Cost a bunch - agreed - to dump the supersonic nuke perpetrator profile. But they did make something of it. Much better at certain missions than the B-52 (of which I’m a big fan). Payload, speed, direct attack, moving target find and hit, low radar cross section - lots of pluses.
The B-2’s future is to be put on display at aeronautical museums.
For all that, USAF didn’t actually use the B-1 in the Balkans or in either Gulf War, even though everything else went, and it’s very hard to see any other actual engagement coming up in which it would be the preferred choice. It’s targeted for cancellation if the sequester budgets look permanent, which is the way to bet. Of course, Carter knew all that when he killed it the first time, only to have his intelligence and patriotism slammed by the Reagan adulators for it.
Congressman Ike Skelton of MO was instrumental in getting the B2 stationed in Missouri, of all places. And likely a key to keeping the thing in service at all. He served for a long time and was chairman of the House Armed Serviced Committee.
He died a couple years ago, and without a champion like that I wouldn’t be surprised if the B2’s days are seriously numbered.
Edit: Skelton was a Democrat, so not to pull him in as a stupid Republican…just commenting on the B2
Dude, this is the Stupid Idea thread, not the Unexpected Stroke Of Genius thread.
That’s $50 extra, like always, you know that.
So ex-Chaplain Crazy Klingenschmitt is saying that combat soldiers have to wear diapers because … gay marriage? I think that’s what he’s saying.
Honestly, anything that increases the likelihood of Republican idiots getting into office is strategically brilliant for them but a stupid idea for the rest of the country. So, yeah, ultimately stupid.
The stupid part was saying it in public.
“Dr. Chaps”?! Seriously?
Just because, and don’t go method on me, prima donna, it’s gay diaper-fetish porn and we all know your motivation. Ca-Ca Monster. Roll camera!
Why wouldn’t people from NY and Florida know each other? Of course many more older New Yorkers move to God’s waiting room than the reverse migration, but people do move to NY from Florida. I know two of them.
My friend is male. He mentioned a month or two ago that he was working for the Sink Campaign. And the story, for me, arose a few days before it became national when I tried to find her campaign website out of curiosity and stumbled upon the fraud.
I mentioned that in the second or third paragraph of an e-mail and he got back to me the same day with:
As for Sink, I’m not too worried about them having a few domain names. Our team is taking care of that and we’re still out-fundraising the Republican campaign.
Turns out he was right and the Google anti-phishing feature was effective.
Is it Rape Month already?
Conservative WSJ commentator James Taranto claims that it’s unfair that only men get blamed if women get sexually assaulted when both parties are drunk.
I think that analogy needs a little work there, James.
Even if the duct-tape option is going too far, I’m thinking the GOP/RW could benefit from a general election-year moratorium on mentioning the “r” word ever under any circumstances in any connection. It never helps.
Well, he’s sort of right. But it’s always a stupid idea for Republicans to talk about rape.
No, he’s not, AFAICT.
Now if we’re talking about a situation where we can’t figure out whether or not rape actually occurred, because both parties were drunk and they remember it differently and their accounts are all we have to go on, then I agree it’s unfair to automatically presume that the one being blamed is at fault. (The one being blamed is usually but not always male, and the one accusing them is usually but not always female.)
But if a rape did actually occur, then it should definitely be blamed on the person who did it, drunk or not, rather than the person who failed to adequately defend themselves against it, drunk or not.
Being too drunk to protect yourself successfully from rape is unfortunate and stupid but not criminal. Being too drunk to stop yourself from raping somebody is unfortunate and stupid AND criminal.
The argument I hear is not that someone is too drunk to defend herself (or himself), but that someone consents but is too impaired for the consent to be meaningful. If the couple are both drunk, who raped who?
It would appear that in the GOP, it’s always Rape Month.
There is an assumption out there that a person can claim that they were raped because they were too drunk to competently give consent. And in doing so, the courts and legal system have a tendency to side with the person making the claim and not give much credence to the defendant’s claim that they were both drunk.
There are a couple large assumptions in there. *Has *there been a successful prosecution under these–and no other extenuating–circumstances?
Thing is, in most jurisdictions drunk intercourse is rape by definition because an intoxicated person can’t give consent.