Site-Wide Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About BrianBM

  • Rank


  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    surfcasting, military history, science fiction, photography
  • What I do for a living:

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I think most people don't want to be bothered by politics at a football game. Including me, and I'm liberal. Public reaction, I suspect, is specific; Trump's base is happy with the issue, non-Trump voters are not going to care much, and black voters will resent Trump's picking on Kaepernik because they largely share his take on the racist operations of the criminal justice system. There are probably polls of particular groups out there, but I haven't read of them.
  2. True enough, but if we have pilots flying into collisions for lack of proficiency, and bridge crews who can't navigate out of the way of a containership, and a fleet of combat aircraft that averages 30+ years old, then he's right.
  3. Chicks dig men who can tie complex knots at night. Bob_G's being modest, he can do it, and twice this summer girls 20+ years younger then him came down the rocks to start hitting on him (they were in their 90s).
  4. There isn't an owner in the NFL who wants to irritate half the fans out of coming to a game with a guarantee of a political demonstration as a part of the pre-game show. That would be true even if Kaepernik was better then Tom Brady. Their self interest is clear, and it doesn't need collusion for all 32 owners to reach the same conclusion. They expect to make money, not support a cause. Their patriotism may be a marketing tool (the NFL has gotten a lot of money from the Pentagon for its' noisy support of the troops) but none of them are willing to gamble a franchise's well being for a cause, including any liberal ones. Kaepernik was a lonely figure, out of the game and irrelevant, until President Trump decided to fire up his base with an issue. Kaepernik was made important by Presidential tweet. It was inevitable that many of his fellows would feel compelled to follow his example. I'm sure all 32 owners privately curse the President for making this problem for them, but his interests aren't their interests any more then their interests are his. Nice to see Alex Smith playing well, I thought he got screwed. Villains can make money, if they're good at their game. An owner who loves notoriety, and likes rolling the dice hard, might still pick him up (why does Al Davis' face come to mind when I say that?) but not at top dollar. Let a Kaepernik-run team come into a stadium, he does his thing. The crowd jeers and they play the game. If Kaepernik won, if he proved to be a top-end performer, then people would come to boo him. It still could happen ... but it's not likely. If Kaepernik's cheap enough, then you can surround him with top talent that makes up for him long enough to see if he's worth a long term contract for better money. All that said, the lawsuit itself is enough to preclude this from happening. He's not going to make a nickle on this. I wonder, though, if this is a prelude to a career in politics?
  5. A lot. McCain wants to see an increase on the order of 25% over current budgets for a period of eight to ten years.
  6. Fair point.
  7. Has Breitbart endorsed Moore for the Senate?
  8. None of the above qualify as religious or sexual - orientation discrimination. The last one is actually interesting, though. There's a Supreme Court case coming up on whether businesses may discriminate against homosexuals again, I forget the name. The Court is now quite different, we might see a radically different result.
  9. It isn't a shock that we have SOCOM personnel in Mali. If al-Queda or ISIS or some other related group is here, or there, we will be too; better to fight in Mali then here. I get that. I also understand that intelligence is always incomplete and sometimes it'll be totally wrong, as in this case, where apparently the people on the ground had been told that the chance of enemy contact was minimal. What leaves me puzzled is this. Why, if we are on the ground, are they without supporting air power? Is the problem political - does the government of Mali want American boots, but not airpower? Are we so stretched that we don't have the people and aircraft needed to answer a sudden call for help? Are there technical problems that bar French aircraft from communicating adequately with Americans and Nigerans on the ground? (I'm guessing that while troops from Nigeria would be "Nigerians," those from Niger are properly "Nigerans." Anybody know?) The President signed an order to recall up to 1,000 pilots for service. This is probably part of the reason. It sets my teeth on edge because it's soooooo like the stop-loss orders that President Bush used, to try and avoid unsettling the public here, but maybe things are so immediately bad that he had no choice. This has to be something his national security team has been pushing. Meanwhile, sequestration is preventing the AF from contracting for a new jet trainer to support advanced instruction .... and the Administration's preoccupation remains tax cuts at the high end. NOT the defense budget.
  10. I'm quite aware that the services and the major military contractors can squander money without limit. But I'm not seeing any interest in Congress over doing things to affect that, either.
  11. This falls on Congress' doorstep. There isn't enough money to run our current wars and modernize and adequately support the military. Flight hours per month for the Marines, and quite possibly the AF too, are edging towards insufficient to support basic flying competence. Inadequate air time was blamed for a recent collision of two F-18s.
  12. The special prosecutor statute has lapsed. Mueller isn't one. Any prosecution, growing out of his investigations, will presumably be handled by regular DoJ personnel, albeit they'd better be good.
  13. Sessions was really the first politician of note to endorse Trump. He had experience of DoJ. And he got caught, last time around, in an ethical problem of his own. This time, he's determined to stay clean of all appearance of impropriety. Mueller's investigation has been a model of how to do it, at least in this regards. He and his staff don't leak. He doesn't look, on camera, as though he has a tongue in his head. White House staff may continue to make war on each other, the House and Senate committees may leak, but Mueller's staff is good at not having even a no comment. I don't personally expect President Trump to be accused of anything as a result of the investigation (which is not because he looks innocent to me.) I do expect Gen. Flynn and a couple of others to be charged criminally, but Flynn will do for President Trump what Col. North did for President Reagan and variously lie or destroy evidence to protect the Boss. He's a loyalist.
  14. Jack Ruby's trial is another thing that might be revisited with new files in hand.
  15. Was it a 6.5? I might be wrong on that. Mummichog, even if it was a Carcano 6.5, it sounds like yours was in desperate need of rebarreling, if not more, to be priced at $40. I assume one without intensive use would be better. Or was it a 6.5 Mauser? Popular hunter's rifle in Scandinavia. I suppose we have to throw the Texas State Police into the conspiratorial mix. Why parade Oswald where Jack Ruby could shoot him, except to make sure Oswald didn't get to be interrogated at length?