Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, T___A said:

I''m a Trump supporter and I live in a right wing state, particularly in a district which Trump won 57-36. So I feel I also buck the trend.

 

What?  My off the cuff observation that was intended to be humorous doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny?  Yeah, ok, I will admit that.  And to be honest, while I live in a very conservative county, the actual city of Grand Rapids is not nearly as conservative as it used to be.  We are the liberal hole of a conservative donut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump needs permission and Obama didn't? Not that I support this, though as long as it's missile strikes and no troops or aircraft used, it's not the end of the world, I think the NBC attack was BS done by the rebels, but that's just me. Trump being goaded by the media into attacking Syria is not a good thing in my book. Let that shithole country be the Russians problem. I say crank up US oil production even more so we can tell the Saudis to fuck off too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Can the president do this without an act of congress?  I know, dumb question.  

 

The precedent with the War Powers Act so far is that the POTUS can authorize short military engagements without Congressional approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Trump needs permission and Obama didn't? Not that I support this, though as long as it's missile strikes and no troops or aircraft used, it's not the end of the world, I think the NBC attack was BS done by the rebels, but that's just me. Trump being goaded by the media into attacking Syria is not a good thing in my book. Let that shithole country be the Russians problem. I say crank up US oil production even more so we can tell the Saudis to fuck off too. 

 

No, not a fan of any president, regardless of party, being able to conduct acts of war without congressional approval.  I think the US has become far too comfortable with the idea that the president can just drop bombs on anyone they want to.  I remember when Bill Clinton launched cruise missiles at Sudan in what was obviously a pathetic attempt to deflect from his domestic problems. 

 

Anyhow, the fact that the British and French were onboard with this action makes me even more suspicious.  When have they ever had altruistic motivations in the middle east?  (remembers the Suez war of 1956)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Donward said:

When was the last time the British AND the French were with us on one of these ventures?

 

Gulf War in 1991?

 

Pretty much.  In 1991 the French brought AMX-30s to a tank fight while the US and UK brought M1A1Abrams and Challengers.  We said to the French, thanks, but we and the Brits got this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Donward said:

When was the last time the British AND the French were with us on one of these ventures?

 

Gulf War in 1991?

Libya 7 years ago was mainly French & British strikes at first 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

So, uh, we are attacking Syria.  Honestly, I don't even know what the heck to think about this.  Can the president do this without an act of congress?  I know, dumb question.  

 

You forget about Obama's career as a missileer so soon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

Libya 7 years ago was mainly French & British strikes at first 

I guess I mis-remembered the Libya fiasco that the US was officially "hands off" other than providing non-military aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Donward said:

When was the last time the British AND the French were with us on one of these ventures?

 

Gulf War in 1991?

 

It was 2003 FFS (assuming we aren't counting Libya of course).....The last time a load of chemical weapon related bullshit triggered a war and a never-ending sequence of catastrophes in the Middle East, this is just another instalment.

 

History is going to look back on 'The West' in much the way we currently do at Nazis, Stalin or the Khmer Rouge.....We are on the wrong side of history and we all know it.

 

PS - You best be praying ginger-small-paws didn't kill any Russians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

It was 2003 FFS (assuming we aren't counting Libya of course).....The last time a load of chemical weapon related bullshit triggered a war and a never-ending sequence of catastrophes in the Middle East, this is just another instalment.

 

History is going to look back on 'The West' in much the way we currently do at Nazis, Stalin or the Khmer Rouge.....We are on the wrong side of history and we all know it.

 

PS - You best be praying ginger-small-paws didn't kill any Russians.

 

The cheese-eating surrender monkeys weren't with us in Iraqi Freedom so far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Donward said:

 

The cheese-eating surrender monkeys weren't with us in Iraqi Freedom so far as I know.

Exactly.  Hence all that silliness where congress renamed french fries as "Freedom Fries" and refused to step into any house that featured French doors.  Ok, I made that last thing up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Donward said:

 

The cheese-eating surrender monkeys weren't with us in Iraqi Freedom so far as I know.

 

I don't give a flying **** what the French do.  TBH I missed the emphasis on the 'AND'.....It was late, I was tired and a wee bit stressed too (my sister has taken my mother to Cyprus,  which is where our criminal in chief decided to launch her war crimes from).

 

Once again we've been dragged into one of your bullshit wars for profit.....****ing Tories!  Never met a war they didn't like.  Actually, come to think of it, I suspect very little dragging was required, we may have even been the instigators based on what I'm reading elsewhere.

 

PS - 'Iraqi Freedom' my arse.....Call it what it was, the illegal invasion of Iraq.  A war crime per the Rome Statute of the ICC (& not being signatories, doesn't mean you aren't culpable):

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_aggression

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

So, uh, we are attacking Syria.  Honestly, I don't even know what the heck to think about this.  Can the president do this without an act of congress?  I know, dumb question.  

I mean since this got skipped I'll toss it in, just for clarification:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution I think wikiped is reasonable for this though I'd be happy to find another.

 

We can attack without declaring war for 60 days. Not that this is followed for dicks though, since it's hard to determine where an individual conflict starts and ends. This act, along with a lot of what we've done in Syria is a potential violation AFAIK (I'm not sure if there as actually been a Authorization for Use of Military Force). With that said, yes, the president can do this if the previous attacks were not considered part of the same military action (?). Nobody appears to be stepping up to the plate calling this out either, since it seems to be acceptable to Washington as a whole. Also the law in and of itself is controversial, as described on the page.

 

But yeah, I think this situation is pretty bloody lame as we still have absolutely no confirmation of chemical weapon attacks that is reliable. Furthermore, perpetrators of previous chemical weapon attacks are still disputed, to the point where I'm not only unsure, but personally do not believe that Syria has gassed its people at all during this conflict. Not only are UN reports unable to confirm whether or not the government was actually involved in chemical weapon use, it doesn't make any sense for them to do it in the first place. Why the hell would you jeopardize your success in the region with something so pathetic, and with the US stating it wants to pull out. Even if it had happened earlier on in the conflict, this instance looks to me like a false flag (though I'm definitely not an expert in this situation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia Today is pushing a claim from a Swiss lab that the nerve agent used on that former Russian spy in Britain is actually a US/UK developed compound

 

Of course, it's Russia Today so...where would you like me to place the jar of salt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Legiondude said:

Russia Today is pushing a claim from a Swiss lab that the nerve agent used on that former Russian spy in Britain is actually a US/UK developed compound

 

Of course, it's Russia Today so...where would you like me to place the jar of salt?

 

Still wouldn't shock me in the slightest. At minimum public explanation of the event has been so opaque that it's hard to look at the West favorably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the Russians are trying to get an answer as to why the Swiss data wasn't included in the findings presented to the UN/OPCW, they are being stonewalled.....The whole story is a crock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Legiondude said:

Russia Today is pushing a claim from a Swiss lab that the nerve agent used on that former Russian spy in Britain is actually a US/UK developed compound

 

Of course, it's Russia Today so...where would you like me to place the jar of salt?

 

Similar linguistic trickery to what we saw with the British reports on that ex-spy getting offed.

 

If the recipe for the chemical weapon is known to other labs, the location of the lab where it was first synthesized is not helpful information.  Anyone could be making it at that point, and a molecule is a molecule.

 

Ferchristsake people, it's mass spectroscopy not magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Apparently the Russians are trying to get an answer as to why the Swiss data wasn't included in the findings presented to the UN/OPCW, they are being stonewalled.....The whole story is a crock.

Only heard that on RT so far. But it's just 1 laboratory. How many other laboratories were involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By Xoon
      Colonization Of The Solar System

       
      This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. 
      Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering,  energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. 
       
       
       
       
      First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars:
      Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. 
       
      How does he plan to do this?
      By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building  basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. 
       
      This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. 
       
       
       

       
       
      Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason.
      In my opinion,  the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system.  Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology!  If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. 
       
      Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future.  Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from  cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. 
       
       
      The plan:
      If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships,  mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony.  The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. 
       
      I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so.
       
       
      Mining:
      I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components:

      In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil.
      How do we refine them? By doing this.
       
      Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable.  Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. 
       More on aluminum rocket fuel here:
      https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/88130-aluminum-as-rocket-fuel/&
      http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#umlunar
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/15/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-1/
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/21/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-2/
       
      Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor.  
       
       
      Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
      https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion
      https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/HEP_Lunar.html
       
      NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon:
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
       
      Map over the south pole:
      http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan
       
       
      Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization. 
       
       
    • By Khand-e
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35333647
       
      Like I said a couple days ago actually, I said I thought it was very likely that Ma Ying-Jeou would lose the next election as he and his administration are very unpopular, and I guess it turned out to be true, also, aside from being the first female president, She's also the second candidate to win under the Democratic Progressive Party as opposed to the more traditonal Kuomintang which has held it for 5 (arguably 6) terms. and her party has also won a majority in the legislative Yuan, which is actually a pretty significant swing.
    • By Jeeps_Guns_Tanks
      I thought it was disgraceful we had a thread on Russian race cars, and other cars, but not one on American muscle cars and race cars, IE the best cars. 
       
      Over the weekend I'll put a little write up on the GTO and why it kicked off the musclecar, and why the Mustang was an overrated econo box for girls until the 67 model, more akin to a nova then a truly great car like a Pontiac GTO. 
       
      UPDATE:
      My thoughts on why the muscle car era was teh awesome.
       
      The reason 64 to 73 was one of the most interesting era for American cars, is they went a little nuts on how much power they started putting into cars, and all the GM brands for the most part still had their own engine types.
       
      The birth of the muscle car era started in 1964 when John Delorean, Jim Wangers and Pete Estes snuck the GTO option on the 64 mid-size Pontiac Tempest/Lemans platform that was based on GM A-Body platform. There were a few reasons it had to be snuck in, all mainly the fault of GM head executives being stodge old fogies. They had come up with two policies that caused boring cars. The first was their decision to pull out of any GM sponsored racing and the ban on developing performance parts. They also had a ban on putting motors bigger than 330 cubic inches in mid-size cars.
      The sad thing is GM had a thriving race scene and a set of dealers and race teams using their products. Pontiac and Chevrolet in particular had really bumped up their market share through their winning race teams. They were doing crazy stuff like Swiss cheesing frames, producing aluminum front ends (hoods, fenders, bumpers), and producing multi carb manifolds and there’s more I’m sure I’m forgetting. Then BAM, in the span of weeks GM killed it all off in 63.
        
      The heart of GTO option on the Lemans was the 389 cubic inch V8 used in Pontiac full size cars. The V8 was rated a 325 horsepower. The biggest V8 the car came with normally was the 326. The GTO option also included the choice of a close ratio four speed Muncie transmission, and heavy duty suspension and brakes. It could also include Pontiacs Safe-T-track limited slip differential with gear ratio choices of 3.23, 3.55, 3.90, 4.10, and if I recall right, 4.56.  The name was strait up ripped off from Ferrari, by Delorean. You could also order the package with triple carburetors, also known as tri-power, and it upped the engines horsepower to 335.
       
       
      GM and Pontiac found out about it, but Wangers had gone out and showed the car to some big dealers in the Detroit area and they already had big orders so GM corporate, and Pontiac let it be produced, the general manager told Delorean he would have the last laugh because there was no way they could even sell the 5000 that had been authorized, and Pontiac would have to eat the loss on inventory they couldn't sell, and it would be his ass. It sold more than 32,000 units, as a really un advertised option, so Delorean and Estes won the day, and the ban on big engines in mid size cars was lifted, and the GTO became its own model, still based on the Lemans/tempest platform,  but with no small engine choices.
       
      The other GM brands caught up with their own special models in 1965, Chevrolet with the SS 396 Chevelle, Oldsmobile with the 442, and Buick with the GS. GM still put a size restriction on motors and their A-Body mid-size models, but it was now 400 cubic inches, and all the brands had motors that could be grown well past this and already had been and were used in the full-size car lines.  Even this restriction would be pulled in 1970 because other major brands were stuffing huge motors in mid and even the newer smaller cars and GM was losing out.
       
      Ford and Chrysler and even AMC didn't just sit back and watch GM reap the reward, Ford had come out with their ‘Pony’ car the Mustang, in 1964, and it was also a huge success, but it was no performance car, even with the top of the line V8 option, a GTO would eat it alive, handing and acceleration wise.  Ford also had mid-size cars with large V8 options, but none that had been packaged like the GTO and they were light on good large V8s in the early 60s, plus their mid-size cars were ugly as hell.  The Mustang would grow into its own later in the 60s, in particular, when Carol Shelby started playing with them. They never had a great mid-size muscle car that wasn't ugly though.
       
      Chrysler had cars that could be considered muscle cars, but before 68 they were all so ugly, no one but weirdos drove them. They did have some very powerful engine combos, and they really hit the scene hard with the introduction of the cheap as hell but big engine powered Plymouth Road-Runner in 1968, you could buy a very fast Road-Runner for a lot less than you could even a base model GTO.  For a classier Chrysler they had their Plymouth GTX line, and Dodge had their beautiful Charger. The Cuda got an update in 1970, so it wasn’t really really ugly anymore, and the same platform was used to give Dodge the Challenger.  These cars fit more into the pony car scheme though. The main point is Chrysler produced ugly cars until 1968.
       
      GM would jump into the pony car scene in 1967 with the introduction of the first gen F-body. Chevrolet got the Camaro, and Pontiac got the Firebird. These cars were introduced with engine options up to 400 cubic inches, though, when they got a 396, or 400, they were slightly detuned so the mid-size cars still had an ‘advantage’, there was just a little tab that restricted the secondaries on the quadrajet carb.
       
      The whole thing came crashing down and by 1973, the muscle car was all but dead, and the US car industry was in a slump it would not recover from until the late 80s, also when the muscle car returned in a weird way with the Buick Gran National. While it lasted the muscle-car era produced some iconic cars, and some very rare but interesting ones. Most of them looked pretty damn cool though, and by now, they are very rare to see as daily driven cars. They exist; I pass a 68 SS Camaro all the time. Now even a base model muscle car or pony car that's rusted all to hell can be more then 8 to 10 grand, and you will spend triple that making it into a nice car.
       
      1970 was probably the peak year, and some very powerful cars came out that year and that year only. Chevrolet offered the SS Chevelle with the LS6 454, pumping out 450 HP. Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac all had very high horsepower 455 cubic inch V8s in the GSX, 442, and GTO models. Government safety restrictions, smog restrictions that required a lot of crap to be added to the engines, and high insurance prices all worked to kill these cars, and the final straw was the gas crisis.  The US Auto industry was a barren waste land unless you liked trucks, until about 1986.
       
      The cars never lost popularity though, but their worth has fluctuated a lot. You could buy just about anything in the late 70s and early 80s, and you could gate rare stuff a low prices, but by the late 80s the collectors had started getting into muscle cars and the prices went crazy. No, unless you want to spend a lot of money, you’re not going to be driving around a classic car from that era. On the upside, the aftermarket parts scene has gotten so extensive, you can build a 1968 Camaro, or 1970 Chevelle almost from scratch, since the body shell and just about all the body panels are being produced. You’re looking at about 14 grand just for the body shell of a 1970 Chevelle, from there you looking at a huge chunk of change to build it all the way, but it could be done. I suspect they are used to put a very rare, but totaled cars back into shape.
       
      It’s nice to be helping with the restoration of one of these cars, without being tied to the cost. I can have fun taking it apart, and putting it back together without worrying about how I was going to fund it. I also have more tools for working on cars than my father in law, and know more about GM cars, so I’m appreciated, and that’s nice. I just with the owner was willing to upgrade the thing a little, you can really go a long way to making an old muscle car handle and stop well, and be more reliable and safe with upgrades not much more than rebuilding everything dead stock, and putting upgraded suspension on a otherwise numbers matching car really doesn't hurt the value, especially if you put all the stock shit in boxes and save it. I’m not paying for it though so it is of course his call, and putting it back together stock is easier in most cases. I really wish it was a 68 GTO because, man I still know those cars, and every time we run into some stupid Chevy thing, I’m like, man, Pontiacs are so  much better, and I get dirty looks.  BUT THEY ARE!!!
       
      Anyway, I said I would write something up, and there it is. 
       
       
       
      Hopefully we have a few guys in here who dig on American Iron and will post about the cars they loved, and yes, I mean in that way,

×