| Author | Message | ||
     Chauly |
I've had this theory for years now that the feds have no vested interest in doing anything about Illegal Aliens so long as they do the crap jobs nobody else wants and they pay taxes. Consider this: as mentioned in the article below, a group of IA's "borrrow" their legal uncle's SSN to get a job and pay taxes against. When it comes time for Uncle to file for the year, the IRS pays him his refund for his declared income, and keep the rest. When it comes time for uncle to retire, The SSA only has one benefit to pay out, keeping the extra FICA deductions. pretty much a win for Uncle Sam, and a freeze-out for the tax-paying Illegals. I don't think the solution is to just give all of them documentation; they are still here in violation of the law. | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Sifo |
Same IRS that is encouraging illegal aliens to commit another federal crime... Federal judge calls IRS untrustworthy in tea party case | ||
| Aesquire |
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/04/14/m inneapolis-moderate-muslim-tries-to-join-isis/ ....Somali Muslim youth in Minneapolis become “radicalized” not because they’re disenfranchised, but because they are devout Muslims. When jihad recruiters tell them that Allah commands them to wage war against unbelievers, they listen. But federal officials will never admit that -- and they will spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to pretend it isn’t so. But as with all Leftist causes, no matter how much money they lavish on their pet falsehoods, they will never, ever become true. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/04/15/newly-rele ased-fast-furious-docs-show-obama-administration-e fforts-to-stonewall-and-mislead-congress/ For those with short memories... Fast & Furious started with a speech by an anti-civil rights activist who lied about how Mexican drug gangs bought their weapons in the U.S., and we needed Soviet Gun Laws to stop this. She was promptly called on her lies, but didn't care. ( You can't spell Leftist without Lie ) Obama then repeated these lies in a speech, and was promptly called on them. So to make his lies appear true, the DOJ started a program to get guns into the hands of Mexican Drug Gangs. Law abiding gun dealers were ordered to sell guns to shady characters by the AFT. Some refused to and were persecuted and their businesses destroyed by vindictive Gestapo. When this program came to light, Obama's minions claimed they were continuing a program from the Bush administration where tracking gear was installed in guns and sold to Mexican gangs in order to track the location and movement of those gangs. The program was cancelled after it was discovered the Mexican police did not cooperate, since they already knew where the guns, and gangs were, and were well paid to not interfere with Mexico's 2nd largest source of income. Obama's program not only had zero intent of tracking the guns, they actually refused to let the police stop the trafficking and, in the finest style of third world dictatorships, wrecked the careers of the officers trying to ( shudder ) enforce the law. The INTENT was to make a fake example of out of control gun sales for the PURPOSE of taking away your rights. This would be, in a sane world, an impeachable offense. Many people are dead as a direct result of Obama's lies and the efforts to cover those lies up. Every one of those deaths is directly Obama's legacy. | ||
| Torquehd |
I know it's futile to say this, but I hope someone, some time, is able to hold o accountable for this. I fear that will never be the case. A life sentence is insufficient. | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Hootowl |
I don't think the Russian jet was armed. The plane depicted is an F14 with Phoenix missiles, which, by the way, the F14 was designed around. That jet, far from the air superiority fighter it was pressed into being, was designed as an interceptor for fleet protection I.E. fly as fast as you can towards the nuclear armed Soviet bomber and launch a Phoenix at it as soon as you get within 100 miles, lest it get within range of the carrier group. (Message edited by hootowl on April 18, 2016) | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Hootowl |
Another foreign policy win for president obama. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/18/once-seen- as-white-house-triumph-new-nation-south-sudan-desc ends-into-war-misery.html | ||
| Aesquire |
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/04/18/c ongressman-blasts-obama-admin-for-not-designating- muslim-brotherhood-a-terrorist-org/?singlepage=tru e | ||
| Henshao |
On a tangent, I never understood why the F-15 was not retrofitted to be able to carry the Phoenix missile. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Range maybe? Just guessing, but that's two older engines, and thought it was designed for beating other fighters. I'd think a missile launch platform would be more about longer ranges at higher straightline speeds. But I'm just a hobby guy speculating. | ||
| Aesquire |
I never understood why the F-15 was not retrofitted to be able to carry the Phoenix... Multiple reasons. 1st, and enough for any Air Force General, the Phoenix was a NAVY missile. Obviously not needed on an Army Air Corps.... I mean Air Force plane. ( never mind that the Sidewinder was a Navy development too, The Generals try to forget that. ) NIH applies. ( not invented here ) 2nd. The Phoenix is a very long range system for fleet defense. Heavy as sin too. Pretty useless in a close in dogfight. To carry the Phoenix on the F-15, you'd need to change the ( darn good ) radar and if you got jumped, you'd be carrying around tons of useless, and really expensive missile, that the brass would complain if you jettisoned. 3rd. The missions are different. Air superiority is a force projection job. Go out there and make the sky safe for our bombers. That's the F-15's job. Killing other fighters. Naturally, later they hung bombs on it, and then built a Bomber variant... and a darn good one. The F-14's job was to protect it's airfield. Which can be sunk, killing thousands and leaving the poor F-14 pilot with no choice but to eject into a shark infested sea... The threats are different. While a Tomcat pilot is happy as all get out shooting down other fighters, his real target is high subsonic and supersonic bombers and cruise missiles. The Tomcat may launch from the carrier at short notice and tear hell bent on after burner towards the rapidly oncoming enemy, ( If he does his job the Carrier can send up more gas so he can land... if not, he's ejecting ) and you want to be able to take on multiple targets at the longest range possible. So you shoot 3 different kinds ( and ranged ) missiles at the oncoming doom, and then go to guns, or even deflecting the missile with your own plane. ( as was done in WW2 with V-1 cruise missiles ) THAT's the Mission. Naturally they later hung bombs on the Tomcat, but the Navy didn't want to use the F-14 as a bomber, ( It's excellent at it ) because they wanted to keep the Fleet Defense role going, and nothing else could do the job as well. It wasn't until they were about to retire the plane that they used the Tomcat to bomb, since it had the range with bombs to hit targets in Monica's War, where the F-18 was more limited. The result was F/A-18 attack planes with fuel tanks and Sidewinders escorting the worlds best fighter plane carrying Bombs. ( The Air Force will insist the F-15 was a better dogfighter, mostly true, technically, but reports from encounters show the F-14A had an edge... and the F-14D was better. Currently the F-22, no longer in production, and in service in very limited numbers is the undisputed King ) | ||
| Henshao |
I can believe that the Air Force didn't want a Navy missile. Just as the Navy didn't want an Air Force plane, and vice versa. As far as swapping out the radars, seems easier to me to adjust the missiles to work with the plane than the other way around. And finally, it's not like cruise missiles are strictly a Naval threat. The F-15 particularly with its later ability to identify aircraft via radar alone would have seemed an ideal platform for "killing them as far away as you so happen to be." | ||
| Reepicheep |
Cool discussion, thanks. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I'd think a missile launch platform would be more about longer ranges at higher straightline speeds." You'd be right  The F14 was mostly engines. "and the F-14D was better" The D had better engines and avionics. No longer necessary to use afterburner to take off (in fact, you couldn't...it would damage the catapult). Not as fun to watch at night, but they could damn near get supersonic in zone 5 without AB. The engines developed for the YF22 and 23 actually achieved this. Amazing stuff.  | ||
| Aesquire |
Just as the Navy didn't want an Air Force plane, and vice versa. Also the fact that taking a F-15 and landing on a carrier ( assuming you put an arrestor hook on that didn't rip the tail off ) would drive the landing gear through the plane. In WW2 the Brits added hooks to Spitfires and Hurricanes but neither was a really good carrier plane. Navy planes have stronger & heavier landing gear, usually onboard ( and heavier ) power units to start them without an external start cart, and even the hydraulic fluid is different. Air Force planes don't need the anti-corrosion measures Navy planes do. It's rare for a wave to splash a F-15. Hurricane force winds pushing sea ( salt! ) water at/over/into a plane and the occasional wave that goes as high as the flight deck & elevators are a common Navy problem. Heck, U.S. Navy bombs use a different paint than Air Force bombs. Navy bombs use an ugly, crinkle anti-fire paint. The Air Force keeps bombs in a Bunker, over there, away from people. The Navy has them in the same metal box where you sleep. And... I bet the President is ignorant of almost all of the above. ( that doesn't mean I should be President. I am ignorant of how to steal elections, how to hide illegal campaign contributions from illegal foreign donors, like Syria, where Obama is expert in these vital details of his Regime ) | ||
| Reepicheep |
I worked for a few years at a desk that was a few hundred yards from those engines running. Including the YF engines. I miss that job. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/politics/obama-saudi -arabia-tensions/index.html Barry has gone over to "make a deal". Presumably to veto the bill to release the info that the Saudi Royals had some hand in supporting the 9/11 murderers. However, Barry has also been sucking up to the Iranians, ( never mind that they mock him openly ) presumably to "have a great legacy" that includes "peace in out time" and a "deal" with Iran that no one else was able to. The rest of his foreign policy disasters, and the simple fact that Iran never has any intention of honoring any deal means nothing to Barry and his delusional followers. Barry is getting more and more obvious about being mentally ill. Narcissism is just the tip of this dark iceberg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_persona lity_disorder Iran, for the low information Voter.. ( please don't vote anymore ) is a different religion than Saudi Arabia, and both are theocracies, more or less.. 2 faiths sworn to the utter destruction of the other. so barry sucking up to the Iranian Mullahs does not please the Saudi Royals who finance the Mullahs in their country. An Asteroid strike on that peninsula during his visit would be cheered by the planet. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Navy planes have stronger & heavier landing gear" They are thrown off the deck by the nose gear. So yeah...a bit stronger. | ||
| Henshao |
I do pity the Navy, at times, as I consider the F-18 vs the F-15 vs the F-14. At least there was a very good argument for the F-14 being better (for the Navy) than the the F-15; too bad that (on paper) the F-15 is better than the F-18 in almost every way. Faster, more agile, bigger payload, longer legs, better radar and uses the exact same weapons. And by comparison the already established fighter was downright cheap as compared to the new-fangled Hornet. The superbug brings it a little closer in peformance but costs even more. | ||
| Hootowl |
If you beefed up an f15 enough to take launches and landings, you'd see a marked reduction in flight performance and range. Naval aircraft do pretty well for what they're saddled with. | ||
| Aesquire |
Several airplanes designed for the Navy were also purchased for the Air Corps/Air Force over the years. The SBD Douglas dive bomber was purchased but not used much in combat, Ditto the SB2C... but that was WW2. The F4U Phantom II( F-110/F-4 ) was probably the most successful, different tires, and a gun in the F-4E The A-3 Skywarrior was re-engined and modified into the B-66 Destroyer. ( The plane shot down in the "Bat 21" movie ) Used extensively for Electronic warfare and as a quick reaction bomber in Europe. And the Vought LTV A-7 Corsair II was also purchased & used in combat by the Air Force. The other way around usually is a problem. The F-111B is the most famous example. That's one reason I've been skeptical of the F-35. One for all doesn't work. But the F-35 is 3 very different airplanes in the real world.... still a big pile of compromises. | ||
| Hootowl |
Interesting tidbit about the A-3: It was the fastest non afterburner aircraft in the fleet at one time. Faster even than the F14A. They called it the sky pig. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/04/20/o bamas-countering-violent-extremism-program-collaps es-into-absurdity/ | ||
| Ducbsa |
Another conduit of money to community organizers: https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/04/20/o bamas-countering-violent-extremism-program-collaps es-into-absurdity/?singlepage=true | ||
| Ducbsa |
We are borrowing money to pay the Iranians for heavy water that they chose to produce. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/omri -ceren-analyze-this.php | ||
| Alfau |
We are borrowing money Who from ? Last I heard your credit has run out. | ||
| Aesquire |
From our grandchildren. And from us by faking money from nothing. |
