Bungee Jumper

Yes, he does. But if he ever shows it to her, his wife'll cut it off...

I believe, going back to the Mercury 7, that once you finish astronaut training (whatever that is nowadays) and enter the flight pool, you're an astronaut. For example, John Glenn was entitled to call himself an astronaut when Adam Shephard went up, I believe.

Newt's always had good ideas and been misunderstood. I remember back when he was Speaker, and suggested that every homeless person should be provided with a free laptop. People got up in arms..."Newt's crazy, he wants to give homeless people free laptops!" To which, he responded "No, I don't actually. I just want to get people thinking about new ways to address the problems in this country." Which is pretty damn smart, really. I still don't like him...but I can respect that kind of thinking, at least. Unlike "I didn't inhale" or "I voted for it before I voted against it" or "It's a international issue so the UN has to deal with it, except that it's a national security issue so the UN doesn't need to be involved..."

Starship Troopers. It was depressing as hell to see what they did to such a great book.

And then there's the politicians that run for office...

I started a loud thread. No one was interested.

Yes.

"You guys"? What "you guys"? The only reason I look like a Republican to you is because you're an idiot. Which is confirmed by your statement to the effect that the government should spend as much as they want and confiscate as much as they need to do it.

I can't believe you people fall for that nonsense...

The voices in my head make more sense than you.

God bless CTM. A sh---slinging simian who changed...well, not a whole lot, really. Nothing, now that I think about it.

How's BF going to cook his retatta now?

Ah, so now we've established that you DO understand that tax cuts CANNOT benefit the poor, because they don't pay taxes. SO WHAT THE !@#$ ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT, MORON???? I'm middle-class. My taxes haven't gone up. Quite the opposite, the past few years. And I'm pretty certain I'm not paying extra so that Warren Buffett gets a break. Hey, here's a novel thought: CUT SPENDING. Or are you now advocating taxing the rich to pay for a $600B defense budget?

.... Dickhead.

So now you're saying that there's no consensus because liberal politicians censor the higher number, and you're right because you haven't been censored. Wait...so now you're saying that environmental factors are caused by genetics? So environment has no effect, because ultimately it's genetic?

You want crazy? Company in WNY, Amherst Systems, did the radar simulations for the B-2 bomber. Real secret stuff. I found out a couple years before the B-2 was even publicly known by bribing a janitor with a pizza to tell me what they did. Generally, America's idea of "security" is anything but. I just pick up lots of stuff. Reading...people I talk to (work with two guys right now that were in Somalia and Bosnia; wife's friend was THE Army guy in charge of mass graves investigation in Iraq, and one of the DOJ attorneys advising the Iraqis at Saddam's trial. Paul, of course, knew his sh--...his family gave me most of his unclassified reference materials). The Cole thing I've seen in a few places; most recently, as I recall, on an episode of Discovery Channel's "Future Weapons" (a "this weapons could have prevented the Cole bombing" thing - I believe they actually say there were armed Marines on the deck, weapons pointed at the gomers, without permission to fire).

We're drawing up plans to attack Liechtenstein and Upper Volta, too. Half the Pentagon exists strictly to draw up plans for anything they can dream up. The other half exists to do PowerPoint presentations.

Marines in Lebanon in the early '80s, when their barracks were bombed, couldn't stop the bomber because not only were the sentries not allowed to shoot, their guns weren't even loaded. Stupid happens. With alarming frequency, actually. And usually repeats. The USS Cole was bombed while sailors looked on mutely, not allowed to engage, for example...

Uhhh...yeah. It's a weakness, I admit...

In other words, there's no agreed-on number, so you'll pick the highest no one's agreed on. In other words, the effect of environment is such that the environment has no effect. Jesus Christ, man. Don't you proof-read?

Maybe not illegals...but armed bands crossing the border, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable if the rules of engagement allow the National Guard to open fire.

It's not necessarily a given. It just has jack sh-- to do with the type of missiles. Iran would have to evidence superior (and heavily redundant) command, control, and intelligence (i.e. both finding US forces, and hiding their own) before their "Oh my God, they go Mach 3!" missiles become any more effective than rocks. And the US military is organized and trained specifically to utterly wreck command and control systems at the outset of a conflict (which is what "Shock and Awe" actually means)...and smart enough to not go anywhere near the Iranian coast with a carrier until Iran's ability to strike warships is severely degraded. Iran would have to launch everything, all at once, without warning, in a single attack on a carrier battle group that was just stupid enough to get within range of everything they had...but I thought the whole point of this stupid discussion was that Iran was going to defend itself against the US reaction against their presumed involvement in an insurgent attack? So now you're postulating that a US attack against Iran won't actually involve attacking Iranian assets that threaten US forces doing the attacking? The entire premise of this thread is ridiculous, anyway. Iran isn't going to engage any US units in a straight-up fight, because then they lose deniability and will get the snot pounded out of them...and it'll completely wreck the strategic position in southern Iraq they've worked to build over the past few years. The US isn't attacking Iran over a single incident in Iraq...otherwise we already would have quite some time ago. We probably won't even bomb them over their nuclear program; if we won't bomb an honest-to-God international pariah like North Korea over an actual test, we're probably not bombing a country who has international backing over the installation of centrifuges.

Are you high? It's entirely possible, even likely, that Iran was behind this specific attack we've been discussing, because they are involved in the insurgency, and it is folly to believe that they are not involved in the insurgency as any insurgent campaign requires support from outside the theater of operations. That is what I've been saying. That is all I've said. I've said nothing otherwise. I haven't said Iran controls the insurgency, I haven't said Iran is responsible for every insurgent attack. Again, it's just you're complete lack of reading comprehension.

12 pounds of cat on three legs is no problem. 1200 pounds of horse on three legs is a big problem. You split that much weight between three hooves, the animal starts shedding hooves (i.e. laminitis). Then you basically have a no-legged horse (no-footed, really...same thing, horse is down, can't move). Then the horse dies. Painfully; laminitis is no treat. It's far more humane, given the odds of survival (practically zero), to kill the horse. Why they didn't try a prosthetic? 1) Prosthetic horse legs must be experimental as hell; none of the "horsey" people I know have ever heard of them. 2) Barbaro, at this point, had other problems: had already had one bout of laminitis, other hind leg was going bad. Even with a prosthesis, Barbaro was in a bad way.

Sounds like a night out with VABills. Well, that's what I heard, anyway...