|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Feb 7, 2023 18:13:35 GMT -8
can't help yourself..Not a Musician post without Hunter...really relevant. FWIW, this story is resonating with the American People, poorly. Don’t blame me for the Biden people’s poor handling of this and multiple other issues. The only thing this administration has been successful at is enriching their own constituents. EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN A SH!+ STORM of screw ups. This balloon thing is just the latest. Joe Biden is the exact diametric opposite of Sun Tzu. We’ve gone from the Art of War, to The Art of The Deal, to Art of incompetence, hypocrisy and corruption in just over two years. BTW, I would label your post the Art of Stupidity, but that would be giving you too much credit. Your Art of the Deal is a salesman and a great one at that. He sold you on a pile of dung |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 7, 2023 20:08:46 GMT -8
Seems pretty obvious: People live in Montana. The balloon was the size of several buses and reportedly 200 feet tall. It's a balloon, not an ICBM and wasn't an intelligence threat or national security threat. PLENTY of wide open areas, and opportunities to shoot it down there. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 7, 2023 20:33:53 GMT -8
Seems pretty obvious: People live in Montana. The balloon was the size of several buses and reportedly 200 feet tall. It's a balloon, not an ICBM and wasn't an intelligence threat or national security threat. PLENTY of wide open areas, and opportunities to shoot it down there. Or you could shoot it down over the ocean to ensure nobody gets hurt. Didn't pose a military threat, didn't pose an intelligence threat. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 8, 2023 6:54:53 GMT -8
PLENTY of wide open areas, and opportunities to shoot it down there. Or you could shoot it down over the ocean to ensure nobody gets hurt. Didn't pose a military threat, didn't pose an intelligence threat. Not a good look, especially when it could have been done over Montana, OR The Aleutian Islands. They decided to let it just keep on flying and provide bad optics. I get it, the apologists, such as yourself, will come out and TRY to deflect. It happens over, and over, and over, and over.... Well, you get my drift. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 8, 2023 8:25:11 GMT -8
Or you could shoot it down over the ocean to ensure nobody gets hurt. Didn't pose a military threat, didn't pose an intelligence threat. Not a good look, especially when it could have been done over Montana, OR The Aleutian Islands. They decided to let it just keep on flying and provide bad optics. I get it, the apologists, such as yourself, will come out and TRY to deflect. It happens over, and over, and over, and over.... Well, you get my drift. "Not a good look" should be your user name. Optics are unimportant, real life scenarios are. You're just regurgitating talking points, same as others. Yes, let's provoke a superpower by shooting down something that's being actively monitored and signal jammed that poses no threat to the country because....optics. Just a question: How do you know with certainty the balloon could have been shot down in Montana safely? |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 8, 2023 9:00:18 GMT -8
Not a good look, especially when it could have been done over Montana, OR The Aleutian Islands. They decided to let it just keep on flying and provide bad optics. I get it, the apologists, such as yourself, will come out and TRY to deflect. It happens over, and over, and over, and over.... Well, you get my drift. "Not a good look" should be your user name. Optics are unimportant, real life scenarios are. You're just regurgitating talking points, same as others. Yes, let's provoke a superpower by shooting down something that's being actively monitored and signal jammed that poses no threat to the country because....optics. Just a question: How do you know with certainty the balloon could have been shot down in Montana safely? "Mister excuse maker/apologist", "I'm right ALL the time" or "I'm right, and you're an idiot if you don't agree with me" are amongst a host of other not so flattering usernames that are out there, that would fit YOU well. Congrats. Do you think China would have shot it down immediately at their first opportunity? Yes, of course they would. Its no shock that you would defend and deflect responsibility on this, and all the other not so good issues that have come up under Biden, et al. That's just what you do, matter if you really believe it in it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 8, 2023 9:52:17 GMT -8
"Not a good look" should be your user name. Optics are unimportant, real life scenarios are. You're just regurgitating talking points, same as others. Yes, let's provoke a superpower by shooting down something that's being actively monitored and signal jammed that poses no threat to the country because....optics. Just a question: How do you know with certainty the balloon could have been shot down in Montana safely? "Mister excuse maker/apologist", "I'm right ALL the time" or "I'm right, and you're an idiot if you don't agree with me" are amongst a host of other not so flattering usernames that are out there, that would fit YOU well. Congrats. Do you think China would have shot it down immediately at their first opportunity? Yes, of course they would. Its no shock that you would defend and deflect responsibility on this, and all the other not so good issues that have come up under Biden, et al. That's just what you do, matter if you really believe it in it or not. Do I think China would have shot down an American spy balloon over Beijing? Probably not, but I don't know their military preparedness for such a thing. It's really not necessary with the stealth technology possessed by the US government and the more than 2,000 satellites the US has under their control, many of which orbit over mainland China daily. Why is providing a common sense answer "deflection" (hint: it's not) yet you couldn't even answer the simple question I asked at all? "All the other not so good issues under Biden"....like what? Afghanistan? Asked and answered. A mess. The economy? Inflation? Done and done. The border? A manufactured crisis by Republicans who still believe a wall is going to keep drugs already in this country out of it. Again, I'm right here. Not deflecting anything, not making apologies for anything. I'm not a Biden superfan, I think he's pretty bland when it comes to holding the actual office. But he's a steep improvement from the previous administration's extreme lawlessness and corruption. You've added nothing here, again, of useful context. I'll ask again: How do you know with any degree of certainty that the balloon could have been shot down over Montana or anywhere else in the United States? And I mean certainty, not hypothetical conjecture or opinion-based bluster. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 8, 2023 14:46:48 GMT -8
"Mister excuse maker/apologist", "I'm right ALL the time" or "I'm right, and you're an idiot if you don't agree with me" are amongst a host of other not so flattering usernames that are out there, that would fit YOU well. Congrats. Do you think China would have shot it down immediately at their first opportunity? Yes, of course they would. Its no shock that you would defend and deflect responsibility on this, and all the other not so good issues that have come up under Biden, et al. That's just what you do, matter if you really believe it in it or not. Do I think China would have shot down an American spy balloon over Beijing? Probably not, but I don't know their military preparedness for such a thing. It's really not necessary with the stealth technology possessed by the US government and the more than 2,000 satellites the US has under their control, many of which orbit over mainland China daily. Why is providing a common sense answer "deflection" (hint: it's not) yet you couldn't even answer the simple question I asked at all? "All the other not so good issues under Biden"....like what? Afghanistan? Asked and answered. A mess. The economy? Inflation? Done and done. The border? A manufactured crisis by Republicans who still believe a wall is going to keep drugs already in this country out of it. Again, I'm right here. Not deflecting anything, not making apologies for anything. I'm not a Biden superfan, I think he's pretty bland when it comes to holding the actual office. But he's a steep improvement from the previous administration's extreme lawlessness and corruption. You've added nothing here, again, of useful context. I'll ask again: How do you know with any degree of certainty that the balloon could have been shot down over Montana or anywhere else in the United States? And I mean certainty, not hypothetical conjecture or opinion-based bluster. I didn't say over Beijing. You said that. I said at their first opportunity. Well, the Governor and a Representative, and many others who live in Montana, said there was ample opportunity to do it there in many WIDE open areas. I don't think they would say that if it weren't true. There would be a lot of back lash from people there, etc.... If not Montana, why not over the Aleutian Islands? They simply took too long to do it. Bad optics. If a Republican President had been in the same shoes, I'm sure he would have been lambasted by the likes of you and many others for not shooting it down sooner. I would have been critical as well. No matter who was in charge, it took too long to take it down. Sure, not the end of the world, but like I said, it was not a good idea to wait so long. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 8, 2023 15:30:29 GMT -8
Do I think China would have shot down an American spy balloon over Beijing? Probably not, but I don't know their military preparedness for such a thing. It's really not necessary with the stealth technology possessed by the US government and the more than 2,000 satellites the US has under their control, many of which orbit over mainland China daily. Why is providing a common sense answer "deflection" (hint: it's not) yet you couldn't even answer the simple question I asked at all? "All the other not so good issues under Biden"....like what? Afghanistan? Asked and answered. A mess. The economy? Inflation? Done and done. The border? A manufactured crisis by Republicans who still believe a wall is going to keep drugs already in this country out of it. Again, I'm right here. Not deflecting anything, not making apologies for anything. I'm not a Biden superfan, I think he's pretty bland when it comes to holding the actual office. But he's a steep improvement from the previous administration's extreme lawlessness and corruption. You've added nothing here, again, of useful context. I'll ask again: How do you know with any degree of certainty that the balloon could have been shot down over Montana or anywhere else in the United States? And I mean certainty, not hypothetical conjecture or opinion-based bluster. I didn't say over Beijing. You said that. I said at their first opportunity. Well, the Governor and a Representative, and many others who live in Montana, said there was ample opportunity to do it there in many WIDE open areas. I don't think they would say that if it weren't true. There would be a lot of back lash from people there, etc.... If not Montana, why not over the Aleutian Islands? They simply took too long to do it. Bad optics. If a Republican President had been in the same shoes, I'm sure he would have been lambasted by the likes of you and many others for not shooting it down sooner. I would have been critical as well. No matter who was in charge, it took too long to take it down. Sure, not the end of the world, but like I said, it was not a good idea to wait so long. Based on what, though? You're missing the point here. It's not about optics. Optics are political theater, nothing more. The Republicans would have been irate had it been shot down in Montana, Topeka, Charlotte or anywhere else. They know the Pentagon and DoD were actively monitoring it. They know it posed no military or civilian threat whatsoever. They are grandstanding for clicks and interviews. The two people you're referring to (Outside of the Trumpian "many people" phraseology) are both Republicans. The hyperbole from both, broadcast all over Fox was manufactured outrage. The quotes are so silly, it's not even worth dispelling. The bottom line is that any chance to undermine this administration, now that they have House control, to plant seeds of unrest and division, they'll take it. That's the entire agenda of the McCarthy House. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Feb 10, 2023 16:23:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 10, 2023 16:51:50 GMT -8
I guess Alaska was good enough this go around. Biden and his advisors needed a kick in the butt it seems. They responded much more quickly this time. They needed to, after all the backlash. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Feb 10, 2023 18:19:48 GMT -8
I guess Alaska was good enough this go around. Biden and his advisors needed a kick in the butt it seems. They responded much more quickly this time. They needed to, after all the backlash. geez, I hope (for our sake) that the military doesn't make decisions based on public screaming (FOX news). otherwise...we might even be nuking hurricanes..as the orange mensa once suggested. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 10, 2023 18:39:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 10, 2023 18:39:40 GMT -8
I guess Alaska was good enough this go around. Biden and his advisors needed a kick in the butt it seems. They responded much more quickly this time. They needed to, after all the backlash. Did you even read the article? |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 10, 2023 19:04:03 GMT -8
I guess Alaska was good enough this go around. Biden and his advisors needed a kick in the butt it seems. They responded much more quickly this time. They needed to, after all the backlash. Did you even read the article? Absolutely. Did you? He's being questioned as to why he didn't do it over Alaska with the last balloon. Sure, there's excuses as to why not, but that's expected. They dropped the ball on the last one. The bottom line is that it shows everyone that they could have shot it down in Alaska. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 10, 2023 20:46:25 GMT -8
Did you even read the article? Absolutely. Did you? He's being questioned as to why he didn't do it over Alaska with the last balloon. Sure, there's excuses as to why not, but that's expected. They dropped the ball on the last one. The bottom line is that it shows everyone that they could have shot it down in Alaska. You didn't read the article because it wasn't even positively identified as a balloon. Much smaller than the previous actual balloon. It proves absolutely nothing other than you seeing what you want to see. This unidentified aircraft was flying at 40,000 feet - The same approximate airspace as a commerical airliner, which poses a civilian threat. The Chinese balloon was flying at 60,000 feet and wasn't a threat to anything. The causation/correlation fail here is extreme. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Feb 10, 2023 21:12:23 GMT -8
The article calls it a balloon. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 10, 2023 21:15:48 GMT -8
"The government is still collecting information about the object, Kirby said. It is not yet known whether it was operated by another country or if it was privately or commercially owned. Kirby also would not say if the object was a balloon or another device."
It does call it a "balloon" later, but that seems like an editing oversight more than a declaration.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 10, 2023 21:37:43 GMT -8
"The government is still collecting information about the object, Kirby said. It is not yet known whether it was operated by another country or if it was privately or commercially owned. Kirby also would not say if the object was a balloon or another device." It does call it a "balloon" later, but that seems like an editing oversight more than a declaration. Uh huh. The article called it a balloon, so naturally I called it a balloon. You say I didn't read the article? Looks more like YOU didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 10, 2023 21:43:24 GMT -8
Absolutely. Did you? He's being questioned as to why he didn't do it over Alaska with the last balloon. Sure, there's excuses as to why not, but that's expected. They dropped the ball on the last one. The bottom line is that it shows everyone that they could have shot it down in Alaska. You didn't read the article because it wasn't even positively identified as a balloon. Much smaller than the previous actual balloon. It proves absolutely nothing other than you seeing what you want to see. This unidentified aircraft was flying at 40,000 feet - The same approximate airspace as a commerical airliner, which poses a civilian threat. The Chinese balloon was flying at 60,000 feet and wasn't a threat to anything. The causation/correlation fail here is extreme. The fact is that they COULD have shot it out of the sky over Alaska. No threat to people on the ground. You say why, and I say why not since it was China invading our air space. That's plenty good reason. |
|
