NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070608/NEWS01/706080329/1006)


Anti-war activists want to ban the Blue Angels' annual Fleet Week flyover in San Francisco.

Included is an appearance in San Francisco, where the squadron has performed since 1981. Fleet Week attracts about 1 million people to the city's waterfront and pumps about $4 million into the local economy, said Edward Leonard, chairman of the event.

So, is this taking blind hatred of the military too far?

So, is this taking blind hatred of the military too far?
Yes.

So, is this taking blind hatred of the military too far?

Yes.

Uh... yes. You know, I always wanted to see one of their shows myself.

Indeed that is taking it way too far. Safety reasons? The Blue Angels have had only one or two mistakes since thier inception...

and thus further proves that people will complain about anything! Is the Blue Angel a recruitment tool for the Navy, yes. Do the majority of people care, no. Do I think the Blue Angels are just totally awesome and make me cream my pants, Hell yes!

The Blue Angels are like the Red Arrows, yeah?

So, is this taking blind hatred of the military too far?

no. the level of militarism in this country is about 17.4 million times too high.

anti war activists seem dangerous and unecessary to me.
they produce waste and noise pollution.

I want them banned.

no. the level of militarism in this country is about 17.4 million times too high.

Hey, if you want to be ahead of the curve when it comes to the military you got to spend money baby.

Beside, I love the F-22 Raptors, and I don't mind that my tax dollars are going towards those magnificent birds.

Hey, if you want to be ahead of the curve when it comes to the military you got to spend money baby.

Beside, I love the F-22 Raptors, and I don't mind that my tax dollars are going towards those magnificent birds.

F-22's? Hah! Give me a MiG-29 anyday. Soviet hardware is the Shiznit!

anti war activists seem dangerous and unecessary to me.
they produce waste and noise pollution.

I want them banned.

I think all activists should be banned.
Anybody who is willing to run around in the street shouting and holding up signs is obviously dangerously mentally unstable and needs to be confined with a heavy dose of tranquilizer.


F-22's? Hah! Give me a MiG-29 anyday. Soviet hardware is the Shiznit!
I'd rather have the SU-35 meself. Looks like a nice plane.
Too bad the Russians cant afford them >_>;

F-22's? Hah! Give me a MiG-29 anyday. Soviet hardware is the Shiznit!

Bitch please, the F-22 Raptors pwns the MiG-29. Are the MiG-29s stealth? Does their exhaust pipe turn and point in the direction that the aircraft is turning in, and how close does the MiG-29 have to be to get a lock on it's target?

The F-22 is stealth, it does have the exhaust that points the thrust in the direction that the aircraft is turning, thus giving it a tighter turning ratio, and the F-22 can lock on it's target miles away and blow that bitch out of the sky and that poor bastard will never see the aircraft that shot it down.

F-22 FTW!

I think all activists should be banned.
Anybody who is willing to run around in the street shouting and holding up signs is obviously dangerously mentally unstable and needs to be confined with a heavy dose of tranquilizer.

Meh. I like activists. I think I would enjoy taking part in a protest sometime. But sometimes, they just let thier hippiness get to thier heads, as in this case.


I'd rather have the SU-35 meself. Looks like a nice plane.
Too bad the Russians cant afford them >_>;

Heh. Yeah... >_>;

It's the same with the T-90. They have something like 12. Compared to thousands of T-72's and 55's. Not that I have anything against T-55's. Lovely tanks.

I think the anger against the military would be best directed at a less entertaining branch of it.

Hey, if you want to be ahead of the curve when it comes to the military...

and why would you want something as stupid and evil as that?

and why would you want something as stupid and evil as that?

So that umm, I don't know, ahh defend ourselves and kick whoever's ass tries to attack us again? Who the hell do you think is in Afghanistan, magical wood gnomes?

Remember America, the military is out to take your sons, the Mexicans are after your daughters and jobs, and the colleges will turn them all into God-hating liberals. :rolleyes:

Give me a break. There are some sleazy recruiters out there, but the Blue Angels aren't one of them.

So that umm, I don't know, ahh defend ourselves and kick whoever's ass tries to attack us again?

and this requires the constant deification of the military for why?

Remember America, the military is out to take your sons, the Mexicans are after your daughters and jobs, and the colleges will turn them all into God-hating liberals. :rolleyes:

Give me a break. There are some sleazy recruiters out there, but the Blue Angels aren't one of them.

No no, you got it wrong, the military want our son, and the son who does join up want the daughters, I mean comon, we all know soldiers are sexually repressed macho men who rapes every woman who enter into service.

/sarcasm.

I think all activists should be banned.
Anybody who is willing to run around in the street shouting and holding up signs is obviously dangerously mentally unstable and needs to be confined with a heavy dose of tranquilizer.


Farewell right to assembly, free speech, right to protest. Quiet decent and watch the military display and like it, comrade.

As nifty as I think things like that are, they have a point. It is loud as fuck, it is expensive as hell, it is an unnecessary risk. It seems weird to me that people will balk at the slightest hint that their tax dollars might help a less fortunate member of their society, but millions to have a pretty display of militarism? Don't take that away, heaven forbid!

and this requires the constant deification of the military for why?

Because I thank the men and women in uniform for what they do, even though I don't agree with the war in Iraq, I still thank the men and women over there because they are spending time away from their families and love one to fight against insurgencies to give another country a chance for democracy, no matter how slim that chance may be.

If you wonder who allows you to be as free as you are in the United States, trust me it's not the politicians, the teachers, or even your parents, it's the men and women on the front line.

Farewell right to assembly, free speech, right to protest. Quiet decent and watch the military display and like it, comrade.

That's okay! I like the old Soviet Parades anyway. :)



As nifty as I think things like that are, they have a point. It is loud as fuck, it is expensive as hell, it is an unnecessary risk. It seems weird to me that people will bawk at the slightest hint that their tax dollars might help a less fortunate member of their society, but millions to have a pretty display of militarism? Don't take that away, heaven forbid!

Uhh... You have a point.... Hmmm.... Buy cheaper planes for the display?

So, is this taking blind hatred of the military too far?

I'd say so. I saw the Blue Angels once back east - pretty neat to say the least. :)

and this requires the constant deification of the military for why?

Hmm, y'know i heard of this thing the other day. Apparently it's called entertainment. Sounds weird huh? But apparently people like watching cool stuff because it does this thing called "entertain" to them.

If you wonder who allows you to be as free as you are in the United States, trust me it's not the politicians, the teachers, or even your parents, it's the men and women on the front line.

nah, soldiers are disproportionately on the opposite side of freedom every time it comes down to it. this is largely due to the nature of the military as an institution. it is just fundamentally incompatible with freedom.

what you mean by 'free' has nothing to do with freedom, but is rather about not being part of some other country - whether that country would be free or not.


in so far as having a military is necessary, it should be viewed with shame and embarrassment and kept quiet and out of the spotlight.

That's okay! I like the old Soviet Parades anyway. :)



Uhh... You have a point.... Hmmm.... Buy cheaper planes for the display?

Well, it would be more impressive if they could pull that stuff off in biplanes...

Hmm, y'know i heard of this thing the other day. Apparently it's called entertainment. Sounds weird huh? But apparently people like watching cool stuff because it does this thing called "entertain" to them.

I had some "entertain" just yesterday.

Hmm, y'know i heard of this thing the other day. Apparently it's called entertainment. Sounds weird huh? But apparently people like watching cool stuff because it does this thing called "entertain" to them.

dude, people can be plenty entertained without the military entering into it. just crash some trains into each other or show some boobies on the teevee or something. a man falling down and going boom displayed on the jumbotron would work too.

Well, it would be more impressive if they could pull that stuff off in biplanes...

that would be awesome!

Meh. I like activists. I think I would enjoy taking part in a protest sometime. But sometimes, they just let thier hippiness get to thier heads, as in this case.

Heh. Yeah... >_>;

It's the same with the T-90. They have something like 12. Compared to thousands of T-72's and 55's. Not that I have anything against T-55's. Lovely tanks.

Bah, without hippies, who could we complain about?

But yeah, they've pretty much phased out the T-55 :P
I think they've got something like 2,000 stationed in the middle of Siberia on reserve. Mostly theyre using the T-72 and T-80...but I hear the new Black Eagle tank is gonna be pretty sweet.
'Course, the Russians say EVERYTHING theyre about to produce is going to be the most awesome piece of military hardware to hit the world before they reveal it to the public.

dude, people can be plenty entertained without the military entering into it. just crash some trains into each other or show some boobies on the teevee or something. a man falling down and going boom displayed on the jumbotron would work too.

So we should just limit our forms of entertainment?

dude, people can be plenty entertained without the military entering into it. just crash some trains into each other or show some boobies on the teevee or something. a man falling down and going boom displayed on the jumbotron would work too.

But whats wrong with using the Blue Angels for entertainment beams?

So we should just limit our forms of entertainment?

Wait wait wait, where'd all the slavish devotion and unquestioning love for the free market go? You want to be entertained by something like this then why not support it in the free market instead of handing every tax payer the bill? Isn't that the argument for cutting any program that might serve the public good? Why does this get the free pass?

and this requires the constant deification of the military for why?

Because they're one of the bulwarks of civilization...those who do the dirty jobs we don't like to think about, so we can live happy, comfortable lives.

Wait wait wait, where'd all the slavish devotion and unquestioning love for the free market go? You want to be entertained by something like this then why not support it in the free market instead of handing every tax payer the bill? Isn't that the argument for cutting any program that might serve the public good? Why does this get the free pass?

Because it involves fucking awesome fighter jets?

I'm guessing that is the reason. Maybe we should have welfare delivered by fucking awesome fighter jets.

So we should just limit our forms of entertainment?

yes, obviously. watching christians get fed to lions is apparently quite entertaining, but we still ought not do that. we have to judge things on more than just the question "will a significant number of people be entertained by this?" broader implications matter. in this instance, what we have is part of a larger culture of militarism in the united states that needs to be taken out back and shot.

Well, it would be more impressive if they could pull that stuff off in biplanes...

Would it, though? :p Why, just this morning I travelled only a foot or so away from another vehicle at the same speed for perhaps a mile, at 75 mph. Not quite the 120 that a biplane might achieve, but not as impressive as it would have been at 400 mph., either. ;)

Bah, without hippies, who could we complain about?

But yeah, they've pretty much phased out the T-55 :P
I think they've got something like 2,000 stationed in the middle of Siberia on reserve. Mostly theyre using the T-72 and T-80...but I hear the new Black Eagle tank is gonna be pretty sweet.
'Course, the Russians say EVERYTHING theyre about to produce is going to be the most awesome piece of military hardware to hit the world before they reveal it to the public.


Yep. All T-55's are now under the Interior Ministry. Which basically means, that they'll be used for riot control. Which is pretty good, since that's one of the tanks forte's.

Black Eagle, from what I've managed to hear from certain sources is supposed to revolutionise tank development world-wide. A bit sceptical myself, but hey. They need a new tank that can compete and surpass new modern NATO AFV's.

dude, people can be plenty entertained without the military entering into it. just crash some trains into each other or show some boobies on the teevee or something. a man falling down and going boom displayed on the jumbotron would work too.

Yet somehow watching people actually demonstrate a unique skill is worse than that... :rolleyes:

yes, obviously. watching christians get fed to lions is apparently quite entertaining, but we still ought not do that. we have to judge things on more than just the question "will a significant number of people be entertained by this?" broader implications matter. in this instance, what we have is part of a larger culture of militarism in the united states that needs to be taken out back and shot.

OK I used to broad a question in my previous post. If the same types of planes were doing the same kind of demonstration but flown by civilians would you have the same issue with this?

Wait wait wait, where'd all the slavish devotion and unquestioning love for the free market go? You want to be entertained by something like this then why not support it in the free market instead of handing every tax payer the bill? Isn't that the argument for cutting any program that might serve the public good? Why does this get the free pass?

I don't know how much these things cost to run but i'm pretty sure its more than could justify a business. However I don't know a lot about much so correct me if i'm wrong

So we should just limit our forms of entertainment?

No, you just can't have the military entertain you because they are EVIL! :rolleyes:

Yep. All T-55's are now under the Interior Ministry. Which basically means, that they'll be used for riot control. Which is pretty good, since that's one of the tanks forte's.

Proven in Prague, back in 1968 :)

CodePink, Global Exchange and Veterans for Peace, Chapter 69, are working with Supervisor Chris Daly on a Board of Supervisors resolution expressing concerns about safety, fuel waste and noise pollution. They also are upset about the pro-military message and recruiting efforts that accompany Fleet Week, scheduled this year for Oct. 4-9.

SAn Fransico, and the State of California are government property. The Blue Angels are meant for entertainment. Pro military = support our troops. They may like have tours of bosts and show off tanks and helicopters and stuff but really, there not yelling DEATH TO TERRORISTS!!!! ...recruiting efforts... well duh. its a military event,besides a little recruitment can't hurt. *music plays Join The Navy*

concerns about safety, fuel waste and noise pollution

Saftey-A)If they are worryed about crime and terrorism the area is surrounded by soldiers crime is at 0% in the area.
B)Theres about a 1 in a million chance the planes will crash.

Fuel waste-A)Fuel is being wasted anyway whether there in SF,Boston,Miami,or even China.
B)The boats aren't moving!Duh!!

Noise Pollution-A)You have to be near the area to hear it.
B)Its not all day.
C)Of course it's going to be noisy get over it.

Wait wait wait, where'd all the slavish devotion and unquestioning love for the free market go? You want to be entertained by something like this then why not support it in the free market instead of handing every tax payer the bill? Isn't that the argument for cutting any program that might serve the public good? Why does this get the free pass?

The government are constantly doing things at the expense of the tax payer for our entertainment. Parades, ceremonies etc..., should we get rid of those as well?

I love the Blue Angels, and those who fly for the Angels are magnificent pilots and I doubt that the majority of the people can do what they do, let along fly as close as they fly and rarely have an accident.

No, you just can't have the military entertain you because they are EVIL! :rolleyes:

They're just average to me. Not gods and not devils

I'm sure they have no problem with the billions of dollars in military contracts handled by the technology companies that operate in the Bay Area. And I wonder how many of them drive SUVs...

yes, obviously. watching christians get fed to lions is apparently quite entertaining, but we still ought not do that. we have to judge things on more than just the question "will a significant number of people be entertained by this?" broader implications matter. in this instance, what we have is part of a larger culture of militarism in the united states that needs to be taken out back and shot.

Do you honestly think that there is a problem with "militarism" in the US? And what is so inherently evil about militarism?

Surely being such a radical supporter of the soviet, you should love radical revolutionary armies and fighting for true freedom blah blah blah, whats different about that love?

yes, obviously. watching christians get fed to lions is apparently quite entertaining, but we still ought not do that. we have to judge things on more than just the question "will a significant number of people be entertained by this?" broader implications matter. in this instance, what we have is part of a larger culture of militarism in the united states that needs to be taken out back and shot.

Hardly...if there was any evidence of a broader culture of militarism in the US we would see something radically different from what currently exists. If militarism were run rampant in the US, we would see the development of a barracks state, with compulsory service, little debate about the size or scope of the military and the public prominence of high ranking military officers. We would be more like the USSR in 1975, Prussia in 1865 or modern Israel if there were a culture of extreme militarism.

There is NOT a culture of extreme militarism, and that fact doesn't change, no matter how much you want to fantasize that reality is otherwise.

I don't know how much these things cost to run but i'm pretty sure its more than could justify a business. However I don't know a lot about much so correct me if i'm wrong
This rather re-enforces the question than answers it.
SAn Fransico, and the State of California are government property. The Blue Angels are meant for entertainment. Pro military = support our troops. They may like have tours of bosts and show off tanks and helicopters and stuff but really, there not yelling DEATH TO TERRORISTS!!!! well duh. its a military event,besides a little recruitment can't hurt. *music plays Join The Navy*
Get ye a grammar guide.



Saftey-A)If they are worryed about crime and terrorism the area is surrounded by soldiers crime is at 0% in the area.
There is not 0% crime during Fleet Week, the Blue Angel jets are not armed and if they where they still wouldn't take time out of their demonstration to shoot a sidewinder at a mugger.
B)Theres about a 1 in a million chance the planes will crash.
I question your figure and site the surfer/shark problem, to wit-a surfer will tell you that there is very little chance you will get bitten by a shark while surfing. I argue that my odds currently of getting bitten by a shark are effectively zero. Why mess with perfect odds without sufficient cause?

Fuel waste-A)Fuel is being wasted anyway whether there in SF,Boston,Miami,or even China.
Yes. I believe this is the issue...
B)The boats aren't moving!Duh!!
The are beamed into the Bay by happy thoughts and rainbows! No, wait...But the still boats propel the jets through the air with sunshine and lollipops! No, no...

Noise Pollution-A)You have to be near the area to hear it.
This is why Yuba City is not filing the complaint, but the people in the area...
B)Its not all day.
Just most. (I actually can hear them practicing right now. It woke me up. I presume that's them, or some jet is buzzing the island more than necessary)
C)Of course it's going to be noisy get over it.
Though hard to believe, this is the worst argument you've given.

This rather re-enforces the question than answers it.


Yeah wasn't really trying to answer the initial question just the one about why it shouldn't be a free market thing

The government are constantly doing things at the expense of the tax payer for our entertainment. Parades, ceremonies etc..., should we get rid of those as well?

Doesn't actually answer the question.

Yeah wasn't really trying to answer the initial question just the one about why it shouldn't be a free market thing

I'll ask again-

Wait wait wait, where'd all the slavish devotion and unquestioning love for the free market go? You want to be entertained by something like this then why not support it in the free market instead of handing every tax payer the bill? Isn't that the argument for cutting any program that might serve the public good? Why does this get the free pass?

Doesn't actually answer the question.

Well the only answer I have is why not? As I don't see anything wrong with that. Remember I don't think many people believe in anarchist capitalism or other forms of extreme capitalism, there is nothing wrong with wanting your government to spend money on some things.

Do we like military machines? Yes, but primarily in an abstract and technical manner. We like how they operate, how they demonstrate our beloved technological prowess, how the systems are integrated and their capabilities. In a way, military weapons systems are almost like a sports car that we collectively own, we like to lift up the hood and show off the beautiful 325 cu. in V12 motor, that we really like to show off to the neighbors. The technical specs are something fascinating to a tradtionally technology enthralled people.

We don't like to think about what that military hardware is designed to do, though. The killing people and breaking things, though, we're not so keen on.

I'll ask again-

But I don't support it I just feel that Free Soviets argument against it was invalid

Well the only answer I have is why not? As I don't see anything wrong with that. Remember I don't think many people believe in anarchist capitalism or other forms of extreme capitalism, there is nothing wrong with wanting your government to spend money on some things.

So why the disparity? Why is it okay for the nifty jets but not okay for things for the public good?

So why the disparity? Why is it okay for the nifty jets but not okay for things for the public good?

Depends, no one says that the government shouldn't spend money for the public good, thats pretty much what the majority of government spending is for. But the debate comes when some things may seem to be for the public good, but may actually cause more ecenomic problems and be worse off for the public.

Didn't some teacher write a book a while back telling kids the Blue Angels were going to bomb their town?

Depends, no one says that the government shouldn't spend money for the public good, thats pretty much what the majority of government spending is for. But the debate comes when some things may seem to be for the public good, but may actually cause more ecenomic problems and be worse off for the public.

That's not what I hear, and here I am specifically talking about those devoted to the free market, that the free market solves all. And even here, how can it be argued that a traveling jet show is better for the public good than social services? Or even, why should the traveling jet show be immune from the criticism that the NEH or NEA or even PBS receive?

That's not what I hear, and here I am specifically talking about those devoted to the free market, that the free market solves all. And even here, how can it be argued that a traveling jet show is better for the public good than social services?

Because these jet shows don't actually cause any harm. Yet it can be argued by some that many of these "social goods" can cause harm, that is why it is ok to have the first but not alright to have the second.

Because these jet shows don't actually cause any harm. Yet it can be argued by some that many of these "social goods" can cause harm, that is why it is ok to have the first but not alright to have the second.

But the intention behind one is to help people and the other is to entertain people. Which is a more worthy goal?

Didn't some teacher write a book a while back telling kids the Blue Angels were going to bomb their town?

I wouldn't doubt it, especially if it was in San Francisco, but I never heard about it.

But the intention behind one is to help people and the other is to entertain people. Which is a more worthy goal?

Intentions are meaningless. The intention behind putting an 80% tax on corporation profits might be good, but it would seriously cripple the economy.

I bet the number of people who like the show outnumber the crybabies by at least 10:1

So, is this taking blind hatred of the military too far?

No shit, Sherlock.

Because these jet shows don't actually cause any harm. Yet it can be argued by some that many of these "social goods" can cause harm, that is why it is ok to have the first but not alright to have the second.

So noise and air polluting, fuel using, potential crashing aircraft are less harmful to society than an art display partially funded by the NEA? (to compare 'entertainment' to 'entertainment' for arguments sake.)

Here's a better idea: let's keep the Blue Angels and get rid of San Francisco. That way, my brother who lives in Oakland will get beachfront property, and we'll all be rid of Nancy Pelosi. Everybody wins :D

and thus further proves that people will complain about anything! Is the Blue Angel a recruitment tool for the Navy, yes. Do the majority of people care, no. Do I think the Blue Angels are just totally awesome and make me cream my pants, Hell yes!

yes to the op and goddamn they are badass!

i saw them with my kids at dover airbase and at willowgrove.to say exciting is to weak of a description.
the best time i saw them was a few weeks back.and that was by accident!
this is a no shit true story,i was driving on an exspressway thru the pinebarrens towards philly,just tooling along and all of a sudden...roar!!!! and a earthshaking noise and shaking.
that sucker was on full afterburner at tree top level and just blasted right over me....man it took a minute for my heart to start working again,scared the bejesus out of me,i started to look around at the sky and saw 4 of them in formation about a mile up the road,i pulled over like everyone else and sat and enjoyed the show..it was unbelievable cool.if i had known they were goint to be in millville that day i would have gone,but it worked out better this way,it was neat to get the shit scared out of like that.
i'd give almost anything to get a ride with them,and i am terrified to fly.

Didn't some teacher write a book a while back telling kids the Blue Angels were going to bomb their town?

never heard that,and if true..she should be fired.

Here's a better idea: let's keep the Blue Angels and get rid of San Francisco.

Aw, what would the world be like without people like you, always helpful with your final solutions and incouraging us to "get rid" of people and places.

That way, my brother who lives in Oakland will get beachfront property, and we'll all be rid of Nancy Pelosi. Everybody wins :D

Hey maybe your brother could get a job and afford his own beachfront property. No holocaust required!

I think the point is though that the real USE of these aircraft is not to muck about doing their stunts and precision flying (which is awesome to watch) but to kill people and destroy their stuff.

I watch a military airshow and I always have to think what a waste it is that we have these awesome chunks of technology hurtling about the sky designed to kill rather than just for the fun of it.

I'd LOVE to have a MiG-29 OVT that I could fly and do stunts in (even if I could never push it to the limit) but the reality of it is that I'll never have one because it's PURPOSE is to get a missile from it's base to the launch point to destroy something.

Always makes me sad.

I wouldn't doubt it, especially if it was in San Francisco, but I never heard about it.

She DID write a book, but the exercise was different. Her name's Ann Pelo.

http://www.amazon.com/Thats-Not-Fair-Teachers-Activism/dp/1884834744/ref=sr_1_2/105-7572585-9457206?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181949010&sr=8-2

It's apparently detailed in there.

Aw, what would the world be like without people like you, always helpful with your final solutions and incouraging us to "get rid" of people and places.



Hey maybe your brother could get a job and afford his own beachfront property. No holocaust required!

Relax it was a joke from the looks of things

I wasn't sure about which reply I wanted to use, so I'll just post both.

------

Only in San Francisco, and maybe a few other places, would something like this even be an issue..

or

lol San Francisco lol

How do the Blue Angels recruit people anyway. I wouldn't think many people old enough to join the Navy would do so under the impression they would get to be a Blue Angel pilot. In fact, I am sure the Navy wouldn't take them if that was their reason for joining (keep in mind the Navy and Air Force get to be picky about who joins, its the Army/Marines who are strapped for manpower.)

Also,

Does their exhaust pipe turn and point in the direction that the aircraft is turning in?

Its called thrust vectoring.

Thunderbirds > Blue Angels.

F-16 > F-18.

:D

Link (http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070608/NEWS01/706080329/1006)
So, is this taking blind hatred of the military too far?

Yep, it sure is but you do have to remember it is San Francisco, California. :(

So, is this taking blind hatred of the military too far?

nope. glorifying what the military does is irresponsible and gross.

She DID write a book, but the exercise was different. Her name's Ann Pelo.

http://www.amazon.com/Thats-Not-Fair-Teachers-Activism/dp/1884834744/ref=sr_1_2/105-7572585-9457206?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181949010&sr=8-2

It's apparently detailed in there.

That's sad. :( I always thought teachers jobs were to teach children things like math, science, English, history, civics, etc. and not their own personal agenda. Then again, I'm old and come from a time when teachers did teach those subjects and kids actually graduated from High School knowing those things.

How stupid.

Who doesn't like fast cars, fast planes and fast (wo)men?
;)

How stupid.

Who doesn't like fast cars, fast planes and fast (wo)men?
;)

Umm...Fred Phelps?

Well, not openly, anyway...

Umm...Fred Phelps?

Well, not openly, anyway...

Well then, proof he's wrong. ;)

Thunderbirds > Blue Angels.

F-16 > F-18.

:D

Two engines > than one

I'm partial to the F-15 myself.

F-22's? Hah! Give me a MiG-29 anyday. Soviet hardware is the Shiznit!

In certain circumstances I would agree. The the Mig-29 does have certain acrobatic abilities. which make it an excellent aircraft for dogfighting. but what good are acrobatics if the person who is killing you is 200 miles away? One of the F'22s sayings is "First sight, First shot, First Kill":sniper:. So overall I would definitely go with the F-22. For starters the MIg-29 doesnt have the RADAR capabilities of the F-22. Then there is the fore-mentioned anti-RADAR coating and shape. The one thing i do like better about the Mig-29 is the Augmentor section can move up, down and side to side, whereas the F-22's can only move up and down. But dont get me wrong, both jets are totally Cool.

nope. glorifying what the military does is irresponsible and gross.

so is the thought of not eating meat

I would only go if they had the only F-35 built there.

okay lets look at this.
People don't like the military because the military fights wars.
The wars they fight are for bush and the blind hippocratic war activists can't see that they don't hate war, they hate bush.
So yes, war activists have gone to far.

okay lets look at this.
People don't like the military because the military fights wars.
The wars they fight are for bush and the blind hippocratic war activists can't see that they don't hate war, they hate bush.
So yes, war activists have gone to far.
Because without Bush, peace activists have been all about war...

okay lets look at this.
People don't like the military because the military fights wars.
The wars they fight are for bush and the blind hippocratic war activists can't see that they don't hate war, they hate bush.
So yes, war activists have gone to far.

+10 pts. for "hippocratic." ;)

No, you just can't have the military entertain you because they are EVIL! :rolleyes:

They shouldn't have the time and money to run these things, if they have extra there are better places it could go. Too much is spent on the military already if they can do this then they are recieving too much.

They shouldn't have the time and money to run these things, if they have extra there are better places it could go. Too much is spent on the military already if they can do this then they are recieving too much.

The Blue Angels are combat-ready group, they like to point out when on talkshows and the like. It's not like they only know how to do the tricks. :p

Two engines > than one

I'm partial to the F-15 myself.
always liked the tomcat myself

The Blue Angels are combat-ready group, they like to point out when on talkshows and the like. It's not like they only know how to do the tricks. :p

i would not want to tussle with them in the air situation....but hadji only needs a bomb on his person to show how tough he is...then he gets his 72 virgins...lol..
what twits

i would not want to tussle with them in the air situation....but hadji only needs a bomb on his person to show how tough he is...then he gets his 72 virgins...lol..
what twits

Well, when all you have is a hammer, all your problems tend to look like nails. :p They have a lot of babies (eight or so per female in the palestinian territories, for example I believe) and no real strategy, therefore, lots of suicide bombs. ;)

i would not want to tussle with them in the air situation....but hadji only needs a bomb on his person to show how tough he is...then he gets his 72 virgins...lol..
what twits


and i meam the poor twit that is being used by the assholes that want to make money...by using ignorant and uneducated idiots to blow themselves up for the cause....remind me what the cause is?
our boys will will win over the dumbas suicide bombers...fact is..i feel bad for them,and i wish our pilots could kill the jerkoff leaders.

Its called thrust vectoring.

And Mig-29s do that too

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7759393659372482987

How do the Blue Angels recruit people anyway.

*looks at thread full of people geeking out about how awesome the planes and pilots are*

no idea, mate

Now now, Free Soviets, it's not all bad. We just need to mount a counter-demonstration or maybe we can create....an anarchist air force. Ok, maybe not. Well at least you're taking on sacred cows even I don't mess with, which takes a lot of courage.

Hardly...if there was any evidence of a broader culture of militarism in the US we would see something radically different from what currently exists. If militarism were run rampant in the US, we would see the development of a barracks state, with compulsory service, little debate about the size or scope of the military and the public prominence of high ranking military officers. We would be more like the USSR in 1975, Prussia in 1865 or modern Israel if there were a culture of extreme militarism.

There is NOT a culture of extreme militarism, and that fact doesn't change, no matter how much you want to fantasize that reality is otherwise.

i think your idea of militarism is too demanding

maybe we can create....an anarchist air force. http://images.indymedia.org/imc/nyc/image/12/11_1.jpg

and long time no see, how've you been?

I have, and it is truly awsome.

I saw an Imax about them. It was neat.

Uh... yes. You know, I always wanted to see one of their shows myself.

I have, and it is truly awsome.

and long time no see, how've you been?

Ok as usual, I suppose. Other than going to college, things haven't really changed a whole lot.

no. the level of militarism in this country is about 17.4 million times too high.

?


Not exactly....if anything, the level of militarism should be higher.

?


Not exactly....if anything, the level of militarism should be higher.

why?

why?

Because of all that it provides and does for the country and the world. Who provided the vast majority of the relief after the tsunami? The U.S. military. Who provided the vast majority of ther relief after the earthquakes in Pakistan? The U.S. military. Who effectively ended the famine in Somalia before politics got in the way? The U.S. military. Who provided the majority of the initial relief and rescue after Katrina? You get the picture.

always liked the tomcat myself

Tomcats are great long range interceptors, but up close the F-15 is FAR more agile.

Plus the Tomcat spent more time in the hanger then in the air.

The level of which I don't care about this on every level is so low that it merits a post.

I always thought a 'blue angel' was when you set your fart on fire...