search results matching tag: lockheed
» channel: weather
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
Videos (58) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (6) | Comments (85) |
Videos (58) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (6) | Comments (85) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
VideoSift 2nd Presidential Debate Liveblog Party (Sift Talk Post)
good question from internet there
Bullshit, he took on Boeing and that was it.
Substituted it for Lockheed.
2008 presidential candidates who support the New World Order
>> ^volumptuous:
CFR is nonsense.
People thinking the CFR is going to control the world, are up there with WTC7/Truth Movement-ers, and bigfoot aficionados.
uggh, I wish I could downvote.
Ahem.....
Today in the Bush administration, every single appointee is a CFR member. The CFR prohibits its members from disclosing anything that has been said within it's closed meetings to outsiders. A recent breakdown of the 4200+ members today reveals that 31% come from the corporate sector, 25% come from academia, 15% from charities, 13% from government, 8% from law, 6% from the media and 2% from other professions. CFR members are on the boards of the following sample of corporations: Citicorp, J.P.Morgan Chase, Boeing, Conoco, Disney, IBM, Exxon Mobil, Dow Jones, Viacom/CBS, Time Warner, Carlyle Group, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston, Chevron Texaco, Lockheed Martin, Hailliburton, Washington Post/Newsweek.
A former member of the CFR: Rear-Admiral Chester Ward USN JAG (Ret) exposed the sinister intentions of the council in the Review of the News:
"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common - they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR...comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in control of global government. They would probably prefer that this be an all-powerful United Nations organization; but they are also prepared to deal with and for a one-world government controlled by the Soviet communists if US sovereignty is ever surrendered to them."
Admiral Ward's book: "The Betrayers".
"THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (C.F.R.) IS THE AMERICAN BRANCH OF A SOCIETY WHICH ORIGINATED IN ENGLAND AND BELIEVES NATIONAL BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE OBLITERATED AND ONE-WORLD RULE ESTABLISHED." The Organization's aim is "NOTHING LESS THAN TO CREATE A WORLD SYSTEM OF FINANCIAL CONTROL IN PRIVATE HANDS ABLE TO DOMINATE THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OF EACH COUNTRY AND THE ECONOMY OF THE WORLD AS A WHOLE.....I KNOW OF THE OPERATIONS OF THIS NETWORK BECAUSE I HAVE STUDIED IT FOR TWENTY YEARS AND WAS PERMITTED FOR TWO YEARS, IN THE EARLY 1960s, TO EXAMINE ITS PAPERS AND SECRET RECORDS."
--- Col. Carroll Quigley (Ret)
"I think there is an elite in this country and they are the ones who run an elitist government (shadow government). They want a government by a handful of people because they don't believe the people themselves can run their lives... Are we going to have an elitist government that makes decisions for people's lives or are we going to believe as we have for so many decades, that the people can make these decisions for themselves?".
--- Ronald Reagan
"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence; on
infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation
instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which as conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly-knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
- John F. Kennedy
And some infamous quotes from when it all began in this era.....
1920-1931 – Louis T. McFadden was Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Curency. Concerning the Federal Reserve, Congressman McFadden notes:
"When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by International Bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is – the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here, and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will."
Concerning the Great Depression and the country's acceptance of FDR's New Deal, he asserts: "It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. The International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as the rulers of us all."
And of course we can't forget:
-- Woodrow Wilson (28th President of the United States) stated:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
deedub81
(Member Profile)
I actually agree with most of what you're saying. I agree that we need to make welfare (and other social programs) more like the hardhat than Vicodin. Better still, I want it to be like a cheap-but-effective hardhat, plus good training that makes sure people understand how to safely handle nail guns. People who want nicer hardhats are free to buy 'em, too.
My point is, the government doesn't do much with my money to help people rise above poverty. It helps them to stay alive while continuing to live their poor quality of life while not doing much do address the reason that they are there in the first place. Guess what happens to their children.
As for Obama's qualifications, I agree about his resume being thin, but we've had a lot of great Presidents with thin resumes. To be truthful, I think his argument that a President needs more judgment than experience is accurate as well. The President will always be availed with the best experts he can find on any subject matter -- his job is to listen to the advice and call the shot. In a sense, as long as the President is passably familiar with the issues at work (and Obama has shown that he's more than passably familiar with the issues we face), and has a record of good judgment (which I contend Obama has had), he can be effective.
I'm glad you're more moderate than most around here -- seems like we have a lot of market fundamentalists hanging out here. I also agree with what you're saying about needing to make government more efficient in how it uses the money. I think Bush has shown that the modern Republican party is trying to make government as inefficient and broken as they can, so more people lose faith in government and fall for the siren call of the "small government" Republican party. Democrats on the other hand want desperately to fix it, make it efficient and effective, in order to restore people's faith in government. They're not the Socialist party -- increasing the size of government is a means to an end, not an end in an of itself. If reducing the scope of government proves more effective, Democrats will go for it (think Clinton with capital gains tax cuts, and NAFTA). We just don't see reducing the scope of government as some sort of absolute necessity that shouldn't ever be questioned.
As far as taxes go, Obama's plan is primarily aimed at shifting the burden, but it does both increase the amount of expected tax revenue, while cutting some spending (Iraq war), and introducing new spending (healthcare). It includes a deficit, but a smaller one than McCain's (since he doesn't even come close to offsetting his tax cut with spending cuts).
I agree with you that corporate benefits can help regular people, I just think we've gotten to a point where we're doing too much corporate welfare, and not enough of the regular kind. I share your concern about cracking down too hard on oil companies, since the price of gas will likely increase, but I don't think there's anything wrong with giving them a big push towards helping find alternatives to oil, rather than new places to drill for oil. They're supposedly "energy" companies, after all.
I also think corporations have too much influence over government policy generally, and that the government shouldn't be run by people who equate corporate interest with common interest. There's certainly overlap, but common interest should be the priority when they diverge.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I don't think that anyone makes a conscious decision to be homeless. It's a consequence of their actions. The result of the sum of their decisions over a period of time landed them where they are today. Only 3% of homeless people in this country have mental disabilities, so it's not like they just one day woke up homeless. It's not that I don't feel compassion for somebody who has made mistakes and found themselves in a really bad spot. I do. But that's why I choose to give back in my donations. I believe we should be focusing more energy on prevention and education. If you've got a nail in your head, Vicodin will make it feel a little better -Or I could have provided you with a hardhat so that you didn't get that nail in the first place. Welfare is meant to be the hardhat but, over the years, it has evolved into the Vicodin. Now we've got to surgically removed the nails and pass out hardhats. I'll stop before I get too carried away.
I agree with you that wealthy people have different concerns than do poor people, but my point is that they aren't as far removed from the rest of us as you make them out to be. Again, I didn't vote for John McCain, nor do I want him to be our next President. That doesn't make Barack Obama qualified. If you present me with a rotten peach and a rotten apple, I'll tell you that neither of them is appetizing.
I don't believe in fundamental capitalism. I'm happy to pay taxes to fund roads and education and defense, among other things. All of those things are good. I just feel that this country already collects more than enough money from it's citizens. We need to concentrate our energy on being more efficient and effective, not on collecting more money from the rich or from anybody. Not adding new programs, but streamlining the programs that we already have in place. Does all the money collecting from the gas tax go to maintain our transportation infrastructure? It was supposed to. Speaking of roads, is our long term expenditure on our roads efficient? No. We focus too much on getting them done quickly on not enough on building them to last. We work over and over on the same problems when we could have done it right the first time for a little more money up front.
I also feel that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good. I just don't believe that they should be forced to shoulder the cost of the common good more than anybody else does.
When corporations receive monetary benefits resulting from legislation, it's not always a bad thing. It's always a bad thing when lawmakers make it harder for large corporations (don't get me started on military contractors like Lockheed. You and I will probably agree a lot on that issue). Too many people in this county have a negative attitude toward Exxon and other oil companies. I think we've done a VERY good job keeping fuel inexpensive. Even with all the recent price increases, fuel is still cheaper here than in most other countries, including Japan and the UK. As soon as you increase taxes on corporations like Exxon, or increase restrictions that cause their profits to be reduced, their responsibilities to their shareholders dictate that they must increase their margins. In other words, picking on big oil only hurts the lower and middle classes in this country. ...or picking on any big business for that matter.
NetRunner
(Member Profile)
I don't think that anyone makes a conscious decision to be homeless. It's a consequence of their actions. The result of the sum of their decisions over a period of time landed them where they are today. Only 3% of homeless people in this country have mental disabilities, so it's not like they just one day woke up homeless. It's not that I don't feel compassion for somebody who has made mistakes and found themselves in a really bad spot. I do. But that's why I choose to give back in my donations. I believe we should be focusing more energy on prevention and education. If you've got a nail in your head, Vicodin will make it feel a little better -Or I could have provided you with a hardhat so that you didn't get that nail in the first place. Welfare is meant to be the hardhat but, over the years, it has evolved into the Vicodin. Now we've got to surgically removed the nails and pass out hardhats. I'll stop before I get too carried away.
My point is, the government doesn't do much with my money to help people rise above poverty. It helps them to stay alive while continuing to live their poor quality of life while not doing much do address the reason that they are there in the first place. Guess what happens to their children.
I agree with you that wealthy people have different concerns than do poor people, but my point is that they aren't as far removed from the rest of us as you make them out to be. Again, I didn't vote for John McCain, nor do I want him to be our next President. That doesn't make Barack Obama qualified. If you present me with a rotten peach and a rotten apple, I'll tell you that neither of them is appetizing.
I don't believe in fundamental capitalism. I'm happy to pay taxes to fund roads and education and defense, among other things. All of those things are good. I just feel that this country already collects more than enough money from it's citizens. We need to concentrate our energy on being more efficient and effective, not on collecting more money from the rich or from anybody. Not adding new programs, but streamlining the programs that we already have in place. Does all the money collecting from the gas tax go to maintain our transportation infrastructure? It was supposed to. Speaking of roads, is our long term expenditure on our roads efficient? No. We focus too much on getting them done quickly on not enough on building them to last. We work over and over on the same problems when we could have done it right the first time for a little more money up front.
I also feel that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good. I just don't believe that they should be forced to shoulder the cost of the common good more than anybody else does.
When corporations receive monetary benefits resulting from legislation, it's not always a bad thing. It's always a bad thing when lawmakers make it harder for large corporations (don't get me started on military contractors like Lockheed. You and I will probably agree a lot on that issue). Too many people in this county have a negative attitude toward Exxon and other oil companies. I think we've done a VERY good job keeping fuel inexpensive. Even with all the recent price increases, fuel is still cheaper here than in most other countries, including Japan and the UK. As soon as you increase taxes on corporations like Exxon, or increase restrictions that cause their profits to be reduced, their responsibilities to their shareholders dictate that they must increase their margins. In other words, picking on big oil only hurts the lower and middle classes in this country. ...or picking on any big business for that matter.
deedub81
(Member Profile)
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You bring up a lot of good points. I think you just raised the sophistication of my attitude towards this discussion.
That's pretty high praise right there.
It's good to see someone else who's had a taste of both sides of life -- almost all the people I know have had all of one and none of the other.
I don't really disagree with you about people whose net worth is in the $1-$5 million range. They probably do live in middle-class neighborhoods, live in middle-class homes, and still shop in Wal-Mart.
Difference is, they're also not likely to lose their house, their car, or their credit rating if someone in their family gets a serious illness or loses their job (or God forbid, both), nor do they have to scrimp and save to put their 2.5 kids through college. They probably live in an area with a good public school, or can afford private school.
Their opportunities are greater, and their likelihood of slipping out of their situation due to a random event is dramatically less. They have income or savings to fall back on.
I agree that there are many countries with great programs funded by the government. I just wouldn't want to live there. I don't want to pay higher taxes. I want the freedom to spend my money how I see fit. Let me give you an example: I donate a substantial portion of my income to non-profit organizations every year, almost 12% in 2007. I hand picked where I wanted to donate based on my personal research and opinions. Some of my donations go to assist the poor. 100% of my donated money goes straight to where it's needed because it's handled by unpaid volunteers, not salaried government workers and politicians.
I don't pay very much for my health care because I don't need much. I maintain a policy for emergency health care, and I pay my doctor in cash when I get an ear ache.
Tell me how my lifestyle (and the life of the families that benefit from my donations) would improve if my money was paid in taxes rather than donations?
That's a core conservative argument. In your viewpoint, you earned your money in a vacuum, and owe nothing to anyone (except the people you borrowed money from). You want to donate some of your money, but you want it to be your sole choice where it goes.
In my viewpoint, you've used public roads all your life, benefited from the USDA keeping food safe, national parks, public schooling, the safety provided by police, the fire department, the FBI, the CIA, and the armed services. You will one day be a beneficiary of Social Security, and have been a beneficiary of farm subsidies if you've ever bought bread or milk.
We're all part of a collaborative enterprise here in America, and each of us have a duty to it. We're lucky in this country, all they expect us to do is pay taxes, and possibly serve on a jury. Nothing else is compulsory. In other countries, military service is mandatory for a certain period of time.
Now, you can complain that the government doesn't use your money wisely in all circumstances, but that's the fault of the voters. We have a responsibility to use our votes to force real accountability in government. If you want your tax money to go towards or away from something, vote your mind. If you're passionate about it, talk other people into seeing things as you do.
Arguments that "government" doesn't have the right to collect and disburse tax money strike me as essentially anti-democratic. While I like to have an open mind about such things, you're going to need a better replacement than "those who have, rule" if you want anything less than full opposition from me.
Even Lincoln said that we have a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", which to me implies that it is (or was) a collaborative effort for the common good. Once we establish that, we're just talking about who how to distribute the tax burden amongst the citizens. Should we ask the poor to pay the same portion of their income Bill Gates pays, or should we ask more from those who have more, and less from those who have less?
That's not punishing success, it's just saying that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good than those who haven't.
You're still free to give money to charity in addition to paying your share to the government, and if you don't have enough left over afterwards, you're free to go find ways to get more income. If higher tax rates are really a big disincentive, I'm sure your boss would be happy to give you a paycut if you asked for one, but I think most people will just try to keep earning more, no matter what.
Oh, and as for how Republicans are taking your money and giving it to corporations? By not lowering your taxes, while lowering your benefits, and increasing the benefits to Exxon, Pfizer, Bear Stearns, and Lockheed Martin.
To quickly touch on your other points, I think McCain's life was pretty cushy up to the point where he shipped off to Vietnam, and resumed the cushiness when he married Cindy Hensley. He was the son of 2 generations of Admirals, and graduated from officer's school, after his service he dumped his wife and married into money, and she funded his run for political office. That was 30 years ago. I think he's had himself a pretty sweet life for most of that, and I think that kind of situation detaches people from reality (and being a Senator for 30 years could have the same effect).
As for what that has to do with how he'd do the job? How's he going to relate to my needs, when he doesn't even know how many houses he owns, can't remember the last time he pumped gas, and needs note cards to tell him the price of milk? Yes, that's a talking point, but I think it makes a pretty salient point about the kind of detachment from reality McCain has.
Obama's the kind of middle-class millionaire you were describing. He's only recently made it to millionaire status, largely through sales of his books, and that largely based on his run for President.
I disagree that we've already done enough with social programs such that the only people who go homeless or hungry are doing so by choice. If that were true, why would people choose to go hungry and live on the streets?
Joe Biden Another 'Israeli Firster' Zionist.
Today in the Bush administration, every single appointee is a CFR member. The CFR prohibits its members from disclosing anything that has been said within it's closed meetings to outsiders. A recent breakdown of the 4200+ members today reveals that 31% come from the corporate sector, 25% come from academia, 15% from charities, 13% from government, 8% from law, 6% from the media and 2% from other professions. CFR members are on the boards of the following sample of corporations: Citicorp, J.P.Morgan Chase, Boeing, Conoco, Disney, IBM, Exxon Mobil, Dow Jones, Viacom/CBS, Time Warner, Carlyle Group, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston, Chevron Texaco, Lockheed Martin, Hailliburton, Washington Post/Newsweek.
A former member of the CFR: Rear-Admiral Chester Ward USN JAG (Ret) exposed the sinister intentions of the council in the Review of the News:
"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common - they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR...comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in control of global government. They would probably prefer that this be an all-powerful United Nations organization; but they are also prepared to deal with and for a one-world government controlled by the Soviet communists if US sovereignty is ever surrendered to them."
Admiral Ward's book: "The Betrayers".
"THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (C.F.R.) IS THE AMERICAN BRANCH OF A SOCIETY WHICH ORIGINATED IN ENGLAND AND BELIEVES NATIONAL BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE OBLITERATED AND ONE-WORLD RULE ESTABLISHED." The Organization's aim is "NOTHING LESS THAN TO CREATE A WORLD SYSTEM OF FINANCIAL CONTROL IN PRIVATE HANDS ABLE TO DOMINATE THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OF EACH COUNTRY AND THE ECONOMY OF THE WORLD AS A WHOLE.....I KNOW OF THE OPERATIONS OF THIS NETWORK BECAUSE I HAVE STUDIED IT FOR TWENTY YEARS AND WAS PERMITTED FOR TWO YEARS, IN THE EARLY 1960s, TO EXAMINE ITS PAPERS AND SECRET RECORDS."
--- Col. Carroll Quigley (Ret)
"I think there is an elite in this country and they are the ones who run an elitist government (shadow government). They want a government by a handful of people because they don't believe the people themselves can run their lives... Are we going to have an elitist government that makes decisions for people's lives or are we going to believe as we have for so many decades, that the people can make these decisions for themselves?".
--- Ronald Reagan
"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence; on
infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation
instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which as conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly-knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
- John F. Kennedy
And some infamous quotes from when it all began in this era.....
1920-1931 – Louis T. McFadden was Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Curency. Concerning the Federal Reserve, Congressman McFadden notes:
"When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by International Bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is – the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here, and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will."
Concerning the Great Depression and the country's acceptance of FDR's New Deal, he asserts: "It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. The International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as the rulers of us all."
And of course we can't forget:
-- Woodrow Wilson (28th President of the United States) stated:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
Invisibility is possible
"the pentagon is not stupid."
11 billion
"The F-22 is arguably the Pentagon's most useless weapon system. Not only is it the world's most expensive fighter jet, but it was conceived in 1985 to fight a Soviet fighter jet that was never built. As wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo show, U.S. air superiority is not in doubt." -Think Progress
or
"the $81-billion submarine pushed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, presumably to fight al-Qaida’s navy." -Truthdig
"Of the 72 programs GAO assessed this year, none of them had proceeded through system development meeting the best-practice standards for mature technologies, stable design, or mature production processes by critical junctures of the program, each of which are essential for achieving planned cost, schedule, and performance outcomes." - GAO report
Or how about...
"the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a program estimated to be worth $300 billion in sales to its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, the nation’s biggest defense contractor and most generous donor to lobbyists and politicians’ campaigns. The program to build what Lockheed boasts is “the most complex fighter ever built” is also the most expensive, with estimated acquisition costs having increased a whopping $55 billion in just the last three years.
Lockheed need not worry about future profits, because the procurement schedule on this troubled plane has been stretched out to the year 2034." -Truthdig again
Nah, the Pentagon wouldn't waste money on stupid things would they?
Clarkson Kills a Corvette... With a Helicopter
The Corvette is a colossal piece of crap and a near perfect example of why I wouldn't buy an American car. I'm an American and I know well how stupid most of us are.
Luckily engineering in America isn't done democratically, so I think your logic is faulty.
The US has the best higher education in the world, and the best engineers in the world. But frankly, the most talented mechanical and electrical engineers are probably more interested in building space equipment, nuclear submarines, fighter jets, supercomputers, or even helicopter gunships.
Compare this to 1980 Japan, where their brightest mechanical engineers would build either robots (smallish industry) or cars, because there wasn't much of an aerospace, defense, semiconductor, or space industry.
These days I think Europeans (EADS) and Japanese have more space, semiconductor, and defense industries attracting talent, while car engineering is becoming sexy with the interest in hybrid, fuel cell, and intelligent cars, so maybe things will even out more.
I did know an MIT Mech E who went to Ford out of school, but he left relatively quickly. I know a Gatech Mech E who's happily working at Lockheed Martin.
Sex Toy Helicopter Interrupts Speech
Although, I'm sure the U.S. has bigger dicks in government, the Russian's have always surpassed our helicopter technology.
(BTW, if you just look at the photo (rather than the video), the tall goofy-looking guy in the middle appears to be wearing a propeller dick hat.)
Back in the 70s, the Russians regularly flew squadrons of their giant Swinging Cod bombers, as well as their supersonic fighter penises, the Mig 10.5, nicknamed the Rammer, at our borders. Fighter jets from bases in Freebeaver, Alaska would intercept the intruders at the border, preventing penetration of our airspace.
The Russians, in headlong and ill-advised fiscal irresponsibility, also developed some flops, such as the Mig 2.2, nicknamed the Flaccid, and the superfast and super-unreliable two-man deep penetration bomber, nicknamed The Clap because anyone who flew it suffered from painful urination for many days after the flight.
In an ever-advancing thrust for technological supremacy over the Rooskies, as did Spurtnik in its day, Americans have excelled in its miniaturization efforts and lead most developments in the field. Our "Peckinator" surveillance device, made by the Lockheed Teledildonics Division, is slightly larger than a housefly and emits a barely audible buzzing noise when in operation. The Russian's best effort so far is demonstrated in the video above.
Larger is not always better.
Flying Penis Disrupts Meeting--your day could be worse . . .
Although, I'm sure the U.S. has bigger dicks in government, the Russian's have always surpassed our helicopter technology.
(BTW, if you just look at the photo (rather than the video), the tall goofy-looking guy in the middle appears to be wearing a propeller dick hat.)
Back in the 70s, the Russians regularly flew squadrons of their giant Swinging Cod bombers, as well as their supersonic fighter penises, the Mig 10.5, nicknamed the Rammer, at our borders. Fighter jets from bases in Freebeaver, Alaska would intercept the intruders at the border, preventing penetration of our airspace.
The Russians, in headlong and ill-advised fiscal irresponsibility, also developed some flops, such as the Mig 2.2, nicknamed the Flaccid, and the superfast and super-unreliable two-man deep penetration bomber, nicknamed The Clap because anyone who flew it suffered from painful urination for many days after the flight.
In an ever-advancing thrust for technological supremacy over the Rooskies, as did Spurtnik in its day, Americans have excelled in its miniaturization efforts and lead most developments in the field. Our "Peckinator" surveillance device, made by the Lockheed Teledildonics Division, is slightly larger than a housefly and emits a barely audible buzzing noise when in operation. The Russian's best effort so far is demonstrated in the video above.
Larger is not always better.
New Channel: The Agony and the Ecstacy of Engineering (Engineering Talk Post)
I don't know about your school but at my school engineers were pretentious individuals who thought all the worlds problems could be solved through the good application of advanced calculus and maybe some good application of a monkey wrench somewhere.
And they would never stop telling you this. Constantly. We build bridges and cars! No you don't teams of you do. Usually funded by the same Economists you call blood suckers.
They were also ridiculously liberal and hypocritical at the same time, they would protest Lockheed Martin vehemently one day but then enjoy the luxurious computer labs said company provided for them the next.
It was a laugh. But then it was like that with the commerce students, the arts students...
Sorry I was on the student council and your post just stirred up some fun memories. Congrats on the new channel!
Colonizing the Moon
"Here scientist are trying to simulate the totally alien and unfamiliar environment.."
*Fish swims into picture*
Lockheed Martin is in on this... Try to not screw up space missions by using imperial measures again guys!
George W Bush : The War Has Nothing To Do With The Economy
"but wait- my friends at lockheed-martin and at haliburton told me I was making tons of jobs for them!"
Awesome New Airship Test
http://www.videosift.com/video/lockheed-martin-uberbimp
*Dupers
Red Light Camera - CONSPIRACY !
Does Lockheed Martin do anything else but screw people over?
They are in all the videos of corrupt government-corporation relations.