well different strokes for different folks I suppose.

In the case of a sudden launch on the US and thus an order for a counter-launch, Congress would be bypassed. So I don't think Congress has too much relevance here. Even I may have mistakenly lead you or others to believe Congress had a heavy role in the process. We can only train and begin to fight based on previous experiences. When something new happens, we have to adapt, learn and come up with new tactics. The next war won't be the same, they never are. No, I'm saying we wouldn't launch nukes on a state with tenuous ties to terrorism. Now, if a state itself launched a bio attack on the US, then yes, we may launch nukes, but we wouldn't launch because we thought the terrorists who did this were training in the hills of Afghanistan or something like that. We would only possibly launch if the STATE of Afghanistan (for example) was the actor and perp of the attack. In a very basic way you could look at it like that. But the real reason is not just because we're lazy. There was the major reason of sparing American's lives, that's why we did it. It had nothing to do with eaze, it had to do with stopping an already too-high of casualty war. Nope, you didn't read my post. You were naive to think the launching of nukes is a simple 3 step process that happens at the snap of the President's fingers. It is not naive to say nukes could be used against a potential threat. Hasty responses lead to completely incorrect statements. I rest my case.

I didn't say they were idiots in every facet. Of course it was great that they dislodged the govt and installed a democracy. But what exactly was their reason for giving up nuclear technology? Seems idiotic to just give it up. What reasons were behind the decision?