If you ever decided to leave the USA, where would you go?

[tjohnson]

I think DU was used mostly to penetrate armor.

--Brant

That is correct. The A-10 (or "warthog") was the plane that delivered most of the DU shells to their targets (mostly tanks and other vehicles). Since DU is thirteen times denser than lead the DU shells were a deadly kinetic-energy-kill weapon.

Ba'al Chatzaf

FYI, the density of Lead is approximately 60% that of DU. Lead is around 13,350 kg/m³ and DU is about the same as Uranium around 19,000 kg/m³

Okay, but what is the weight difference and how important is weight to an aircraft? Also, how would weight affect the velocity of the projectile? Velocity is extremely important at the point of impact.

Of course there is the obvious reason for using DU instead of simple U?

--Brant

Beats me, I was just wondering why Ba'al said it was 13 times denser.

[tjohnson]

Um...back to the subject at hand:

I'm still quite enamored (despite the socialized medicine and relatively high real estate costs) with Vancouver, BC. Sight unseen, I would also consider Chile and (maybe) New Zealand. But ~not~ anyplace really warm, where there are bugs and/or thugs.

Which reminds me of a joke (which--full disclosure--I just made up):

What's the difference between Vancouver and Bogota?

Vancouver is in British Columbia, and Bogota is in brutish Colombia.

Hyuck, hyuck.

REB

The best way to avoid socialized medicine is to not get sick.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think DU was used mostly to penetrate armor.

--Brant

That is correct. The A-10 (or "warthog") was the plane that delivered most of the DU shells to their targets (mostly tanks and other vehicles). Since DU is thirteen times denser than lead the DU shells were a deadly kinetic-energy-kill weapon.

Ba'al Chatzaf

FYI, the density of Lead is approximately 60% that of DU. Lead is around 13,350 kg/m³ and DU is about the same as Uranium around 19,000 kg/m³

Okay, but what is the weight difference and how important is weight to an aircraft? Also, how would weight affect the velocity of the projectile? Velocity is extremely important at the point of impact.

Of course there is the obvious reason for using DU instead of simple U?

--Brant

Beats me, I was just wondering why Ba'al said it was 13 times denser.

Misplaced decimal point. Would you believe 1.3 times denser?

When old Gunny (H. Lee Ermy) describe this ammo (HOO-rah!)he also described the GUA canon on the A-10 as a tube full of kick-ass (HOO-rah!). When one of these bad boys hits a tank if blows it open. That is the kinetic energy kill. It is isn't radioactive, it is just fatal (HOO-rah!) .

Ba'al Chazaf

Edited April 18, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

Peter, get a grip. Stop using JR as your own imagined picture of Dorian Gray.

End quote

You know, that’s pretty good Brant. Took me a minute, but I got it. Just remember, he started it! My lampoons are in retaliation.

If I don’t respond he will just keep drooling, dragging his knuckles, and spouting Junior’s Jibberish. I waited until the third jab from him last time, before I responded.

Don’t you know what an honor it is to be satirized by me? Only real villains get the full treatment, so I will need to force it with Good Knight Gaede.

from Wikipedia: “. . . the villagers spilled out into the street, torches ablaze. Doctor Frankenstein had gone too far this time. For he had created a cross between a brant (a goose) and a rock group. They called themselves Prussian Blue and they are a honking, white nationalist pop teen duo formed by Lynx Vaughan Gaede and Lamb Lennon Gaede, fraternal twin girls born on June 30, 1992 in Bakersfield, . . . to their mother Morticia and their father, Brant Gaede.”

Hold it right there!

I was going to give you the deluxe treatment but then you told my buddy Roger: “Easter Island, Roger, go to Easter Island. Or Pitcairn.”

Brant you leave VIP Roger alone, and I will stop kicking that dog, Junior. Roger is a Very Important Person, while Junior is a Very Ignorant Person. Hero that I am, I will only retaliate if provoked.

An aside. Obama did something good yesterday and something bad, all at the same time. He told all hospitals that accept Medicare and Medicaid monies that they must abide by the patient’s directive as to who may be there in the hospital with you after an operation, or who can make decisions for you if you are incapacitated.

This is good because it is long overdue. Friends can be more important than family even if it is a gay friend.

It is bad, because Lord Obama decreed it. Once again, he is stealing our rights and getting around all checks and balances. Diabolical.

What’s it like on Pitcairn Island? I saw a special some time ago and it only had a couple of hundred inhabitants. Yet with satellite reception, (and lots of money) you might never know you weren’t in Free America circa 1950.

Hurry guys! Grab a bottle of coke. The Beaver is coming on at 8pm and after that we will be hearing the theme to “Peter Gunn.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

It's embarassing to share my name with those stupid shitty twits. At least if there is a blood relation it goes way back into the 19th C. At least no one has put the screws to me for stupid shitty twit support.

--Brant

[algernonsidney]

Um...back to the subject at hand:

I'm still quite enamored (despite the socialized medicine and relatively high real estate costs) with Vancouver, BC. Sight unseen, I would also consider Chile and (maybe) New Zealand.

Weather is definitely a factor, Roger. And, unlike government, weather is one thing that people really can not change.

Austin, Texas, where I am now, is often called the "allergy capital of the world." Several factors are at play. One is the general dryness here.

One thing really good about Austin is that you don't see many insects here. I attribute that to some of the large bat colonies that you can find around here.

I often think about moving back to Washington. I've heard that there is just more oxygen in the air there. I know when I lived up there, it was the healthiest six months of my life. Temperature almost always stays between 30 and 80. It was always gray though. I had absolutely no allergy problems out there.

[tjohnson]

Misplaced decimal point. Would you believe 1.3 times denser?

LOL, where's the decimal point in "thirteen"?

[Dragonfly]

Misplaced decimal point. Would you believe 1.3 times denser?

LOL, where's the decimal point in "thirteen"?

It reminds me of those Himalayan glaciers melting away in 2035.

[BaalChatzaf]

Misplaced decimal point. Would you believe 1.3 times denser?

LOL, where's the decimal point in "thirteen"?

13.0 ---> 1.30

Schmuck!

Ba'al Chaztaf

[Alfonso Jones]

Misplaced decimal point. Would you believe 1.3 times denser?

LOL, where's the decimal point in "thirteen"?

13.0 ---> 1.30

Schmuck!

Ba'al Chaztaf

Ba'al - -

LOL.

Bill P

[tjohnson]

Misplaced decimal point. Would you believe 1.3 times denser?

LOL, where's the decimal point in "thirteen"?

13.0 ---> 1.30

Schmuck!

Ba'al Chaztaf

Yeah, but you didn't write 13.0, you wrote;

Since DU is thirteen times denser than lead the DU shells were a deadly kinetic-energy-kill weapon.

So it's kind of hard to misplace the decimal point in "thirteen".

[BaalChatzaf]

Misplaced decimal point. Would you believe 1.3 times denser?

LOL, where's the decimal point in "thirteen"?

13.0 ---> 1.30

Schmuck!

Ba'al Chaztaf

Yeah, but you didn't write 13.0, you wrote;

Since DU is thirteen times denser than lead the DU shells were a deadly kinetic-energy-kill weapon.

So it's kind of hard to misplace the decimal point in "thirteen".

One misreads the 1.3 as 13 by overlooking the point. Got it?

[Dragonfly]

One misreads the 1.3 as 13 by overlooking the point. Got it?

But when you wrote "thirteen" an alarm bell should have gone off in your head. Uranium thirteen times heavier than lead?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Don't you know what an honor it is to be satirized by me?

Peter,

LOL...

I have to give you points for healthy self-esteem and spirit.

I sometimes get a subtext from your posts that nobody has a monopoly on pissing other people off. Nobody. Whether I agree or disagree, I really like that subtext. Kinda reminds me of me...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

I just finished doing myself semi-permanent brain damage reading the last thirteen pages:

Jesus, what a juvenile, depressing, nit-picking, tangent and irrelevancy - filled, mean-spirited, contempt-laden, personal animosities and attack doggery, bow-wowing, one-upsmanship, putdown-oriented, repetitious, self-indulgent, too-much-time-on-your-hands, oversimplifying history thread.

.

.

.

.

Did I mention that I didn't find more than a handful of good, relevant, enlightening posts on this long-winded 240 post thread?

Edited April 19, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, Phil, that shows to go ya'.

You don't have a monopoly on pissing people off, either.

Michael

[tjohnson]

One misreads the 1.3 as 13 by overlooking the point. Got it?

Yeah, just teasing you.

[Peter]

Michael, this thread may precipitate pissing people off because it isn’t just about a get-away fantasy to the South Seas. It is about a country becoming so parasitic and totalitarian that it is no longer “livable for a producer.”

And so when someone mentions something they find horrible about America, which came from a nut-so left-wing website, the lie sets off rationally patriotic alarm bells in Objectivists like you and me. Objectivists want America fixed, not destroyed.

The rational patriotic Objectivist and the Left Libertarian/Anarchist may agree that America needs to be fixed but soon we both realize that we are mortal enemies. They want to be free to be communal communists or Anarchist supermen, as long as the niof principle is observed and the rational Objectivist patriot realizes that is impossible and that voluntary communal slavery or Wild Anarchist Freedom would eventually become involuntary totalitarianism.

And the Left Libertarian/ Anarchist who’s actually a Totalitarian at heart realizes that Objectivists will not become slaves voluntarily and so Objectivists are their enemy.

The differences between Left Libertarians and Anarchists is minor because the outcome is always totalitarianism. Knock Peter Schwartz’s article on Libertarianism and Anarchism all you want but I see the antagonism between two seemingly similar philosophies on a daily basis.

That awful quote of Rothbard’s speaking lovingly of communism showcases the rot in their premises. At the very root of their being, something is very wrong. Their Psyches are a-kilter. And that hidden rot manifests itself eventually.

Objectivism is clearly for an integrated philosophy of life, which includes the political realm. The Left Libertarian/Anarchists borrow from parts of Rand, but their goal, overt or subliminal, consciously expressed or subconsciously repressed, is Totalitarianism.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The rational patriotic Objectivist and the Left Libertarian/Anarchist may agree that America needs to be fixed but soon we both realize that we are mortal enemies.

Peter,

This is where we disagree. I think anarcho-capitalists are pussycats. (I don't know of any leftist libertarians.)

The few anarcho-capitalists I know of who actually got their hands on power didn't do much with it. Not much at all. Not like the Commie thugs, who went on to wholesale slaughter time and time again.

Some anarcho-capitalists are loud and talk mean, and I disagree strongly with some of the ancap premises, but most of the ancaps I know are really good people underneath.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

I just finished doing myself semi-permanent brain damage reading the last thirteen pages:

Jesus, what a juvenile, depressing, nit-picking, tangent and irrelevancy - filled, mean-spirited, contempt-laden, personal animosities and attack doggery, bow-wowing, one-upsmanship, putdown-oriented, repetitious, self-indulgent, too-much-time-on-your-hands, oversimplifying history thread.

.

.

.

.

Did I mention that I didn't find more than a handful of good, relevant, enlightening posts on this long-winded 240 post thread?

If only the rest of us were as highly educated as Phil and possessed his extraordinary literary talents! We, too, would be able to produce "precisely written" posts that were relevant, succinct, and ever so civil. What a utopia it would be!

JR

[dan2100]

The rational patriotic Objectivist and the Left Libertarian/Anarchist may agree that America needs to be fixed but soon we both realize that we are mortal enemies.

Peter,

This is where we disagree. I think anarcho-capitalists are pussycats. (I don't know of any leftist libertarians.)

The few anarcho-capitalists I know of who actually got their hands on power didn't do much with it. Not much at all. Not like the Commie thugs, who went on to wholesale slaughter time and time again.

Some anarcho-capitalists are loud and talk mean, and I disagree strongly with some of the ancap premises, but most of the ancaps I know are really good people underneath.

Michael

I don't think I know any "Right" libertarians. I think, for reasons Jeff Riggenbach presented in his recent book, all libertarians are true heirs of the Left -- and most on the so called Left have become either heirs to the Right or have grafted Left ideals (i.e., reason, freedom, social progress) onto Right means (i.e., force).

[Philip Coates]

> If only the rest of us were as highly educated as Phil and possessed his extraordinary literary talents! We, too, would be able to produce "precisely written" posts that were relevant, succinct, and ever so civil.

Actually, Jeff, it wouldn't require nearly that much:

Just a tiny bit of focus. Perhaps thinking about relevance to the thread (and am I in a food fight) for more than fifteen seconds - and then a quick pass through, editing and "culling", which one should do with any thoughts one wishes to share before posting.

All grounded on a maturity level not much beyond that of the average American.

Helpfully,

Phil

Edited April 19, 2010 by Philip Coates

[dan2100]

Michael, this thread may precipitate pissing people off because it isn't just about a get-away fantasy to the South Seas. It is about a country becoming so parasitic and totalitarian that it is no longer "livable for a producer."

And so when someone mentions something they find horrible about America, which came from a nut-so left-wing website, the lie sets off rationally patriotic alarm bells in Objectivists like you and me. Objectivists want America fixed, not destroyed.

The rational patriotic Objectivist and the Left Libertarian/Anarchist may agree that America needs to be fixed but soon we both realize that we are mortal enemies. They want to be free to be communal communists or Anarchist supermen, as long as the niof principle is observed and the rational Objectivist patriot realizes that is impossible and that voluntary communal slavery or Wild Anarchist Freedom would eventually become involuntary totalitarianism.

And the Left Libertarian/ Anarchist who's actually a Totalitarian at heart realizes that Objectivists will not become slaves voluntarily and so Objectivists are their enemy.

The differences between Left Libertarians and Anarchists is minor because the outcome is always totalitarianism. Knock Peter Schwartz's article on Libertarianism and Anarchism all you want but I see the antagonism between two seemingly similar philosophies on a daily basis.

That awful quote of Rothbard's speaking lovingly of communism showcases the rot in their premises. At the very root of their being, something is very wrong. Their Psyches are a-kilter. And that hidden rot manifests itself eventually.

Objectivism is clearly for an integrated philosophy of life, which includes the political realm. The Left Libertarian/Anarchists borrow from parts of Rand, but their goal, overt or subliminal, consciously expressed or subconsciously repressed, is Totalitarianism.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

It'd be interesting to see Peter Taylor attempt to demonstrate rather than repeatedly insist his point here. He might find, in the process of trying to reason to the conclusion -- the one that he ever loudly proclaims here and elsewhere -- that said conclusion doesn't follow -- that libertarian anarchism doesn't end in totalitarianism (even with a capital T).

He might also do well to actually read the writings of libertarian anarchists before clutching to the folds of Peter Schwartz's skirt for protection.

It's also interesting that, despite obviously being ignorant of the literature of libertarian anarchism, Peter seems to believe he knows enough about it and its writers to probe their psychologies. Perhaps his talents are wasted here. Since he believes he has such Sherlockian mental powers, why doesn't he turn his mind toward solving great crimes or curing cancer?

[jriggenbach]

> If only the rest of us were as highly educated as Phil and possessed his extraordinary literary talents! We, too, would be able to produce "precisely written" posts that were relevant, succinct, and ever so civil.

Actually, Jeff, it wouldn't require nearly that much:

Just a tiny bit of focus. Perhaps thinking about relevance to the thread (and am I in a food fight) for more than fifteen seconds - and then a quick pass through, editing and "culling", which one should do with any thoughts one wishes to share before posting.

All grounded on a maturity level not much beyond that of the average American.

Helpfully,

Phil

Sorry, Phil, but I'm stuck back at a much lower level of intellectual development. You see, I can figure out what MY purpose is in commenting on a thread. I even do okay when it comes to ascertaining the relevance of any particular post (including my own) to MY purposes in reading a thread. But I've not yet advanced to the ethereal level of intellectual development that you've reached. Therefore, I'm at a loss when it comes to figuring out what THE purpose of the thread is and what sorts of comments are relevant to THE purpose of the thread. Also, because I'm stuck at such a primitive level, I can't rid myself of the suspicion that all talk of "maturity" is actually talk about how the speaker or writer using that word wants other people to behave. If they live up to his standards, they are "mature." If they don't, they are "immature." I can't, that is, rid myself of the suspicion that all such talk is mere name-calling, thinly disguised as factual commentary.

So you see how hopeless I am. Not as hopeless as Peter Taylor, I'll grant you. But hopeless, nonetheless.

Sorrowfully,

JR

[Philip Coates]

> I'm at a loss when it comes to figuring out what THE purpose of the thread is

1. You read the title and the first post.

2. You deduce that the thread is about where you would go if you left the USA.

3. You infer that posts on what Ronald Reagan did and whether or not he was the "worst U.S. President" and on whether or not Peter Taylor is a bad man and whether or not you are still nursing old wounds from past encounters with him are neither relevant, nor, in the second case, particularly mature.

Especially if you go on and on and on about them, repetitiously in the second case and if you simply make a series of flat, sweeping unsupported assertions in the first.

Sorry if that's too taxing for you. Try to keep up,

Phil