The video strikes me as setting up a strawman argument to push a political agenda much more than trying to actually provide meaningful information for the purpose of education.

Agreed ... it leans on the political side, and for the record, that was not my intention at all. I just wanted to illustrate the origin of the food and ingredients traditional to a Thanksgiving dinner table.

 

“shut up” I need to take video here.

 

Oakland, will the last person leaving please turn off the lights.

 

Oakland, will the last person leaving please turn off the lights.

Yes. Go on strike. That will help.

 

​

 

Lose weight or lose your jobs, offshore workers told


​

"You've kind of got to understand that back in the 70s and the 80s the average person was about 70-odd kilos, it's obviously going in an upward trend.

"I think you maybe have to do something about that, because you don't want to be the one stranded there because you're too heavy to be lifted out."

 

Lose weight or lose your jobs, offshore workers told
View attachment 359893
​

How the heck does a roughneck gain weight?

 

​

 

View attachment 359931​

The brain can only alert others.

 

How about the stomach alerts the brain which then alerts you? ... that description is a bit more accurate IMHO because I know that my stupid tummy has a mind of its own!

 

​

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/rcna245624
Parents say school-issued iPads are causing chaos with their kids
A growing contingent of public school parents say school-mandated iPads, particularly in elementary and middle schools, are leading to behavior problems.

 

iPads are fine, smartphones are not ... flawless logic indeed ...

 

 

​

 

I know this is rage bait (that's been happening since Truman) but here it is from an cadet dropout. Dude, redundancy is just good engineering in a world of unknown unknowns.

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...d-its-250th-birthday-now-lets-abolish-it/amp/

By that logic the Air Force is the prime redundancy.
Only the Navy, and Marines are constitutional forces.

 

I know this is rage bait (that's been happening since Truman) but here it is from an cadet dropout. Dude, redundancy is just good engineering in a world of unknown unknowns.

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...d-its-250th-birthday-now-lets-abolish-it/amp/

By that logic the Air Force is the prime redundancy.
Only the Navy, and Marines are constitutional forces.

The Marines are real men.

The Hill doesn't like real men.

Simple as that.

 

Yea, I read that article in my news feed yesterday and found the author's reasoning to be quite odd.

 

The Marines are real men.

The Hill doesn't like real men.

Simple as that.

Show me on the toy where a Marine touched your girlfriend.

 

I know this is rage bait (that's been happening since Truman) but here it is from an cadet dropout. Dude, redundancy is just good engineering in a world of unknown unknowns.

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...d-its-250th-birthday-now-lets-abolish-it/amp/

By that logic the Air Force is the prime redundancy.
Only the Navy, and Marines are constitutional forces.

Yep, rage bait. But it does remind me of a joke.

Foreign visitor to an American:

Okay. I understand that you have an Army, a Navy, and an Air Force.

I guess I can see why your Army needs it's own Air Force and Navy, and why your Navy needs it's own Army and Air Force. But why does your Navy's Army needs it's own Air Force?

Of course, the joke (as I heard it) neglected to mention that the Air Force also has it's own Army and Navy (at least it did when I was in, although the "navy" consisted of two PT boats used for drone recovery).

This "military analyst" (who has likely never served a day and only studied the issues from a safe ivory tower somewhere) makes the same kind of superficial reasoning that is so common, looking only at the most general high-level sound bite distinctions.

There have always been calls to put all waterborne assets under the control of the Navy, all airborne assets under the control of the Air Force, and all landborne assets under the control of the Army, They can then point to all kinds of beautiful charts and graphs showing how much money would be saved by doing so (and invariably pointing out how that money could then be used to spend on other things -- they never seem to suggest that the money saved simply not be taken from the taxpayers in the first place).

Even if we did this, we would very quickly discover (as we have rediscovered numerous times in the past) that you can't just pick any air unit and have them support any ground unit and expect good results. Military forces and operations are highly specialized -- they largely always have been and that is more true today than ever. Units that need to work together need to train together and need to have a shared identity and culture in order to be their most effective. So what we would move toward is having each service segregate into units that specialized in coordination with specific other segments of the other services, while always lacking that shared identity. Then, each service would find that it needed to keep people in one segregation in that same grouping as they moved from assignment to assignment, because they were too specialized to just pick up and plug into just any other group. This would lead to all kinds of bureaucratic overhead that would have its own costs and frictions and foul ups that, at the end of the day, would just be treating one part of the Army as the Navy's part of the Army, and one part of the Air Force as the part of the Army's Air Force that serves the Navy. So you would have effectively what we already have, except that every base and every person and every job would be mired down in having to constantly deal with the regulations and paperwork and hoops of all three branches all the time.