This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Things of your day

1669670672674675924

Comments

  • edited October 2012
    I don't understand what your trying to do with Evangelion, Japan. I really don't.
    It gets better (Yo dawg, I heard you like product placement, so we...).


    Post edited by Casa Vino on
  • Batman Pleads Not Guilty To Obstructing Cops.
    From the article, it's hard to understand what, if anything, he actually did wrong in either instance mentioned.


  • https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-chrome-to-phone-ex/oadboiipflhobonjjffjbfekfjcgkhco

    Chrome to Phone is the best frikking thing ever for anybody sitting behind a work firewall.
  • Thing of my day? Easily this.
  • Thing of my day? Easily this.
    Call me old fashioned and tasteless but I will forever have a soft place in my heart for Robotech. I used to run home from school to catch it and Voltron in the 3-4PM hour when I was in Elementary school.
  • Batman Pleads Not Guilty To Obstructing Cops.
    From the article, it's hard to understand what, if anything, he actually did wrong in either instance mentioned.


    Oh shit I remember that. That's like right near where I live. You know I think if he had had those weapons and wasn't dressed up he might not have gotten in nearly as much trouble. While I think the baton is illegal to carry, pepper spray is legal and I don't think those gloves are explicitly mentioned in any law. I think the fact that he was dressed up gave him intent which made it worse, but I'm no lawyer.
  • edited October 2012
    image
    image
    Post edited by muppet on
  • edited October 2012
    image
    Post edited by DevilUknow on
  • http://www.coolhunting.com/culture/jello-presidents.php

    All 44 US presidents' heads recreated in Jell-O.
  • image
    image
    What did I miss in the political world yesterday?
  • Obama admonished Mitt because we have fewer horses and bayonets in the military than we did in 1917.

    Which is true, but we're comparing a time period when machine guns had just been invented to today where we've got drones to mount bayonets on.
  • I see. Fun fact: when Chesty Puller was introduced to the flamethrower, he said "where do I put the bayonet?"
  • I want to put a bayonet on a crew-served weapon.
  • My Imperial Guard Hellhound has a bayonet on it's inferno cannon. (I have a redcoat-themed steampunk army)
  • Romney was trying to say that Obama was weakening the military because we have fewer large ships in the navy than we did in 1917. Obama retorted " We also have fewer horses and bayonets" to imply that the reason for reducing the size of our blue water navy is because much of it is obsolete.
  • edited October 2012
    Romney was trying to say that Obama was weakening the military because we have fewer large ships in the navy than we did in 1917. Obama retorted " We also have fewer horses and bayonets" to imply that the reason for reducing the size of our blue water navy is because much of it is obsolete.
    What do the resident war nerds thinks of this article by The Ward Nerd regarding the relative uselessness of large naval ships in modern warfare?
    Post edited by DevilUknow on


  • Steam sale and green light submission.
  • edited October 2012
    I find it funny that Obama makes a joke about not needing bayonets while that's one of the things on the previous "assault weapons" ban that he supposedly wants to reinstate. Don't get me wrong, I'm voting for him and I don't think the ban is anything to worry about anytime soon but Its just kinda funny.

    also


    Steam sale and green light submission.
    I can't wait to buy it for like a dollar during the inevitable steam sale.

    Post edited by ninjarabbi on
  • Romney was trying to say that Obama was weakening the military because we have fewer large ships in the navy than we did in 1917. Obama retorted " We also have fewer horses and bayonets" to imply that the reason for reducing the size of our blue water navy is because much of it is obsolete.
    What do the resident war nerds thinks of this article by The Ward Nerd regarding the relative uselessness of large naval ships in modern warfare?
    Oversimplication. The war nerd knows his shit geopolitically but his actual grasp of specifics breaks down pretty fast simply because he doesn't get technology the way he gets politics and relies on a narrow set of evidence as a knockdown blow. He makes some good points regarding survivability but they are overshadowed by both simple realities of hydrodynamic engineering and by the overwhelming usefulness of the aircraft carrier as well as an overestimation of specific tactics which are basically the current focus of countermeasures research. Essentially, he had an over-reactionary point of view regarding a weapon system when it turned out a reliable countermeasure (point defense laser turrets) were right around the corner, and he retains this reactionary view based on the (correct) assumption that what loses wars is conservative thinking. His assessment of the political side of the navy is right on but I don't think he understands the methods carrier groups use to express their dominance of an airspace.
  • Obama admonished Mitt because we have fewer horses and bayonets in the military than we did in 1917.

    Which is true, but we're comparing a time period when machine guns had just been invented to today where we've got drones to mount bayonets on.
    Wow. This is about as one-sided a description of that exchange as I think was humanly possible. Bravo!
Sign In or Register to comment.