lumps937 (2105) 0 SFW Posts | 23 Space Comments | Favorites | RSS Feed Registered 2008-01-19 20:49:10 Comment Karma: 5 Featured Comments: 0 Member of :

Recent Comments from lumps937

Comment on female shooter (2011-03-16 11:17:02)
7.62 means no!
Comment on female shooter (2011-03-16 11:16:09)
7.65 means no!
Comment on female shooter (2011-03-16 11:15:46)
7.65 mm means no!
Comment on tank ramp (2011-03-15 08:36:38)
Definitely a M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System. I can't see any reason for the ramp, except as a demo/test platform of some sort. The vehicle doesn't need it to fire from a stabilized position, and it doesn't roll backwards when firing - the recoil is absorbed hydraulically. The barrel will depress to 0 degrees, so it can't be for a depressed barrel, since the angle it is firing at in the picture is greater than horizontal. Also, dragging that ramp around during combat would be counter-productive, since the vehicle is designed to provide close support to infantry troops. If anyone has a definitive answer on the purpose of the ramp, please post.
Comment on A TV show I just invented (2011-02-26 10:39:55)
"Say hello to my little girl!"
Comment on WW2 Soldier Dude (2011-02-17 17:30:01)
Original caption to the photo: Pfc. Dean Richardson, a candidate in the Ranger Indoctrination Program (RIP), 2nd Battalion, 75th Infantry (Ranger), fires the Swedish-K 9mm SUBMACHINE gun during special weapons training at Range 31. The photo is dated 13 Jan 1982. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soldier_with_Carl_Gustaf_SMG_DA-SN-83-09169.JPEG
Comment on western sniper (2010-10-12 16:39:57)
That looks like an SMLE, which would probably make him an Aussie sinper.
Comment on awesome tank (2010-03-28 20:45:12)
My bad. It is a Russian T-90.
Comment on awesome tank (2010-03-28 20:42:56)
Looks like a German Leopard 2 with reactive armor.
Comment on Twilight dads (2010-03-20 14:37:24)
Dads don't care about Twilight. Not when there's Harry Potter movies...
Comment on make up your mind, he can't be all four (2009-09-30 12:24:36)
Why not? None of them are mutually exclusive.
Comment on unicorns and obama - yes we can (2009-09-24 07:58:33)
Insurance companies must be registered and licensed in each state *and* must state mandated coverages in that state. A national company may offer one plan in State A that is much cheaper than the plan offered in State B because State B requires additional coverages be included. A resident in State B is not allowed to be coverage plan offered in State A, even if they don't have any need for the expanded coverages (i.e., a single male who is required to buy coverage that includes fertility treatments). There is much to be said for allowing companies to offer a basic plan that covers catastrophic coverage, but the current regulatory scheme prevents it.
Comment on US Budget Priorities (2009-09-08 19:10:58)
The OP doesn't distinguish between discretionary and non-discretionary spending and misleading. Any reasonable discussion of the US budget needs to account for all spending, not just discretionary spending.
Comment on US Budget Priorities (2009-09-08 18:03:40)
I call shenanigans. What about interest on the debt? How about transfer payment? Social security? Medicare? Defense and the war are less than 22%, while Social Security, Medicare/SCHIP, transfer payments, and interest are 60%.
Comment on An Inconvenient Truth (2009-09-02 13:43:48)
So where, exactly, is the chart incorrect? Is there a factual objection to the data, or is the data incorrect, or is the data presented incorrectly? If so, where? We can argue endlessly about the interpretation of the data, but I'd like to know if the data presented is correct or not, and if not, where the errors are.