I met him a couple of times.  He took my wife up in our Cessna and gave her some tips on engine management (since she is more willing to take tips for SGOTI than from her own husband).  I thought he was extremely knowledgeable about aviation, and many other things.  I really do think he was smarter than the average POAer, even if not the genius he thought he was.  One time I spent a few nights in LZU and he arranged a free tie-down space for me, even though I didn't ask.  I respected him a lot more than a whole bunch of other POAers.

A lot of his outlandishness was just to pull people's chains and watch them go erratic.

Well he yanked enough chains to be the guy to close down most threads. Not from breaking the ROE, but from acting superior to every other mortal on this sphere. I found his ego and lies to be insufferable.  His anti-semitism and blaming the Jews and Rothschilds for every ill on earth told me he was an ignorant bigot at best.

I’m glad others had good experiences but I had no need to get to know him. He could have been at one of Jay Honeck’s North 40 parties, but I never met him there. 

Michael does not remember when Reagan walked away from the table with Russia.

He wouldn’t acknowledge that even if he did. The leftist position is that Reagan didn’t do squat. They contend that the USSR was a collapsing regime anyway, so it would have happened even without the Cold War. I shit you not.

Every time Trump attempts to negotiate with a foreign power, the libs immediately say Trump will be/was played because he either didn't get everything he wanted, or he didn't give anything up.  How did he get played if he didn't give up anything.

Or do you think it would be better if he didn't negotiate with them at all because they are just the junior varsity (as Obama said and did about ISIS)?  How did that work out?

Clinton and Obama gave up a ton of shit to NOKO, and got nothing in return, but nobody said they got played.

You and your liberal cohorts would prefer Trump fail to win anything rather than see him make progress that will help America.  Why is that?

Mikey would probably be happy if Trump showed up with pallets of billions of dollars in currency to give away to the Norks.

No, it isn't.  Has anyone tried to tear down your Church?  Is the state closing in on your house of worship?  No, not in the least, and it never will.  Hell, America might be the Great Satan in some Muslim lands, but Muslims have greater liberty to practice their religion here than any of those nations.  Everyone can practice their religion.  All we want is to keep Govco out.  Yes, its in the Constitution.

I suspect you guys are looking for government approbation of religious practice.  That's what state sponsored religious paraphernalia is. If you really want to live in a theocracy you should try Russia, the Russian Orthodox church actually has a big hand in running the place now.  Enjoy yourselves.

Hey, dipshit. The point was the destruction of monuments of the past, not our current churches of today.  My factual assertion stands. Educate yourself in the things that you pretend to know, but clearly don’t have any idea.

https://youtu.be/g6SVJ0uPLUk

Forth or Fourth?

English language are hard.

I sincerely hope it was an oversight.  Censoring artists in any way due to their political views is reprehensible.

Yet that is their (Hollywood and leftists’) stock in trade. Certainly this isn’t a surprise to you, is it?

I'm completely serious.

In my opinion ya'll are just bitching about a fact of life in a multi-gender force. Folks have sex, women get pregnant. The insinuation seems to be that women shouldn't serve. Or maybe shouldn't serve on ships? Or maybe shouldn't serve in combat roles? Or maybe shouldn't serve in front-line combat roles? Not sure, few of you will actually state, with detail, your vision of women in the military. You're all just picking at the edges - "women are different than men", "progressives just want equality at any cost", "pregnancy on a ship has a taxpayer cost"...

Well, pardon my French, but no shit! Quit beating around the bush and tell us part 2 of your point - you have a complaint, now what do we do about it?

Because if the insinuation is that women shouldn't serve on ships, I'd like to know how you intend to replace the 24+ THOUSAND non-pregnant women serving on ships as we speak (2015 numbers). Or at the very least, the metrics that lead to your belief that women serving on ships is a net negative to the force.

That's what I'm getting at about a meaningful comment. Just stating that something has a cost is not meaningful.

In my opinion ya'll are just bitching about a fact of life in multi-gender bathrooms. Folks have sex, women get pregnant. The insinuation seems to be that women shouldn't shit in men’s bathrooms. Or maybe shouldn't shit in women’s bathrooms? Or maybe shouldn't worry about men in women’s bathrooms? Or maybe shouldn't drink so much coffee so they shouldn’t put themselves at risk of rape by peeing so much? Not sure, few of you will actually state, with detail, your vision of multi-gender bathrooms. You're all just picking at the edges - "women are different than men", "progressives just want equality at any cost", "pregnancy from a rape in a women’s bathroom has a taxpayer cost"...

See how idiotic your premise is when your starting point is AFTER the social experiment is already embedded, either in the military, or in my example, in society?

The social experiment of women in combat roles is in its early stages. But people like you don’t want to address the military readiness cost in it. Taking a woman off a combat vessel is different, and longer lasting, than taking a man off for an appendicitis surgery. That role must then be filled with someone from some other place. A ship is not like a 48-man roster football team with second and third replacements per starter.