bstew3006

quote:

---

think the issue is that potential wise, they have (9) 3 hole hitters in the lineup. If we’re not slugging the ball around the park we’re not scoring

---

No

He’s saying we have hitters trying to hit homers instead of taking the ball oppo or looking to drive the ball up the middle. With 2 outs, guys are hitting weak ground ball, infield fly, easy fly to center. Their approach is wrong.

LD% / GB% / FB% Show that.

When ppl complain about runners left on base, Ba/risp this is why.

quote:

---

So, who's the worst president ever?

---

Instead of focusing on one president, the real question is which two consecutive administrations did the most long-term damage. I’m sure there can be arguments for others, but I can’t think of 2 more deserving than the following.

Bush / Obama:
16+ years of continuous war
Expansion of surveillance powers / USA PATRIOT Act / NSA data collection
Growth of executive power, increased reliance on executive orders and federal agencies
Financial bailouts and government intervention
Healthcare overhaul, Affordable Care Act (mandates, expanded federal role)
Rising national debt and long-term spending increases
Housing market collapse and lasting credit tightening
Expanded role of federal agencies in everyday life
Increased politicization concerns around federal institutions

Honestly, you could even extend it further, late Bill Clinton (last 2 years) into George W. Bush and Barack Obama…because a lot of the groundwork (financial deregulation, housing policies, etc.) was already in motion before 2001.

You’ve shifted this multiple times instead of addressing the original point.

First, you reduced “risk” to a single metric, whether Iran has formally closed the Strait of Hormuz and dismissed everything else as irrelevant.

Then when I pointed to decades of ship seizures, harassment, and constant naval presence, you called that “pivoting” instead of engaging with it.

Now you’ve shifted again to regime change and what should be done going forward, which is a completely different discussion from whether a long-term pattern of coercion exists.

And at this point you’re explicitly saying you won’t acknowledge anything while still claiming the argument is wrong.

That’s not a debate, that’s just refusing to engage with the actual question.

The only point I’ve made from the beginning is that there’s been a consistent pattern of maritime coercion over decades.

If you can’t answer whether that pattern exists, then you’re not actually disputing the argument…you’re avoiding it.

At this point it looks like you’re trying to force “gotcha” moments instead of engaging with the substance because acknowledging that pattern would directly conflict with your earlier claim that there was “no real risk” prior to this war.

quote:

---

How many times have they closed the strait in the past 50 years? That's the discussion. Not vaguely tangential potential outcomes or completely unrelated things like terrorism.

---

You’re trying to define the entire discussion by one metric..whether Iran has formally “closed” the Strait of Hormuz.

That’s not what my original post was about, it was about pattern of behavior over decades…including terrorism.

And that’s not how maritime risk or coercion is measured in the real world.

So I’ll ask you directly:

If there was “no real risk,” as you claimed “for obvious reasons, why have there been decades of naval escorts, ship seizures, mining threats, and repeated harassment of commercial vessels in and around the Strait?

Why did Iran detain U.S. Navy sailors at gunpoint in 2016?

Why do global powers maintain a constant military presence there?

The answer is simple: because the risk has been persistent, not hypothetical. You know, for “muh 47 years”, by the way, that’s not how you use “muh”.

A chokepoint doesn’t have to be officially “closed” to be weaponized. If a country can repeatedly disrupt shipping, threaten transit, and create instability over decades, that is coercive leverage / terrorism in practice.

So no, the discussion isn’t limited to “how many times it was fully closed.”

The discussion is whether Iran has consistently used the Strait as leverage.

And the documented history shows that they have.

If your position is still that there was “no real risk,” then you’re arguing against decades of observable military posture and maritime incidents…not me.

You’re shifting the argument from pattern of behavior to justification based on trigger events.

Even if you accept your framing that Iran’s actions are reactive, it doesn’t change the underlying reality..over decades and across multiple administrations and regional conditions, Iran has repeatedly used the Strait of Hormuz as a pressure point through seizures, harassment of shipping, and periodic escalation threats.

That’s not a one-off response to a single war, it’s a recurring strategic tool across different time periods, which is exactly why global navies maintain a constant presence there.

And on the claim that this only happens because of recent conflict…that doesn’t explain the 1980s tanker war, or the repeated maritime seizures and harassment incidents in the 2000s and 2010s.

At some point, consistent behavior over decades becomes the baseline reality you have to account for, not something you dismiss as temporary reaction.

You can choose to ignore that pattern, which is effectively what the international community has largely done at different points in time, but that doesn’t make the underlying risk disappear. It just means it persists.

The issue isn’t moral approval or assigning first blame, it’s acknowledging sustained coercive leverage over a global chokepoint and treating it as a long-term security concern rather than an occasional reaction.

quote:

---

And haven't, for obvious reasons.

---

What are the “obvious reasons” you’re referring to specifically?

quote:

---

In that 50 years, how many times did Iran close the strait?

---

How many terrorist attacks have the funded?

quote:

---

We have made the Ayatollah MORE influential internationally not less.

---

No.

What this actually shows is not that Iran is more powerful / influential…it’s that deterrence and enforcement have weakened. NATO has no balls.

The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly one-fifth of global oil trade. Any disruption of that scale through threats against civilian commercial shipping, restrictions on passage, or imposed transit fees directly undermines established principles of free navigation and global trade.

And the reality is this: if any other nation attempted to exert that level of control over a critical international shipping lane, the response would have been immediate and decisive.

The concern isn’t just Iran’s behavior, it’s the lack of consistent enforcement that allows this situation to persist and escalate in the first place.

Given their threats on the straight should be called out and shut down immediately by any means necessary.

quote:

---

No, he didn’t. Why are you lying?

---

I’m not.

CK was shot from 150yds by 30.06

I compared that to me shooting small animals (coyote, small hog, small deer) with 30.06 from 150yds and never seen bullet NOT exit. Why the small animal? To compare to a 12” soft tissue neck.

He stated:” Well some of us have shot a deer/hog/etc and seen the bullet NOT come out. I feel those of us have a better view on the matter than you.”

This is bad faith as I compared it to small animal, that of a human neck with soft tissue, being shot by 30.06. I didn’t compare it to a large deer, elk, bear…where we’ve all had a bullet not exit. However, I’ve shot large deer in neck at 150yds and never not seen exit wound.

But carry on

quote:

---

you suggesting he aimed for the neck?

---

I never made any claim on where he was aiming.

quote:

---

My man. You’re talking in circles.

---

quote:

---

Typically? Come on, man. You’ve already admitted that we do not know some extremely pertinent information. You are also making a massive assumption on what the bullet did and did not hit. Literally THE MOST IMPORTANT INFO as to why the bullet did what they claim it did is not known to us, so why are we trying to cast doubt in the form of some conspiracy?

---

I’m not talking in circles, you’re conflating possibility with probability.

A .30-06 in that range has more than enough energy to pass through soft tissue, even with bone involved. At the same time, it’s possible that, depending on exact conditions, it wouldn’t exit. Both statements can be true.

Acknowledging unknowns doesn’t mean you can’t discuss what’s likely. My opinion is based on real hunting experience with the same caliber. I never spoke in absolutes or suggested a conspiracy, in fact, in my first post I said I’d like a ballistics expert to explain how a non-exit could happen.

You claimed non-exit at 150 yards is very common…but in reality, that’s not typical for this caliber under normal conditions and soft tissue of a neck.

And apparently, just questioning or trying to understand a non-exit makes me a conspiracy theorist, according to you. You also wanted an apology because I gave an opinion, spoke from real world experience, and asked for an explanation. Seems like you’re the one who’s triggered here.

You’re arguing details I already acknowledged. We don’t know grain or type, just caliber. and yes, that absolutely matters (soft point vs ballistic tip vs FMJ, etc.).

But the broader point still stands

A 30-06 in the 150–180gr range, even at realistic velocities of 2700-3000fps has more than enough energy to pass through soft tissue, even with bone involved. That’s not controversial….it’s why it’s been a standard hunting round. And my example of small dog, coyote etc stands. How many of those have you shot with 30-06 and not had an exit wound?

Fragmentation doesn’t automatically mean “no exit.” Even with expansion or partial fragmentation, exits are still common…especially on a relatively small cross-section like a neck. We’re not talking about a shoulder shot on an elk, we’re talking about soft tissue and vertebrae.

So sure, is it possible there’s no exit depending on exact conditions? Yes.

But is it what you’d typically expect from that caliber, distance, and target area? Absolutely not and That’s the only point I’m raising.

quote:

---

Now that you have no leg to stand on I will accept your apology for espousing your opinion with no actual basis for the formation of said opinion.

---

Pfff, grow up, little man.