What do you think of our current President?

FLYBOYJ · 08-16-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

It reminds me of another place.. back in the day... where if you said anything even remotely complimentary about ANY American aircraft... you had guys coming out of the woodwork telling you how wrong you were and not only that who the h@ll are you to think the P-47 was anything but a slow lumbering mule?

Hmmmmm, what forum was that on? -

Bearcat · 08-16-2008, 07:59 PM

@ UBI... the forum for IL2 Sturmovik.. I still go there... I moderate there.. but this was before I became a moderator there.. and it was wild....

I made a post one day saying that the Jug was not a bad dogfighter... and it wasn't.. it wasn't a T&B fighter.. but in the B&Z it was hard to beat and those 8 50s would shred most of what they hit.. not to mention it could take a helluva beating.... and these guys went NUTS...

It was hilarious... LMAO... guys would say things like... Was the Mustang the best piston engined fighter in WWII? ... and the threads would go on for pages and pages... with all kinds of charts and graphs.. usually of either 109s or 190s... LOL. but it was a funny sight to behold.

FLYBOYJ · 08-16-2008, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

@ UBI... the forum for IL2 Sturmovik.. I still go there... I moderate there.. but this was before I became a moderator there.. and it was wild....

Well is ain't happening here - if someone makes a statement like that the folks here would expect them to back it up with some cold facts, and many of us aren't gamers (not that there's anything wrong with that), we have a lot of real world experience with some of these machines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I made a post one day saying that the Jug was not a bad dogfighter... and it wasn't.. it wasn't a T&B fighter.. but in the B&Z it was hard to beat and those 8 50s would shred most of what they hit.. not to mention it could take a helluva beating.... and these guys went NUTS...

It was hilarious... LMAO... guys would say things like... Was the Mustang the best piston engined fighter in WWII? ... and the threads would go on for pages and pages... with all kinds of charts and graphs.. usually of either 109s or 190s... LOL. but it was a funny sight to behold.

Well again, here we have a lot of our membership that would come up with cold facts, and yes you'll see the charts but at the same time you'll see combat reports ans even interviews verifying the position one may take - in essence you're seeing the same on this thread.

Bearcat · 08-16-2008, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Well is ain't happening here - if someone makes a statement like that the folks here would expect them to back it up with some cold facts, and many of us aren't gamers (not that there's anything wrong with that), we have a lot of real world experience with some of these machines.
Well again, here we have a lot of our membership that would come up with cold facts, and yes you'll see the charts but at the same time you'll see combat reports ans even interviews verifying the position one may take - in essence you're seeing the same on this thread.

Rgr... I'm not much of a gamer either... I just do flight sims... (Thats a semantics thing we simmers have... ) at the time I just thought it was so ridiculous... because it was so obvious... the 56th alone was almost a one squadron testimony to the worthiness of the P-47 as a combat aircraft...

FLYBOYJ · 08-16-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Rgr... I'm not much of a gamer either... I just do flight sims... (Thats a semantics thing we simmers have... ) at the time I just thought it was so ridiculous... because it was so obvious... the 56th alone was almost a one squadron testimony to the worthiness of the P-47 as a combat aircraft...

Agree...

Njaco · 08-16-2008, 11:04 PM

Quote:

(oh... did I say bribery? I meant lobbying.... ) and corruption that has been rampant in his administration that allows the $300 toilet seat fiasco of the 70s & 80s look like a minor rafffle rip off. The way that Haliburton & some of it's subsidiaries are so blatantly allowed to just gouge the taxpayers.. while so many are loosing their homes , their jobs etc...... and lets not talk about the price gouging oil companies... or the insurance companies... or the drug companies... who have congress all bought & paid for. This nation has become like that city mentioned in Isaiah chapter one...

Bearcat, that sounds like any of the regimes we've had in Washington for the past 50 years. What is so different? The lobbying of GWB? The payoffs? The friends in high places? I can't name one president, either Repub or Dimocrat that hasn't played that DC game. So to blame GWB for getting stuck in it just means there isn't a competent grasp of how the game is played on the Beltway.

Don't get me wrong, I hate how that works, but I can't stand when that is brought up as a failure about GWB when its common practice.

And that part of your post that I put in bold - Approval ratings for GWB is 33% - for Nancy' Army = 14%. Where is the hue and cry and outrage?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-17-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Rgr... I'm not much of a gamer either... I just do flight sims... (Thats a semantics thing we simmers have... ) at the time I just thought it was so ridiculous... because it was so obvious... the 56th alone was almost a one squadron testimony to the worthiness of the P-47 as a combat aircraft...

And flight simmers who think they are "flying" is pretty rediculous as well, it is still a game. That is a topic for another discussion though.

Bearcat · 08-17-2008, 02:18 PM

Well that is true, at the end of the day it is just a PC game, for myself I make the distinction (I can't speak for any other simmers out there..) only because:

A)Any good flight sim has a level of intricacy that goes beyond most games unless you are just doing the arcade style spray & pray thing... There are some real world facets to any good flight sim that IMO make it substantially different from the average game.. some of the highly detailed FPS that are out now included.

and

B)Thats all I do as far as PC gaming goes... Aside from the sports things I do with my son on the X-Box I really am not much of a "gamer" so for me, I just consider myself more of a flight simmer than just a gamer. I do think there is a difference, thats one reason why there are a lot of simmers who are also gamers.. but not a lot of gamers who have the patience to become good simmers.

Of course it is a game... and the similarities between real world flight and virtual flight, especially combat, are superficial at best. No seat of the pants feel... and of course.. in real life there is no refly.... but I wouldn't call it ridiculous unless a person actually believes that because they fly a high powered aircraft on their PC then they can actually do it in real life.... and I don't know any simmers who are that naive or take the efforts of the men who actually flew the planes in question that much for granted.

I also think that simming goes beyond the game. You kinda want to learn more about the history, the aircraft and the men who flew them... simply because there is a historical context to the hobby. Again.... at least for me.. but as you said.. that is another thread.. another place.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-17-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

but I wouldn't call it ridiculous unless a person actually believes that because they fly a high powered aircraft on their PC then they can actually do it in real life.... and I don't know any simmers who are that naive or take the efforts of the men who actually flew the planes in question that much for granted.

Read the first and last quote under my signature pic. We get them all the time here...

Njaco · 08-17-2008, 04:40 PM

and those are REAL quotes!

toiditm · 08-18-2008, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

And again, name them.

You are demanding specific information from me as if I am in a better position to know than you. The fact is, if you follow the money trail you will find them.

One independent consul investigation could subpoena the investment records of every commissioned officer of state and federal government, from State House to White House, from the past 30 years pretty easily, given the authority. Even if they didn't want to release their personal records, the amounts of money involved would require the assistance of accountants, auditors and lawyers anyway. Give the small fries immunity and you'll get a Whopper to go. Granted it would be a costly investigation and I have limited optimism for our justice system's ability to convict - but it would provide the information the public needs to make informed decisions going forward. I would say that these documents should be in the public record anyway, because public officials are managing the largest GDP in the world and insiders at publicly traded companies are already required to make public disclosures of their investment activities.

Armor and infantry units are not already equipped with methanol and solar-powered vehicles. Soldiers are not clearing debris from war zones they occupy to supply themselves with the energy to purify water and cook field rations. This is not a soldier-as-janitor future, it is a future where what we consider waste is more valuable than all the treasure of the enemy. Ford and Carter both supported energy legislation that promoted renewables because the US was already dealing with an oil crisis in the 1970s. The Congress and presidents of the 1980s worked together to defang or defund all of these programs, while still ballooning the federal deficit by billions.

They have been trading uncertain visions of the future for the sure-thing capital returns of proven technology. Why land men on the moon when we can just launch twice as many satellites as the enemy? Why build a missile defense shield when we can just build thousands more missiles than the enemy? Why reduce our military's dependence on oil when we can just use our military to double the oil reserves directly under our control?

FLYBOYJ · 08-18-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toiditm

You are demanding specific information from me as if I am in a better position to know than you. The fact is, if you follow the money trail you will find them.

One independent consul investigation could subpoena the investment records of every commissioned officer of state and federal government, from State House to White House, from the past 30 years pretty easily, given the authority. Even if they didn't want to release their personal records, the amounts of money involved would require the assistance of accountants, auditors and lawyers anyway. Give the small fries immunity and you'll get a Whopper to go. Granted it would be a costly investigation and I have limited optimism for our justice system's ability to convict - but it would provide the information the public needs to make informed decisions going forward. I would say that these documents should be in the public record anyway, because public officials are managing the largest GDP in the world and insiders at publicly traded companies are already required to make public disclosures of their investment activities.

Armor and infantry units are not already equipped with methanol and solar-powered vehicles. Soldiers are not clearing debris from war zones they occupy to supply themselves with the energy to purify water and cook field rations. This is not a soldier-as-janitor future, it is a future where what we consider waste is more valuable than all the treasure of the enemy. Ford and Carter both supported energy legislation that promoted renewables because the US was already dealing with an oil crisis in the 1970s. The Congress and presidents of the 1980s worked together to defang or defund all of these programs, while still ballooning the federal deficit by billions.

They have been trading uncertain visions of the future for the sure-thing capital returns of proven technology. Why land men on the moon when we can just launch twice as many satellites as the enemy? Why build a missile defense shield when we can just build thousands more missiles than the enemy? Why reduce our military's dependence on oil when we can just use our military to double the oil reserves directly under our control?

OK - you're rambling - so with that said let me tell you that there is NO MIC - Period!!!! I've been in the aviation industry for over 30 years, at least 25 of those years were around government contracts and although the Defense Logistics System by far isn't perfect, there is little if no influence by contractors with regards to contract awards and policy, just ask Duke Cunningham – oh you may get some folks who try to manipulate and beat the system but eventually it will catch up with them. With that said contractors will use lobbyists just like any other industry to push their influence on the DoD but because of things like the "$300.00 toilet seat" or the "$800.00 hammer" defense contractors have to go through some amazing scrutiny when doing work for the government. Right now I work on a government contract and my company is continued monitored on not only how we're billing the government, but to ensure the government is getting the best value for its dollar.

I don't know if you were ever in the military or worked as a government contractor but I could tell you first hand that although you bring up good points of "why doesn't the government do this, or why doesn't the government do that," it's based more on the leadership within the DoD rather than outside influences - in my capacity I'm continually suggesting to my customer how they could make their jobs easier or save money and most of the time the suggestions goes on deaf ears.

It's easy to read conspiracy theories and speculate what goes on within the DoD, its another to actually be there and see it first hand - I suggest you speak to more folks who are actually "there."

renrich · 08-18-2008, 06:10 PM

Outstanding FLYBOY! And all the furor about lobbyists is for the most part much to do about nothing. Our government was designed to allow input from the citizenry. One way for that to happen is through lobbyists. When the legislators get ready to vote on or propose legislation, lobbyists advise them on the pros or cons of the legislation. My father was a lobbyist for a railroad in the Texas legislature for a number of years and nothing could be more innocuous. The legislators are seldom experts on every issue(or for that matter any issue.) How are they to know how the laws they pass are going to impact business or individuals without input from the citizenry(lobbyists)?

toiditm · 08-18-2008, 06:12 PM

I don't mind rambling if it gets the point across

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

It's easy to read conspiracy theories and speculate what goes on within the DoD, its another to actually be there and see it first hand - I suggest you speak to more folks who are actually "there."

I don't think there needs to be a conspiracy, just people acting in their own economic self-interest. Every politician with contracts to build or assemble military hardware in their home state wants those earmarks to continue. They get lobbied for this by lots of private interests and they make sure it stays in the omnibus bill, whether it's a useless decommissioned widget or part of the mysterious project X. This means less $ for future tech that isn't considered economical at the moment. Apollo and SDI were not "economical" ideas either, but they have probably inspired more commercial innovation (increasing GDP and overall US budgets) than all the widget projects combined.

So a significant portion of photvoltaic cell research is done privately in the US now (the free market has caught up), but the majority of PV manufacturing capacity is in Southeast Asia and China. What about organic waste reprocessing? Same deal, but the mfg facilities are in Europe. It's all what if now, but this type of energy could be powering military and non-military vehicles alike instead of half of deployed units being used to supply fuel to the other half that are actually designed for combat. After an oil crisis during Nixon's time, I don't see how we logically ended up where we are now. Thanks for attempting to explain, though.

pbfoot · 08-18-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

How are they to know how the laws they pass are going to impact business or individuals without input from the citizenry(lobbyists)?

Isn't that what they pay researchers for . I would assume the individual elected official has a few researchers on staff and it would be his responsibility to assist the elected one to research the proposed bill and not be beholding to a paid lobbiest .