DanG

No, if we needed to perfect ICBM technology (like we did in the 60s), we would be there. If Iran built a base on the moon, we'd have men up there in no time flat. - Dan G

We could land a man on the moon in four years if the funds were there. It is not a matter of efficiency or technical ability, there is no national will for it like there was in the 60s. - Dan G

So you're against tax credits for small businesses. Duly noted. Check out Stephen Colbert's comments from Monday night about the Republican's reaction to Obama endorsing things that they themselves have been proposing for years. It's funny because it's true. The desire to see Obama fail at any price, including now opposing things that are part of the Republican platform, is telling. - Dan G

Wow. I have NEVER heard that joke before. Did you make it up yourself? - Dan G

I wouldn't grouse about that at all. It is inequitable. I personally don't think there should be any tax benefit or penalty to being married. I also appreciate that you have a specific complaint about the proposal itself. The author of the article in the OP didn't bother with details like that. - Dan G

Go for it. Who's going to pay? - Dan G

That is not in the House or Senate bills. The Republicans want you to think it is, but it is not. AFAIK, it never was. Neither, believe it or not, were death panels. - Dan G

He's put out his proposal. It is not a story, it is a proposal. There is no way to lie about it. Either it is in the proposal or not. The author of this piece is very careful not to write that Obama's proposal would raise taxes, only that allowing all the tax breaks to expire would raise taxes. Obama's proposal only has some of the tax breaks expiring. The article is being misleading at best. - Dan G

The "article" says, "if the tax cuts are allowed to expire." Obama's plan keeps most of the tax cuts in place, and adds new tax incentives for working families and small businesses. Your article is a hit piece, not journalism. - Dan G

Many of them do think like that. We are trying to keep that idea from taking hold any more than it already has. At most bases in Afghanistan I visited, the US and Afghan flags flew side by side. This is not an accident, nor is it liberal, pussy, PC shit. The Afghans obviously know that Arericans are in their country. The message we try to stay on (and things like these scopes distract from) is, "We are here to help you help yourselves." The messages we desperately want to avoid broadcasting are, "We are here to occupy and force you to live like us," and, "We are here to destroy Islam and replace it with Christianity." That's what the enemy wants the people to think. Little things like these scopes, or soldiers passing out Bibles, or big things like collateral damage to mosques, or mullahs being accidentally lit up like what happened earlier this week, make it really hard to maintain a consistent message. - Dan G

Or people who really want to succeed in Afghanistan and see no reason why we should make it any harder than it already is. But if you prefer to see the world through your own self-righteous, indignant glasses, go ahead. - Dan G

I never said it was a big deal. I don't think anyone thinks that this one thing will, "completely undermine and bring down our campaign plan." But why keep piling molehills on top of one another for no reason at all? Shooting yourself in the foot probably won't kill you. So why do we recommend people not to shoot themselves in the foot? - Dan G

You're reaching. Really far. Flags identify the country, not the religion. The US is not a Christian nation, no matter how badly Ron wants to believe it is. You Texans can make whatever the fuck formations you want. You don't work for the US government when you're doing it. However, if the Golden Knights wanted to start making big formations over Kabul in the shape of Jesus on the cross, I would have a problem with that (although it would be freaking cool). Instead of looking for reasons that the inscriptions should be removed, how about you (or anyone else) provide one good reason why they should have been there in the first place? "Jesus loves the little children," is not a good reason. - Dan G

Um, yeah. And I thought I had already been quite clear about why. - Dan G

I'm not a physicist, just an engineer. I can, however, say with great certainty that if the below is incorrect, I will be informed by the community, but here goes: Inertia is not a quantity used in physics. Mass is what people sometimes mean when they say "inertia". Mass (and inertia) is a body's resistance to acceleration. Classically, unless you're losing mass (by burning fuel, for example) mass is a constant regardless of the reference frame you are using. Momentum, which Ion01 was calling "inertia", depends on the reference frame, but the work needed to effect a change in momentum is the same regardless of reference frame. Your question is hard to answer simply because the terms are not being used properly by people here. Relativistically, it gets considerably more complicated. E=mc^2 means that a body's mass and energy are intertwined, such that at high speeds the masss of a body (its resistance to a change in momentum) goes up. I don't work in relativistic terms at my job, so my memory is a little rusty about this. I hope that made sense. - Dan G

Wow. So in your world it is harder for someone in the backseat to hand the driver a beer (beer's inertia is increasing) than for the driver to hand a beer to the back seat (beer's inertia is decreasing)? In our world (the real world) the work needed to hand a beer back and forth is the same regardless of which way it is being handed. The work required doesn't care if the momentum (not inertia) is increasing or decreasing, it is the change that matters. If I need to change the momentum of a body by one unit, I need to apply one unit of force to do it (for the nerds: for each unit of mass over one unit of time). I need to apply that same unit of force regardless of which way I'm pushing the object. This is really basic stuff. Newton figured this shit out centuries ago. It hasn't changed (except for really high energies, and then Einstein had some improvements). - Dan G

Well, I suppose you're right, although you'd also have to throw out a hunk of sod for the cow to graze on. I just jump with a big steel weathervane. Works just as well. - Dan G

Thank you for regularly confirming my decision to step away from the Christian Church. You're doing a great job of spreading the word. - Dan G

Can you tell which way the wind is blowing, or how strong the wind is blowing, under canopy with your eyes closed? If so, please explain how. - Dan G

Here, let me break it down for both of you. As mnealtx has pointed out, these two questions are not the same: Do you think Jews and gays should shut up? Do you think the government should force Jews and gays to shut up? Now that we've established the difference, what are your respective answers? I answer no to both. - Dan G

Where do you see that? - Dan G

I was Civil Affairs. Believe me, I got to know the people. We are not really disagreeing. I just don't see any positive to having the inscriptions on military equipment, but a lot of potential negatives. It is unnecessary and could be damaging to the mission. Mission first. - Dan G

Yeah, I've been there, too. I didn't work with the ANA, but interacted on a daily basis with Afghans from all walks of life. My job was made harder by people who wanted it to only be "us" vs. "them". Your own experiences show that it is really "us and most of them" vs. "a few of them". Prosthelyzing, in any form, is counter to the mission. The sights work just as well without the inscriptions, so why put them on there? - Dan G

I started jumping while a Reservist. I was a nasty leg, just wanted to skydive. - Dan G

Yeah, but to play devils advocate: When your party wins it is referendum. When your party loses it is because everyone voted for the black guy out of guilt. People need to realize there are more than one reason people vote the way they do. - Dan G