It's Floyd...isn't it? Sorry, me can't insert picture good. The link is to the comic of Thak and Gork on their Time Log. One of the onlookers is driving a Floyd's delivery truck. Floyd doesn't care about the state of his abode since meat is his life. It's all there in black and white.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/6695731eb3e85a1ca88573d64346e153/tumblr_inline_nql0z1WFHw1s5y24d_500.jpg

Looks like it got sawed in 3 parts. You can clearly see the tail part in the other side at the end of the video. I bet if he had checked the left side of the log he would have found the head chopped off.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Gratefulmom.

I'm saying that the F-35 doesn't need to do the job of the A-10 in the same style, because helicopters and drones already fill that loitering style of close air support. And they fill it better than the warthog. Drones loiter better and longer, and helicopters are less vulnerable while having just as much fire power, with the ability to keep enemies suppressed without stopping to turn around and run in again. Helicopters don't even fly that much slower than the A-10 and they have the advantage of being able to stay on the friendly side of the battle-line while firing at the enemy, as well as being able to use terrain as cover.
And fast movers do a better job of delivering bombs.

The warthog was created as a soviet tank killer and hasn't been used in the role ever, since the cold war never became a hot war. It was created in a time where high losses were acceptable. You could argue it was made to fight a war that didn't happen either. But it's been upgraded with all sorts of sensors that are already in helicopters and drones to extend it's role into something it wasn't really designed for in the first place.

I'm not beating up the warthog, it's my 2nd most favourite plane. I've logged some 400+ virtual flying hours in the A-10C in DCS World. I know what every single switch does in the cockpit. And I've dropped thousands of simulated laser and GPS guided bombs, launched thousands of mavericks, and strafed thousands of BMPs. I love the thing really
But it's duties are performed better by a range of modern aircraft now.

I didn't have cable or satellite TV (just OTA networks) until a bit after the peak of Ren and Stimpy, but I did see some of the episodes later as re-runs when I was in my late teens in the late 90s.

Magic Nose Goblins sticks in my head (and on the bottom of my table).

And the commercial for "Log" may well deserve some of the credit for my disdain with rampant ads and consumer culture.

Brilliant subversive show.

>>>Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?

That was exactly what Rick Jones said when I quoted him above:
"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional."

>>> Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless.
Ok, "pointless" is the wrong word. "Futile" would be more accurate.

>>> IANAL?
I Am Not A Lawyer. Sorry, thought that was a commonly know acronym.

>>> I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes.
Really? You can't imagine a politician supporting an anti-sodomy law? In a country where Rick fucking Santorum was considered a potential presidential candidate for one of the two main parties?
'cos I can imagine it pretty easily.
Reasonable human: "we'd like to stop animal abuse and get rid of this ridiculous puritanical law at the same time"
The likes of bobknight "RARRRG!! assault on family values, persecution of christians, fganogle..... GAAAAWWWWWWD" (while drooling)

>>> How's 1 year ago? Recent enough?
Jesus, that's depressing. At least, the case was thrown out, and on the plus side, having a ruling against the law sets a precedent.

Look, I agree that the law is ridiculous, and as I said, it's kind of shocking to think this attitude still exists in a supposedly educated, enlightened country. In a perfect world, laws like this would never have existed. Hell, in a fucking semi-sane, reasonable world, they'd have been wiped at least a decade ago when the supreme court declared them unconstitutional.

But right now, US politics is not even close to sane or reasonable. If it was, you could have an actual election between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and a democratic socialist (Sanders), instead of the current clusterfuck of having Hillary or god only knows what on the fucking looney tunes side.

So while the idealist side of me says that every single law like this should be fought tooth and nail, the pragmatic side of me says that until the US political system hacks its way out of the tentacles of the religious right, some ugly compromises are unavoidable.

Given that this doesn't actually make the situation worse (remember this law already existed), it's just a question of picking your battles.

I never intended to imply that it was an either/or choice. (EDIT: Sadly, it seems that may be the case, as they have yet to meaningfully address the water issue)

Since they DID change the law, they debated it. Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?
And for the reasons I delineated above, it's not pointless. Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless. They certainly have been a problem in the past, and as I said, holding the specter of their use returning is a horror we should not tolerate being inflicted on so many for no reason.
IANAL?
Your next paragraph is my point...I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes. That they neglect to take those 2 minutes, and instead again ratified this disgusting, unconstitutional part of an otherwise (seemingly) reasonable law is more than disgusting, it's a total shirking of their duty.
But yes, that's the US political climate. We're doomed.

*How's 1 year ago? Recent enough? There may be more recent.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/20/3624719/louisiana-police-arrest-two-men-anti-sodomy-law-declared-unconstitutional-2003/

EDIT: I understand that most people outside the US would be surprised that these laws are still on the books and being used, but they are. Often not prosecuted, but used to PERSECUTE instead.

OK, since again you are going to continue to comment to and about me after asking me to ignore you (so I can't read your lies to reply to them), I logged out, read them, and now I'll comment back.

BULLSHIT! You had a shit fit for days when I downvoted a video you posted and it went to the bottom of 'new and upcoming videos', and you cried censorship over and over and claimed it had been removed because you couldn't find your own video. You complained to dag and lucky repeatedly, and tried to have me banned for erasing your video (which never happened, you were just too lazy or incapable to look for it, and continued complaining for days after multiple people pointed out you were 100% wrong and showed you where your video was).

No single political opinion is solicited here, so even the suggestion that those matching yours might be sought out by the admins to make it 'fair and balanced' for you shows a clear lack of understanding of the site and the world in general. At least you understand it won't happen.

As to your specious claim (based on a fox new poll or nothing at all?) that there are more conservatives than liberals in America, it's ridiculous, and easily contradicted with actual facts....for instance, the 2015 Gallup poll said "PRINCETON, N.J. -- Thirty-one percent of Americans describe their views on social issues as generally liberal, matching the percentage who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999."...so even SELF identified liberals match self identified conservatives, if you go by actual political leanings on issues, there's no contest, 'liberals' outweigh 'conservatives' 3-1 (+-).
"Liberals" as you and the rest of the far right define them are clearly the majority view in America. Actual statistics follow:
Those in favor of reproductive choice >50%, anti choice<44%. 78% of Americans want Citizens United overturned. 70% of Americans don't want Social Security cut, 65% want it expanded. The same goes for wanting more financial regulations on banks and wall street, taxing the extremely rich at higher rates, adopting true single payer health care, doing public projects and works, having a standing army (yes, that's a liberal idea...as the army is a socialist program), etc. Those consistently holding "conservative" viewpoints across the board are an extremely small minority, contrary to how many people self identify.
"Conservatives" may hold a majority there in the Fox bubble, but in the real world they are a minority, consistently ridiculed for their total lack of knowledge about the things they complain about and for basing their backwards stances on 'truthiness' rather than fact, especially by those in other countries.

Now, once again, for the umpteenth time, I'll ask you kindly to "ignore" me just like you asked me to ignore you. It's pretty infantile to ask someone to ignore you so you can continue to publicly talk crap about and contradict them without fear that they'll respond...and I find that methodology typical of 'conservatives' that refuse to live by the rules they angrily insist everyone else must live by.
You really don't want me focusing on you in anger, which will happen if I'm forced to un-ignore you and re-engage because you can't quit me. Just stop and quit it, or no complaints when I re-engage with vigor and vitriol.

I would like to point out that a while back, @bobknight33 actually calmly asked me to ignore him, so being a reasonable person I complied, but even though I have repeatedly asked him to do the same, he refuses to return the favor and instead continues to comment on and "to" me, knowing full well I can't read his posts (unless I log out and search them out, which I'm loath to do). Pretty douchey if you ask me.

I found his posts to be consistently whining, underhanded, backwards, bigoted, completely uneducated, and pretty much 100% wrong 100% of the time, and quite often completely ignoring or intentionally flaunting the rules here. I'm also curious why he has not at the least been hobbled yet. He clearly only comes here to try to 'rile up the lefties' and be as insulting as his intellect will allow, not to engage in rational discussion. That's why ignoring him was not a big deal, I wasn't missing anything worth reading. Sadly, as you point out, ignoring him is simply ignoring the problem and allowing it to fester.

And just to be contrary, @VoodooV, moderation can work here. Chingalera is gone. It does take a concerted effort and repeated, egregious rule violations to make it happen though. Good luck.

Not just cardiac fitness though (and of course, the mental toughness requirement).

But one of the things is that later in BUDS/SEALS training, the boat teams have to lift a boat up over their heads (and logs too) and carry them on sand. This is a non-trivial requirement for upper body strength...

So: I don't know. Maybe, just maybe, decathletes?

Still a better option than Trump.

And I mean actually having a fictional character as president would be better than Trump. Actually a log of wood would be better than Trump

I am logged in, but it says "Private Video

Sorry, you don’t have permission to watch."

*dead

I always spell his name wrong...

Yes...see this fight VS Akebono...weighs were 180 lbs VS 486 lbs


EDIT: Granted, Akebono has a way to go before he's going to carry any 640 kg logs, but he is a 'professional fighter'...of a kind.

Royce Gracie fought at 80kg. Are you telling me he beat someone who was 160kg+?

Remember, I'm not talking about just some big guy, this is the guy that carried a 640kg (1443lb) log!
*related=http://videosift.com/video/the-Mountain-lifts-and-carries-a-1433-pound-log

I'm not saying he's unbeatable (clearly he's not *related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Mountain-learns-true-power-from-champion-armwrestler ).

Again, I'm not saying a smaller guy can beat a bigger guy; I get beaten up by smaller people every week!
I'm saying a 66kg guy will have a very hard time hurting a 190kg guy.