http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/iran-unveils-squadrons-of-flying-boats/?hpt=T2
In related news, the US DoD activated our anti flying-boat asset for defense:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Snoopy_wwi_ace_lb.jpg)
LOL, this was first thing which came to my mind:
(http://torturedfanbase.com/flying-monkey.jpg)
They look low and slow. With such a short wing span, they don't really fly as much as they ride on the compressed air between the lower wing surface and the surface of the earth.
It's one of those "for all intents and purposes" things. Yes, they fly, no they don't fly.
They also look very ease to shoot down. Go get em' Snoopy!
In my tackle box I have several "Boating Flies"
(http://www.greenhobbymodel.com/floattubeireland/flywallet.jpg)
In related news. . . Brazil has just announced the successful genetic engineering of a starfish with nipples.
And pulled from the same blog, a major campaign donor to the Democrat campaign for Georgia governor has just gotten sued for the fourth time for soliciting sex from underage boys:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/category/church-abuse/
It's okay though, he's a Democrat so it's not hypocritical. ::)
Can't imagine how loud the headlines would have been if he'd have supported McCain in 2008.
Quote from: Smokinokie on September 28, 2010, 11:49:51 AM
They look low and slow. With such a short wing span, they don't really fly as much as they ride on the compressed air between the lower wing surface and the surface of the earth.
It's one of those "for all intents and purposes" things. Yes, they fly, no they don't fly.
They also look very ease to shoot down. Go get em' Snoopy!
Hey, they got a lot of use for their $25.00 plans they ordered from Popular Mechanics.
Here is a spy pic of their new stealth rapid response boat.
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/reedwhacker.jpg)
Not to worry, the french will take care of em with this bad boy
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100927/capt.3639e5ffa258409e94ac73df307857ed-3639e5ffa258409e94ac73df307857ed-0.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=0IyXktUeZf8_K4oESeTZ3w--)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100927/tc_nm/us_eurocopter_x3_2
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 28, 2010, 12:34:11 PM
Hey, they got a lot of use for their $25.00 plans they ordered from Popular Mechanics.
Here is a spy pic of their new stealth rapid response boat.
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/reedwhacker.jpg)
What boat? Where? I don't see it.
Quote from: custosnox on September 28, 2010, 01:43:17 PM
Not to worry, the french will take care of em with this bad boy
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100927/capt.3639e5ffa258409e94ac73df307857ed-3639e5ffa258409e94ac73df307857ed-0.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=0IyXktUeZf8_K4oESeTZ3w--)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100927/tc_nm/us_eurocopter_x3_2
That may be the stupidest looking helo I've ever seen. They should go ahead and make the windshield higher and let the pilot steer with a pair of ape-hangers! Gimme a Warthog any day!
(http://www.strategic-air-command.com/aircraft/attack/images/a10_thunderbolt.jpg)
The Chuck Norris of aircraft. . .In fact, it's the only thing on Earth that can kill Chuck Norris!
Quote from: Gaspar on September 28, 2010, 01:52:17 PM
The Chuck Norris of aircraft. . .In fact, it's the only thing on Earth that can kill Chuck Norris!
That depends on who is flying it, doesn't it?
Quote from: custosnox on September 28, 2010, 03:07:48 PM
That depends on who is flying it, doesn't it?
Ahh! You are correct. If Chuck Norris was flying it, he could kill everyone. :o
Quote from: Gaspar on September 28, 2010, 04:08:16 PM
Ahh! You are correct. If Chuck Norris was flying it, he could kill everyone. :o
ArmaCHUCKdon?!?
Quote from: custosnox on September 28, 2010, 04:10:11 PM
ArmaCHUCKdon?!?
Am I the guy that has to post the website?
http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/ (http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/)
You know, Chuck Norris once passed a kidney stone without so much as a tear. We now call it the moon.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2010, 12:25:38 PM
Can't imagine how loud the headlines would have been if he'd have supported McCain in 2008.
Somehow, I've heard about this repeatedly over the last couple of days, although I hadn't previously heard the info about who his donees were.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2010, 12:25:38 PM
And pulled from the same blog, a major campaign donor to the Democrat campaign for Georgia governor has just gotten sued for the fourth time for soliciting sex from underage boys:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/category/church-abuse/
It's okay though, he's a Democrat so it's not hypocritical. ::)
Can't imagine how loud the headlines would have been if he'd have supported McCain in 2008.
Couple of things:
This is ALL over the mainstream news. Even on GMA this morning. I think the fact that he's a Baptist minister, of one of the largest churches in the world (30,000 members) with some very high profile members (MLK's daughter) might have something to do with that. He is hardly being painted in a positive light, regardless of his party affiliation.
And just as a technicality, the 4 men accusing him were all 16 or older at the time, which is the age of consent in Georgia, so they weren't underage as far as the law is concerned. Legally he has done nothing wrong. On the issue of morals however....
Bishop Long has campaigned against gay rights for decades and is one of the most outspoken clergy when it comes to his hatred for gays. He has even preached sermons stating that gays should be put to death. That, I think, is much more disturbing than how he is registered to vote.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on September 28, 2010, 11:20:46 PM
Couple of things:
This is ALL over the mainstream news. Even on GMA this morning. I think the fact that he's a Baptist minister, of one of the largest churches in the world (30,000 members) with some very high profile members (MLK's daughter) might have something to do with that. He is hardly being painted in a positive light, regardless of his party affiliation.
And just as a technicality, the 4 men accusing him were all 16 or older at the time, which is the age of consent in Georgia, so they weren't underage as far as the law is concerned. Legally he has done nothing wrong. On the issue of morals however....
Bishop Long has campaigned against gay rights for decades and is one of the most outspoken clergy when it comes to his hatred for gays. He has even preached sermons stating that gays should be put to death. That, I think, is much more disturbing than how he is registered to vote.
Ironically, Marc Foley's objects of attention were all of legal age by D.C. standards. Still didn't matter, he was labeled a pervert and pedophile with glee.
This definitely has not gotten the play that the Haggard and Foley scandals got.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 29, 2010, 09:11:28 AM
Ironically, Marc Foley's objects of attention were all of legal age by D.C. standards. Still didn't matter, he was labeled a pervert and pedophile with glee.
This definitely has not gotten the play that the Haggard and Foley scandals got.
Well, you know, he's not an elected official. And this guy has been in the news for three days or so, so he and Haggard are probably about neck and neck.
PS. What's with the whole Republican persecution complex thingy? What networks are you watching that come down so unfairly on the GOP? I ain't seeing it, especially on the majors.
Quote from: we vs us on September 29, 2010, 09:24:53 AM
Well, you know, he's not an elected official.
Funny, I remember the libs on here calling Foley a hypocrite at the time. Wouldn't a spiritual leader of 30,000 people and outspoken opponent of gay rights be a much bigger hypocrite? Or is that only relevant if he's a Republican?
And if he were an elected official with a D next to his name, it would get the fart in the wind treatment instead of a six week long circus prior to the mid-term elections like they did with the Foley story, or the endless attempts at painting prominent Republicans with ties to Ted Haggard as a bunch of pervert coddlers.
Most people had never heard of Gerry Studds (sounds like a porn star) prior to the Foley scandal. Studds had a dalliance with an
underaged page and was returned to Congress for six more terms after a censure. Where was the outrage from libs then? He was an elected leader.
I was outraged then and I am outraged now. I am a liberal democrat. There. Now you have heard of one of us being outraged.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 29, 2010, 09:47:44 AM
I was outraged then and I am outraged now. I am a liberal democrat. There. Now you have heard of one of us being outraged.
It's a start ;)
Quote from: we vs us on September 29, 2010, 09:24:53 AM
PS. What's with the whole Republican persecution complex thingy? What networks are you watching that come down so unfairly on the GOP? I ain't seeing it, especially on the majors.
The majors consider the treatment as deserved, not persecution, and therefore not a story.
Oh. He is a democrat. I must have spelled outrage incorrectly. I meant I was a hypocrite. Shame on bad republicans attacking a man of faith like that.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 29, 2010, 09:41:44 AM
Funny, I remember the libs on here calling Foley a hypocrite at the time. Wouldn't a spiritual leader of 30,000 people and outspoken opponent of gay rights be a much bigger hypocrite? Or is that only relevant if he's a Republican?
And if he were an elected official with a D next to his name, it would get the fart in the wind treatment instead of a six week long circus prior to the mid-term elections like they did with the Foley story, or the endless attempts at painting prominent Republicans with ties to Ted Haggard as a bunch of pervert coddlers.
Most people had never heard of Gerry Studds (sounds like a porn star) prior to the Foley scandal. Studds had a dalliance with an underaged page and was returned to Congress for six more terms after a censure. Where was the outrage from libs then? He was an elected leader.
Dude, what's in your coffee? Gerry Studds diddled the page
in 1973. He was censured by the House, which is entirely appropriate. I have no idea why charges weren't pressed, and since I was born that year, can't remember what the "lib" response was. Foley didn't let any of that play out, and stepped down before censure could even start. C'est la vie. That was his choice. You'll notice that Mr. Wide Stance himself -- who was arrested for lewd conduct -- was allowed to serve out his term without so much as a slap on the wrist. Guess what? He was a Republican.
BTW, Pastor Eddie Long is now on the front page of every news organization's website. He's getting all the play you wished for him, and there's undoubtedly more to come.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 29, 2010, 09:41:44 AM
Funny, I remember the libs on here calling Foley a hypocrite at the time. Wouldn't a spiritual leader of 30,000 people and outspoken opponent of gay rights be a much bigger hypocrite? Or is that only relevant if he's a Republican?
No, he's a total hypocrite, and a complete scumbag (if proven guilty). That was the point of my post. It doesn't matter what party he claims affiliation to.
Typically these people have been Republican politicians, and they are hypocrites because they base much of their platforms on so-called morality issues. In this case, he's not a politician but a preacher with the same hateful agenda who happens to be a registered Democrat, and a closet 'Mo. No difference.
Anyone who preaches morality and publicy and actively campains against the gay community and their 'lifestyle', then engages in said behavior is a hypocritical scumbag.
Quote from: we vs us on September 29, 2010, 09:24:53 AM
PS. What's with the whole Republican persecution complex thingy? What networks are you watching that come down so unfairly on the GOP? I ain't seeing it, especially on the majors.
No kidding. Are we talking about the same media that convinced the American people it was IRAQ who attacked us on 9/11 while refusing to cover the negligent inaction of the Bush administration in Afghanistan?
The biggest lie perpetuated endlessly decade after decade from the conservative activist radio/print/tv media is that the MSM is "liberal."
Repeat a lie often enough and 20% of the American sheeple will be patriotically inspired to believe it.... go figure.
Speaking on matters of what the "liberal" media chooses to cover, here's a little gem that has received virtually no MM coverage at all:
http://www.newser.com/story/101157/anti-gay-death-threat-traced-to-gop-senators-office.html
Apparently the Georgia Senator has admitted the "All Faggots must die" posting did originate from his office, but so far they are unwilling or unable to find out exactly who is responsible- something that anyone who is even slightly internet savvy could figure out in a matter of minutes.
This happened over a week ago. Clearly not as important of a media story as Bristol Palin's dancing moves.
I think those flying boats are cool. I would like to have one.
Quote from: waterboy on September 29, 2010, 11:18:01 AM
I think those flying boats are cool. I would like to have one.
I bet you would. How about a turbo prop version?
i'm not sure what powers them, but I could certainly see some advantages from having a fast, low flying, under the radar, land or water based, fleet of these. Put one of those new high power boxer engines on one with an offset dual prop for silencing and you could raise hell attacking a community before they could mobilize against you. Sort of like our drone planes.
Do you think the flying boats go slow enough to fish? It would be really cool to fly around until I see some big fish then be able to troll a hook past them.
Yeah, with a head wind out of the north you could slow it down to a crawl relative to the river and bowfish ala Palin if you wanted. Maybe even make it onto the History Channel! Can you chaw?
Here is what I find interesting. Everyone assumes this is some sort of lame offensive weapon presented as a threat to America. There is no indication of that in the article. In fact, at least one poster following the story noted that:
"As a offensive platform, these are a joke, as a maritime patrol craft these are awesome. Radar evading? have the Iranians not heard about lookdown shoot down radar tech that was perfected in the 80's? Interms of protecting territorial waterways, this is a nice craft."
Instead, everyone here scoffs at it. Keep this in mind. This vehicle is easily portable (can be broken down, transported and reassembled using UPS) cheap to make and can travel where most military vehicles cannot get to quickly. It can slow down to a crawl, turn on a dime and carry 50 caliber machine guns. It could do damage and be gone before our more sophisticated weapons systems even know what has happened. Who would have thought that improvised weapons in Iraq would have stopped our sophisticated Humvees and caused so much damage. In other words it is a similar concept to our WWII Sherman tanks vs the German Panzers.
I would think they could be quite useful during natural catastrophes too.
found this on popsci's website on the craft
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-09/irans-boat-plane-thing-would-strike-fear-other-flying-military-boats-if-they-existed
They look like a new seado.