User Profile: sasquatch08


Member Since: November 09, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • July 22, 2014 at 8:30am


    Yes, you are correct, and, that one person is the highest ranking NCO in the Corps at that time.

    He’s still enlisted, still an NCO. He is most certainly the the highest ranking NCO in the Corps as he as he is an adviser the the Commandant of the Corps. He’s still and E-9, and he may only have a 4 year term of service (or longer/shorter as per the decision of the Commandant) but as “Sargent Major Of the Marine Corps” he’s the highest ranking NCO, even if everyone refers to him as Sargent Major.

    Unless there’s something better than 3 up, 4 down, an EA&G and two stars…

  • [3] July 22, 2014 at 8:02am

    Enlisted promotion is based on a points system.

    Here’s the system for the Corps:

  • [1] July 22, 2014 at 7:39am

    “NCO are not officers but enlisted.”

    They are indeed officers by definition, they are also enlisted.

    An officer is someone who “holds a position of authority”. NCO’s enlisted and earned a position of authority rather than being granted it via education and a “warrant” or “commission”. Warrant Officers are in between enlisted lower than O-1 but higher than above E-9.

    That’s why E-1 through E-3 are called “Junior Enlisted”, while E-4 though E-6 is a “Non Commissioned Officer” and E-7 though E-9 are “Senior Non Commissioned Officers”.

  • [74] July 21, 2014 at 11:42pm

    “Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps” is the highest NCO rank in the Corps.

    NCO means noncommissioned officer. So it is an officer rank, but the seniority is due to time and promotions rather than a “commission” for commissioned officer or “warrant” for a warrant officer.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me I’m going to throw this phone across the room

    Responses (12) +
  • [4] July 21, 2014 at 5:24pm

    How many times does it have to be explained that a higher minimum wage won’t do anything useful?

    Consumer prices will rise to cover the increased overhead so while the people on the low end of the economic spectrum get paid more on paper their purchasing power remains the same. All this does is turn $15/hour into the new $8/hour and inflate the prices of everything.

  • [16] July 21, 2014 at 4:47pm

    I’m with avenger. This report is BS.

    I graduated college in 2009 and a lot of then people I graduated with are unemployed because they can’t find work above minimum wage and as soon as they take a job they have to pay on their student loans.

    The ones that are employed are so because they either took a menial job by comparison. ($100K degree and they’re turning wrenches for $18/hour) or they had a family member/friend of the family who could get them a job.

    So yeah, those kids 18-30 who can’t find a job to save their life and just “retiring early”.

  • [1] July 21, 2014 at 12:21am

    Better still if he escalates the confrontation to the point you can legally shoot him with a taser…

  • [2] July 20, 2014 at 4:37pm

    Apparently people believe it though, and are willing to open their wallets. The end of the article says they’re raising more money than Republicans.

    Not a good omen.

  • [20] July 20, 2014 at 4:33pm

    A republican majority in the Senate. Otherwise its just a waste of time.

  • [15] July 19, 2014 at 10:44am

    When is the world gonna sack up and tell these idiots “We’ll do you whackjob terrorists one better: no choices, just die.”?

  • [7] July 19, 2014 at 2:50am

    If you’re going to travel with a firearm you HAVE to do the research on where you’re going. That much is on her.

    Possession of armor penetrating bullets? What? She bought a FiveSeven, then lied to FN that she was a police/military armory to get her hands on blue tips? Doubtful. This part sounds like either the cops or the author don’t know what they’re talking about or NJ has some whacky laws on bullets.

  • [134] July 19, 2014 at 2:44am

    Maybe he really does get all his info from the news…

    Responses (17) +
  • [1] July 17, 2014 at 10:34pm


    I’m pretty sure that in D.C. they’d find a way to throw your azz in prison for that.

    They already jail people over spent cartridge casings by calling them “ammunition” and requiring you have a license to possess it.

  • [76] July 17, 2014 at 10:32pm

    I dunno about eating themselves, but I do find it deeply ironic and maybe a smidgen amusing that the left which claims to be “tolerant and inclusive” contains a lot of very bigoted and deeply anti-Semetic people who think Hitler had the right idea.

    Then I remember that they’re also total re-tards who are more than willing to support a group of religious extremists who would love nothing more than to finish off Israel and move right along to killing their libtarded supporters in this country.

    So all in all it’s a wash, because I wouldn’t want to be making fun of the mentally handicapped… at least not in public.

  • [2] July 17, 2014 at 7:15pm

    Interesting legal tack they’ve taken, claiming that the government rules are encouraging price gouging in D.C. which is/has damaged the plaintiffs monetarily by forcing them to pay more for a gun.

    I have to admit that the law is a pain. It’s really annoying when you’re out of your state and see a gun for sale you’ve been searching for in your home state or you find it for way cheaper than you can get it locally but you can’t legally purchase it.

    I have often wondered if you could treat it like an internet sale, pay the dealer for it and have it sent to an FFL in your home state who runes the background check and charges you a transfer fee. I’ve never asked about such a thing though.

    Responses (1) +
  • July 17, 2014 at 8:48am

    I’m going to have to suggest that out past 250-300 yards the AR is just plain more accurate than the AK.

    But then I’m not the worlds biggest fan of my Nodak-SPUD AK to begin with…

  • [4] July 17, 2014 at 12:22am

    Non-Combatant casualties have been alarmingly high for 4000 years. It’s the way war works.

    Get over it.

  • [3] July 17, 2014 at 12:20am


    Hi East,

    Yes and no. The ball is not like a bullet (which is the typical item in this type of question) so yes, it loses some noticeable energy to friction with the air.

    In reality, yes, you’re correct. The ball lost energy to the air (and whatever wind is present) on the way up AND the way down. However, to the person hit with it I doubt this matters very much. The ball probably loses 10-15% of it’s energy, not that it matters to you if it hits you at 85mph instead of 100.

    It wasn’t so many years ago that ESPN was going nuts about a guy who slid to catch a fly ball, missed it and pretty much got hospitalized by the injury he received after the ball bounced off the ground and into his face. It knocked him unconscious.

    After I made my statement I called a physicist who also happens to love the MLB, his suggestion was that without rigorous testing it would be safe to assume that catching a home run ball would be equivalent in most cases to catching a ball at the upper end of what most pitchers can deliver. Likely 65-100mph depending on the arc, wind, altitude, stadium etc.

    With a mitt it seems like nothing if you catch it right, but bare-handing it you have to be careful because you get all the force at once with no “armor” if you don’t catch it right.

    When you pull your hand back as you catch it you might be good, but just holding your hand there when a baseball hits at 65mph…

  • [5] July 17, 2014 at 12:06am

    Exactly knowbody!

    They don’t count the 8-12 hours a week I spend carrying around 50-100lbs of steel. According to them I’m a lazy slob with my 3 hours (on average) of BJJ a week!

  • [9] July 16, 2014 at 9:35pm

    Most likely it has nothing to do with his job and more to do with how he tried to catch the ball.

    He probably tried to catch it as if he had a glove (just holding his hand there) and took the force directly into his hand rather than moving his hand backwards (in relation to the ball’s direction of travel) to dissipate the energy the ball had over time and space, the way you would with a baseball cap if you didn’t want the ball to take it out of your hand.

    Unless the ball goes precisely vertical from the bat it has the same energy as it comes down that it did going up.

    Failure to give the ball room to “break” over time/space means catching a home run is the same as catching a line drive from the pitchers mound or closer.

    Responses (4) +
123 To page: Go