New Russian fighter...wow!

Hi,
Haven't been around here in a while so forgive me if this has already
been posted or discussed.
I was watching the video of this new Russian fighter and had to pick
my jaw up off the floor watching the things it can do with it's
vectored thrust and canards!
It can fly backwards, tail first from a full stall, recover quickly
from a flat spin and, well, just check out the amazing video!
http://bobandsylvia.com/FIGHTER.htm
BTW I'm not alarmed about the "threat" of this new plane, unless we
get anti-military democrats in the White House, which is unfortunately
very likely.

Ricky

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
wrote:


Hi,
Haven't been around here in a while so forgive me if this has already
been posted or discussed.

It was introduced into operational service in 1996.

I was watching the video of this new Russian fighter and had to pick
my jaw up off the floor watching the things it can do with it's
vectored thrust and canards!
It can fly backwards, tail first from a full stall, recover quickly
from a flat spin and, well, just check out the amazing video!
http://bobandsylvia.com/FIGHTER.htm

You'll probably get a lot of input from the readership of
rec.aviation.military on this subject.

BTW I'm not alarmed about the "threat" of this new plane, unless we
get anti-military democrats in the White House, which is unfortunately
very likely.

Ricky

It's likely because of the pathetic performance of the current regime.
Please tell me you don't support that lot.

I also find your pro Christian stance to be at variance with the mass
taking of life performed by the military. Is this typical religious
hypocrisy or naivete?


[rec.aviation.military added]

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
wrote:


Hi,
Haven't been around here in a while so forgive me if this has already
been posted or discussed.

It was introduced into operational service in 1996.

I was watching the video of this new Russian fighter and had to pick
my jaw up off the floor watching the things it can do with it's
vectored thrust and canards!
It can fly backwards, tail first from a full stall, recover quickly
from a flat spin and, well, just check out the amazing video!
http://bobandsylvia.com/FIGHTER.htm

You'll probably get a lot of input from the readership of
rec.aviation.military on this subject.

BTW I'm not alarmed about the "threat" of this new plane, unless we
get anti-military democrats in the White House, which is unfortunately
very likely.

Ricky

It's likely because of the pathetic performance of the current regime.
Please tell me you don't support that lot.

I also find your pro Christian stance to be at variance with the mass
taking of life performed by the military. Is this typical religious
hypocrisy or naivete?


[rec.aviation.military added]

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
wrote:


Hi,
Haven't been around here in a while so forgive me if this has already
been posted or discussed.

It was introduced into operational service in 1996.

I was watching the video of this new Russian fighter and had to pick
my jaw up off the floor watching the things it can do with it's
vectored thrust and canards!
It can fly backwards, tail first from a full stall, recover quickly
from a flat spin and, well, just check out the amazing video!
http://bobandsylvia.com/FIGHTER.htm

You'll probably get a lot of input from the readership of
rec.aviation.military on this subject.

BTW I'm not alarmed about the "threat" of this new plane, unless we
get anti-military democrats in the White House, which is unfortunately
very likely.

Ricky

It's likely because of the pathetic performance of the current regime.
Please tell me you don't support that lot.

I also find your pro Christian stance to be at variance with the mass
taking of life performed by the military. Is this typical religious
hypocrisy or naivete?


[rec.aviation.military added]


Why do democrats oppose capital punishment but support abortion? Who makes
these rules up, both parties seem to conflict each other constantly.

BTW, this is the second time this Russian fighter thread has been posted,
might be some spammer guy.

On Mar 17, 5:06 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:


It's likely because of the pathetic performance of the current regime.
Please tell me you don't support that lot.


I do not support many of the "regime's" decisions, I abhor much of
the
president's performance, but I like Bush as a person. I am quite
distant, purposefully, from politics, and I do not discuss my
political views. Quite frankly, I do not have an abundance of
political views.
However, I am alarmed at any significant decrease in military might.
I
will stop there.


I also find your pro Christian stance to be at variance with the mass
taking of life performed by the military. Is this typical religious
hypocrisy or naivete?


If not for the "mass taking of life by the military" the U.S.A. would
be quite a different place. I speculate that we would not be the
somewhat strong, free nation that we are.
I do not support the current fiasco in Iraq.
As far as my "pro Christian stance," I normally do not identify
myself
as a Christian. I am a follower of Jesus.
As far as "religious hypocrisy," well, I'm not into religion because,
like the word "Christian," the words have many varied definitions and
connotations. Hey, here's a shocker you won't often hear a stranger
proclaim in public...I do identify with the word hypocrisy; and I am
sometimes a hypocrite. I say one thing and do another. I am weak and
make wrong decisions that are contrary to my values, ethics &
beliefs.
Therefore, it is not my place to judge whether others, the military
in
this instance, are, or have, performed an act that is contrary to the
"pro Christian stance" you proclaimed upon me and then directed
towards me.

Ricky

Out of respect for the purposes of this group, I will be happy to
further
discuss my faith in Jesus Christ and/or lack of political views only
via private email.

Ricky

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:30:21 -0400, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:

Why do democrats oppose capital punishment but support abortion?


You'll have to ask a Democrat. :-)

Personally, I am able to see the logic in turning the other cheek, but
I oppose pregnant women as sole occupants being permitted to operate
their motor vehicles in the car-pool lanes by virtue of their fetuses
being granted legal 'person' status. :-)

With regard to abortion, there is little doubt that children should be
reared in a loving home with two parents (Plato's Republic
notwithstanding), so if those conditions cannot be met, early-term
abolition may be appropriate (despite the opportunity for potential
abuse it opens for physicians). The state demanding that a women
carry a fetus full term is abuse, and should remain outside our
government's purview, as should all government pronouncements of what
an individual may do with his own body. At the rate evangelists are
writing new laws, before long our government will be citing citizens
for failing to put on their sweaters. Hell, look at the FAA's
requirement for homebuilders to engage in that activity solely for
education and recreation; if the motivational state of mind of an
aircraft builder isn't outside governmental preview, I don't know what
is. An aircraft is either suitable for operation in the NAS or it
isn't regardless of what its builder was thinking when he constructed
it.

That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual war;
for that reason, I heartily applaud the Christen church for espousing
the notion of turning the other cheek in response to aggression.

"Let us forgive each other - only then will we live in peace”
-- Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy

My 2¢

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:30:21 -0400, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:

Why do democrats oppose capital punishment but support abortion?


You'll have to ask a Democrat. :-)

Ok, an easy one for you then.

Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in the name
of big oil?




Personally, I am able to see the logic in turning the other cheek, but
I oppose pregnant women as sole occupants being permitted to operate
their motor vehicles in the car-pool lanes by virtue of their fetuses
being granted legal 'person' status.

Bet you're out there with your video camera every day trying to catch
'em.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in the name
of big oil?


We don't but sometimes they just get in the way.

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:46:05 -0700 (PDT), Ricky wrote:

Out of respect for the purposes of this group, I will be happy to
further
discuss my faith in Jesus Christ and/or lack of political views only
via private email.

Ricky

You're choice but it wasn't Christ's idea to keep His Word secret, now
was it?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in the
name of big oil?


We don't but sometimes they just get in the way.


If you know it's going to happen then it's, at the very least, as morally
reprehensible as a guy who drives drunk.
I'm known for my understatement.


Bertie