Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 31, 2015, 11:52:53 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
85525 Posts in 2267 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10

 on: March 26, 2015, 09:15:47 AM 
Started by Bob Burgee - Last post by Bob Burgee
Greetings DBMA Association Members!

New DBMAA Vid Lesson:

Weaponry Vid Lesson - Brondo, Frondo, Uppercut, Figure 8.

Details of what is covered in this vid-lesson:

Frondo = Forehand Redondo
Brondo = Backhand Redondo
Forehand Uppercut (Bolo)
Backhand Uppercut
Figure 8

Forehand Down <-> Backhand Up
Backhand Down <-> Forehand Up

The key is in the wrist position. The wrist is facing forward for the forehand motions and is facing backward for the backhand motions.

To switch the direction of the rotation, use a diagonal slash across the body.

Figure 8 - Upward & Downward can be used as a transition.

All the best.


 on: March 26, 2015, 06:09:34 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

 on: March 26, 2015, 04:25:51 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

 on: March 26, 2015, 04:04:06 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Second post

 on: March 26, 2015, 03:54:41 AM 
Started by DougMacG - Last post by Crafty_Dog

 on: March 26, 2015, 03:50:05 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
*Subject: **US Reveals Israel's Nuclear Program*

 *_US Declassifies Document Revealing Israel's Nuclear Program_*
 Obama revenge for Netanyahu's Congress talk? 1987 report on Israel's
 top secret nuclear program released in unprecedented move.
 By Ari Yashar, Matt Wanderman
 First Publish: 3/25/2015, 8:00 PM

 In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the
 Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense
 top-secret document detailing Israel's nuclear program, a highly
 covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a
 regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected
 by remaining silent.

 But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the */US
 reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel's
 nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program
 in great depth./*

 The timing of the revelation is highly suspect, given that it came
 as*_tensions spiraled out of control_*

 <>between Prime
 Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama ahead of
 Netanyahu's March 3 address in Congress, in which he warned against
 the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and how the deal being formed on
 that program leaves the Islamic regime with nuclear breakout

 Another highly suspicious aspect of the document is that while the
 Pentagon saw fit to declassify sections on Israel's sensitive nuclear
 program, it _kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other
 NATO countries classified_, with those sections blocked out in the

 The 386-page report entitled "Critical Technological Assessment in
 Israel and NATO Nations" gives a detailed description of how Israel
 advanced its military technology and developed its nuclear
 infrastructure and research in the 1970s and 1980s.

 Israel is "developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make
 hydrogen bombs. That is, codes which detail fission and fusion
 processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level," reveals the report,
 stating that in the 1980s Israelis were reaching the ability to create
 bombs considered a thousand times more powerful than atom bombs.
 The revelation marks a first in which the US published in a document a
 description of how Israel attained hydrogen bombs.

 The report also notes research laboratories in Israel "are equivalent
 to our Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National
 Laboratories," the key labs in developing America's nuclear arsenal.
 Israel's nuclear infrastructure is "an almost exact parallel of the
 capability currently existing at our National Laboratories," it adds.
 "As far as nuclear technology is concerned the Israelis are roughly
 where the U.S. was in the fission weapon field in about 1955 to 1960,"
 the report reveals, noting a time frame just after America tested its
 first hydrogen bomb.

 Institute for Defense Analysis, a federally funded agency operating
 under the Pentagon, penned the report back in 1987.

 Aside from nuclear capabilities, the report revealed Israel at the
 time had "a totally integrated effort in systems development
 throughout the nation," with electronic combat all in one "integrated
 system, not separated systems for the Army, Navy and Air Force." It
 even acknowledged that in some cases, Israeli military technology "is
 more advanced than in the U.S."

 Declassifying the report comes at a sensitive timing as noted above,
 and given that the process to have it published was started three
 years ago, that timing is seen as having been the choice of the
 American government.

 US journalist Grant Smith petitioned to have the report published
 based on the Freedom of Information Act. Initially the Pentagon took
 its time answering, leading Smith to sue, and a District Court judge
 to order the Pentagon to respond to the request.

 Smith, who heads the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy,
 reportedly said he thinks this is the first time the US government has
 officially confirmed that Israel is a nuclear power, a status that
 Israel has long been widely known to have despite being undeclared.

 on: March 26, 2015, 03:24:38 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

Yesterday the House Committee on Homeland Security
, under the leadership of Chairman Michael McCaul, held the first of a series of
very important hearings on the threat of radical Islamism.

As I told the committee in my testimony, it is vital that the United States Congress
undertake a thorough, no-holds-barred review of the long, global war in which we are
now engaged with radical Islamists. This review will require a number of committees
to coordinate since it will have to include Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign
Affairs, Judiciary, and Homeland Security at a minimum.

There are three key, sobering observations about where we are today which should
force this thorough, no-holds-barred review of our situation.

These three points—which are backed up by the facts—suggest the United States is
drifting into a crisis that could challenge our very survival.

First, it is the case that after 35 years of conflict dating back to the Iranian
seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran and the ensuing hostage crisis, the United
States and its allies are losing the long, global war with radical Islamists.

We are losing to both the violent Jihad and to the cultural Jihad.

The violent Jihad has shown itself recently in Paris, Australia, Tunisia, Syria,
Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Gaza, Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Yemen to name just some
of the most prominent areas of violence.

Cultural Jihad is more insidious and in many ways more dangerous. Cultural Jihad
strikes at our very ability to think and to have an honest dialogue about the steps
necessary for our survival. Cultural Jihad is winning when the Department of Defense
describes a terrorist attack at Fort Hood as “workplace violence”. Cultural Jihad is
winning when the President refers to “random” killings
in Paris when they were clearly the actions of Islamist terrorists and targeted
against specific groups. Cultural Jihad is winning when the administration censors
training documents and lecturers according to “sensitivity” so that they cannot
radical Islamists with any reference to the religious ideology which is the primary
bond that unites them.

In the 14 years since the 9/11 attacks, we have gone a long way down the road of
intellectually and morally disarming in order to appease the cultural Jihadists who
are increasingly aggressive in asserting their right to define how the rest of us
think and talk.

Second, it is the case that, in an extraordinarily dangerous pattern, our
intelligence system has been methodically limited and manipulated to sustain false
narratives while suppressing or rejecting facts and analysis about those who would
kill us.

For example, there is clear evidence the American people have been given remarkably
misleading analysis about Al Qaeda based on a very limited translation and
publication of about 24 of the 1.5 million documents captured in the Bin Laden raid.
A number of outside analysts have suggested that the selective release of a small
number of documents was designed
to make the case that Al Qaeda was weaker. These outside analysts assert that a
broader reading of more documents would indicate Al Qaeda was doubling in size when
our government claimed it was getting weaker—an analysis also supported by obvious
empirical facts on the ground. Furthermore, there has been what could only be
deliberate foot-dragging in exploiting this extraordinary cache of material.

Both Lt. General Mike Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and
Colonel Derek Harvey, a leading analyst of terrorism, have described the
deliberately misleading and restricted access to the Bin Laden documents.

A number of intelligence operatives have described censorship from above designed to
make sure that intelligence which undermines the official narrative
simply does not see the light of day.

Congress should explore legislation which would make it illegal to instruct
intelligence personnel to falsify information or analysis. Basing American security
policy on politically defined distortions of reality is a very dangerous habit which
could someday lead to a devastating defeat. Congress has an obligation to ensure the
American people are learning the truth and have an opportunity to debate potential
policies in a fact based environment.

Third, it is the case that our political elites have refused to define our enemies.
Their willful ignorance has made it impossible to develop an effective strategy to
defeat those who would destroy our civilization.

For example, the President’s own press secretary engages in verbal gymnastics to
avoid identifying the perpetrators of violence as radical Islamists. Josh Earnest
such labels do not “accurately” describe our enemies and that to use such a label
“legitimizes” them.

This is Orwellian double-speak. The radical Islamists do not need to be
de-legitimized. They need to be defeated. We cannot defeat what we cannot name.

There has been a desperate desire among our elites to focus on the act of terrorism
rather than the motivation behind those acts. There has been a deep desire to avoid
the cultural and religious motivations behind the Jihadists’ actions. There is an
amazing hostility to any effort to study or teach the history of these patterns
going back to the Seventh Century.

Because our elites refuse to look at the religious and historic motivations and
patterns which drive our opponents, we are responding the same way to attack after
attack on our way of life without any regard for learning about what really
motivates our attackers. Only once we learn what drives and informs our opponents
will we not repeat the same wrong response tactics, groundhog day-like, and finally
start to win this long war.

Currently each new event, each new group, each new pattern is treated as though it’s
an isolated phenomenon—as if it’s not part of a larger struggle with a long history
and deep roots in patterns that are 1400 years old.

There is a passion for narrowing and localizing actions. The early focus was Al
Qaeda. Then it was the Taliban. Now it is ISIS. It is beginning to be Boko Haram. As
long as the elites can keep treating each new eruption as a free-standing
phenomenon, they can avoid having to recognize that this is a global, worldwide
movement that is decentralized but not disordered.

There are ties between
Minneapolis and Mogadishu. There are ties between London, Paris and ISIS. Al Qaeda
exists in many forms and under many names. We are confronted by worldwide recruiting
on the internet, with Islamists reaching out to people we would never have imagined
were vulnerable to that kind of appeal.

We have been refusing to apply the insights and lessons of history but our enemies
have been very willing to study, learn, rethink and evolve.

The cultural Jihadists have learned our language and our principles—freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, tolerance—and they apply them to defeat us without
believing in them themselves. We blindly play their game on their terms, and don’t
even think about how absurd it is for people who accept no church, no synagogue, no
temple, in their heartland to come into our society and define multicultural
sensitivity totally to their advantage—meaning, in essence, that we cannot criticize
their ideas.

Our elites have been morally and intellectually disarmed by their own unwillingness
to look at both the immediate history of the first 35 years of the global war with
radical Islamists and then to look deeper into the roots of the ideology and the
military-political system our enemies draw upon as their guide to waging both
physical and cultural warfare.

One of the great threats to American independence is the steady growth of foreign
money pouring into our intellectual and political systems to influence our thinking
and limit our options for action. Congress needs to adopt new laws to protect the
United States from the kind of foreign influences which are growing in size and

Sun Tzu, in the Art of War, written 500 years before Christ, warned that "all
warfare is based on deception". We are currently in a period where our enemies are
deceiving us and our elites are actively deceiving themselves—and us. The deception
and dishonesty of our elites is not accidental or uninformed. It is deliberate and
willful. The flow of foreign money and foreign influence is a significant part of
that pattern of deception.

We must clearly define our enemies before we can begin to develop strategies to
defeat them.

We have lost 35 years since this war began.

We are weaker and our enemies are stronger.

Congress has a duty to pursue the truth and to think through the strategies needed
and the structures which will be needed to implement those strategies.

Your Friend,

 on: March 26, 2015, 12:24:28 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG

(Respectfuilly) I strongly, vehemently, take issue with this.  The first 8 of these are either bogus or are not negatives, they served in state government, taught constitutional law, are populists, have eligibility issues(?!), etc.

Read our thread, Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness.  Of all the things wrong with Barack Obama as President, virtually none of it comes from his lack of executive experience or any of these so-called commonalities.  He would be an even worse President if he had more experience prior to taking office, unless he changed his viewpoint.

He is arrogant, snubs his nose at constitutional issues.  He thinks government has all the answers and individuals with their liberties have none of them.  Barack Obama was a pretend constitutional lecturer.  So am I.  wink  Ted Cruz won BIG cases at the US Supreme Court.  Barack Obama wants to transform America away from what made it great.  Ted Cruz wants to focus precisely on what made America great.  That's hardly the same.

Obama's lack of experience didn't stop him from getting things done.  It was the least of his problems.  He got PLENTY of things done.  Just all the wrong things!

On point 9, "both are divisive and intensely disliked by an opposing faction."  That happened to work for Obama.  He IS President.  And so it is no reason to discount Ted Cruz' chances.

Finding similarities like that they both have dark hair and birthdays in December misses the whole point of both these men, IMHO.

 on: March 26, 2015, 12:00:16 AM 
Started by ccp - Last post by DougMacG
Interesting, and mostly right, I think.  Morris is a pollster so I presume this is a pretty good poll for this point in time.  That still means + or - 3 or 4% for all of them.  I like that my pick Rubio is being careful not to peak too early, lol.  He keeps getting just enough support to stay relevant.

The Morris bracket framework of quarter-finals, semi-finals, and finals fits the Republican path to the Presidency pretty well this time around.  The nomination will most likely be wrapped up about 11 months from now unless it goes to the convention.  That leaves some time but it's not that far off either.

Morris' first test, that you are either for or against frontrunner Jeb Bush is a valid one, except that most people don't really know Jeb yet.  He is more likable and more politically skilled than people think so that number should go up some.  And, as mentioned, he will have the money to do that.

I think Morris reads Rand Paul's support correctly.  His fans already know him.  There are a good number of them.  They won't leave him easily, if ever.  Nor will he gain much as the process unfolds.

Scott Walker perhaps is peaking too early.  Based on the 2012 experience with Newt, Michele Backmann, Hermann Cain and others all having big surges that fizzled, it is easy to think that with the scrutiny of being front and center too early, Walker may eventually stumble.  However, he also is an underestimated politician and we don't know how far he can go. 

Morris wrote:  "Setting aside the poll's stragglers, we have to view the candidacies of Walker,
Rubio, Carson and Cruz as a unit, together getting 33 percent of the vote. Some
voters may prefer one or the other, but their support is, at the moment, likely
interchangeable. The winner of this four-way contest will emerge to challenge Bush
-- and the former Florida governor is vulnerable."

Add Kasich and Jindahl's support to that and that bracket reaches 36%, which could become a winner take all.

Of that group, I still see Rubio as the one emerging to challenge Bush and Paul.  Walker is the successful governor of the group, but now they argue his results are no better than the bordering states.  I will refute that, but can he, and can he hold his own on foreign policy and all kinds of other issues that don't come up as Governor of Wisconsin?  Walker appeared on Hugh Hewitt (radio) today and was questioned hard on foreign policy.  He did surprisingly well and will only get better.  He did have to say a couple of times that I agree with Rubio on that.

Carson is great and I wish he was ready for this but he isn't.  No one can be in that short of a time. 

Cruz is Cruz.  He is great but he has crossed too many people to suddenly become well liked.  This is partly a popularity contest, not just how good would you be if elected.  Ted Cruz didn't shut down the government but he did take the rap for it.  It's supposed to work just the opposite, you build up favors and cash in chips to win the nomination.  A groundswell of hundreds of thousands of conservatives won't push Cruz over the top.  He needs tens of millions.

It's going to be exciting; I hope we pick the right one this time.

Bigdog, if you are out there, I am ready to meet up with you in Iowa. 

 on: March 25, 2015, 06:57:35 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!