Explain.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Hmmmm from experience LEDs fail frequently?Spark wrote:
We're thinking of replacing at least some of the lights in our house with LEDs. Expensive as all hell but they last forever, amazingly bright and fuck, they're LEDs.
Its been argued enough times on this forum.Spark wrote:
Who was arguing that?Dilbert_X wrote:
Niether is good, and they're both much worse than lead - which is itself toxic, carcinogenic etc.
Maybe we can move on from the 'Dood its OK, what do you think 'depleted' means? Derp' argument.
And lead is pretty harmless so long as you wear gloves and don't lick it amongst other basic precautions. Very inert stuff, doesn't really go anywhere. Can't say the same about DU, will burn on contact with air and release a rather (chemically) nasty dust-like form. Not much fun. Still, better than "100% fatal cancer rates in lab tests" tungsten.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-06-22 11:03:49)
I agreed with much of what he said. I'm not sure as to how far he wants to take his policy of isolationism, as it brings war too. But the military can hit precision targets much quicker than in the 1950's. Or do you think that is because of all the bases?11 Bravo wrote:
i am voting for ron paul. i dont give a rats ass about anything else he is for or has said. what he says in this interview is exactly how i feel. no other candidate has said this stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4JDyTohHr4
LOL11 Bravo wrote:
and such a great contribution.
LOLPoseidon wrote:
LOL11 Bravo wrote:
and such a great contribution.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-06-22 18:22:07)
agreeUzique wrote:
all policies aside, i like ron paul's approach. he's an old fashioned type of politician that you don't see much nowadays.
The tea party was founded as a libertarian movement. It was quickly co-opted by everyone who felt dissatisfied with the Republican Party. Everyone from gun nuts, to social ultra conservatives flocked to it. It started as a small government, classically economically liberal group of people and then morphed into the idiocy it is today once Sarah Palin and Fox News dug their filthy paws into it in an attempt to control the message. I was a fan of the tea party when it first came out, weird men in revolutionary garb and all. Now it's full of people that know the correct catch phrases but don't have a fucking clue about economics and most of them really couldn't care less. As long as a candidate says he'll vote to cut the budget and cut taxes that's enough for them, then they move on to making sure the American flag pin in his suit is correct and that he praises Jebus.Uzique wrote:
i haven't really been following the tea party movement much but i'm a little alarmed to see ron paul cited as the 'founder' of the movement.
what's that all about? the last time i saw ron paul running for the presidency he was just some rogue that everyone was laughing at or being oddly struck by.
IIRC it takes what, 30 minutes for a nuclear weapon launched from the US to reach Russia? Yes, we can definitely hit targets more quickly and without foreign bases.13rin wrote:
I agreed with much of what he said. I'm not sure as to how far he wants to take his policy of isolationism, as it brings war too. But the military can hit precision targets much quicker than in the 1950's. Or do you think that is because of all the bases?11 Bravo wrote:
i am voting for ron paul. i dont give a rats ass about anything else he is for or has said. what he says in this interview is exactly how i feel. no other candidate has said this stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4JDyTohHr4
Ok Fox it's a start though. Get the next guy up in front of the mic. Fact check. Review pertinent bills he's voted on. Vet for fucks sake. Call them out. And I want to see some dems. Rebuild the reputation of media.
you forgot subs.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
IIRC it takes what, 30 minutes for a nuclear weapon launched from the US to reach Russia? Yes, we can definitely hit targets more quickly and without foreign bases.13rin wrote:
I agreed with much of what he said. I'm not sure as to how far he wants to take his policy of isolationism, as it brings war too. But the military can hit precision targets much quicker than in the 1950's. Or do you think that is because of all the bases?11 Bravo wrote:
i am voting for ron paul. i dont give a rats ass about anything else he is for or has said. what he says in this interview is exactly how i feel. no other candidate has said this stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4JDyTohHr4
Ok Fox it's a start though. Get the next guy up in front of the mic. Fact check. Review pertinent bills he's voted on. Vet for fucks sake. Call them out. And I want to see some dems. Rebuild the reputation of media.
i always thought part of the point of international satellite bases was for intervention-technology, legal loopholes (in the case of the middle-east/certain shitholes), and a harder chance of having a launch detected.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
IIRC it takes what, 30 minutes for a nuclear weapon launched from the US to reach Russia? Yes, we can definitely hit targets more quickly and without foreign bases.13rin wrote:
I agreed with much of what he said. I'm not sure as to how far he wants to take his policy of isolationism, as it brings war too. But the military can hit precision targets much quicker than in the 1950's. Or do you think that is because of all the bases?11 Bravo wrote:
i am voting for ron paul. i dont give a rats ass about anything else he is for or has said. what he says in this interview is exactly how i feel. no other candidate has said this stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4JDyTohHr4
Ok Fox it's a start though. Get the next guy up in front of the mic. Fact check. Review pertinent bills he's voted on. Vet for fucks sake. Call them out. And I want to see some dems. Rebuild the reputation of media.
Yea... I saw them a hubs in-case the US needed to ramp up a military presence or for logistical support. However, we've got carriers that are more than capable platforms.Uzique wrote:
i always thought part of the point of international satellite bases was for intervention-technology, legal loopholes (in the case of the middle-east/certain shitholes), and a harder chance of having a launch detected.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
IIRC it takes what, 30 minutes for a nuclear weapon launched from the US to reach Russia? Yes, we can definitely hit targets more quickly and without foreign bases.13rin wrote:
I agreed with much of what he said. I'm not sure as to how far he wants to take his policy of isolationism, as it brings war too. But the military can hit precision targets much quicker than in the 1950's. Or do you think that is because of all the bases?
Ok Fox it's a start though. Get the next guy up in front of the mic. Fact check. Review pertinent bills he's voted on. Vet for fucks sake. Call them out. And I want to see some dems. Rebuild the reputation of media.
I have a feeling this was rhetorical, but *head down, kick can* no.Uzique wrote:
can a carrier deploy within range in the same time it takes to give an order to your satellite-base, though?
i just think it's hilarious that you of all people would be criticizing someone on their contribution when your own "contributions" are worth about as much as a stripped down car11 Bravo wrote:
LOLPoseidon wrote:
LOL11 Bravo wrote:
and such a great contribution.
go to an obama rally you media sheep
Your contribution is as much as a dog's shit.Poseidon wrote:
i just think it's hilarious that you of all people would be criticizing someone on their contribution when your own "contributions" are worth about as much as a stripped down car11 Bravo wrote:
LOLPoseidon wrote:
LOL
go to an obama rally you media sheep
