Highway funding is regularly tied to compliance with federal laws, some of which are simply usurpation of local or state authority. Speed limits, for instance, drinking age, and DWI laws. There are other examples too numerous to easily list here.

The fight is to prevent the feds from tying the money to anything. Which should mean states and municipalities solving the problem themselves.

It may be missed in this debate, but cameras should change the behavior of citizens also. If a moron is arrested, claims the usual 'brutality' defense, and is confronted with video that prejudices the judge or jury against them to the tune of some time in jail, perhaps they will stop short the next time and try not to pile on additional charges.,

i'm not hopeful that morons will stop breaking the law, but they might stop being excessive idiots when the police are documenting their idiocy.

Wishful thinking, maybe, but a chance to calm down the interaction is not a bad thing. Can't much make it worse.

You have not been paying attention. Must be Democrat.

You don't know very many republicans, I suspect. I'm one, and I'm all for this.

What I am opposed to, for the moment, would be:

- Federal compulsory regulation requiring this. Local governments (and state governments as well) have the responsibility and so can make the decisions themselves. Claims that federal civil rights law would compel this are specious. Federal intrusion here leads only to more federal control, and I'm still enough of a Conservative to oppose this.

- Federal funding, which would be the vehicle for regulation. Federal funding is the hammer to drive control. Just say no. Those dollars came from somewhere, you know.

Police departments and communities that have problems with their police already know this, and should be acting. Citizens need to elect officials that ensure that problems are solved.

And some nations don't. Your point?

More to your point, do the nations that rely on oil for electricity generation seem to be good candidates for solar replacements?

We don't use oil to generate electricity, we use gas. Solar is not cheaper than gas.

Take away solar subsidies and it gets to the point the alarmists want. Deprivation.

1. Increase global energy costs by a factor of 5-10, crippling economies of most nations. Force airlines to scrap ground existing fleets and purchase replacements, causing fare increases of 200-500%, and then refit the existing fleet with more efficient, expensive, and lower performance engines, both increasing flight times and continuing fare increases. Rapidly build high speed train routes at astronomical costs, increasing rail fares commensurately. And then compel freight carriers to purchase battery EV trucks at great expense and with and marginal performance, reducing service and capacity, in creasing costs of most goods. These to be fed by local wind/solar storage at even higher energy costs since subsidies cannot be provided within a collapsing economy. We know we can do this, we just have to accept the diminished standard of living and loss of mobility, and the enriching of the suppliers of this technology.

2. Reduce heating/cooling in buildings. Efficiency. There's most of your energy use. Renovate, at great expense, existing structures to incorporate passive solar design, put solar cells on roofs so long as these are available, and promote the use shades and ceiling fans that we have and are already doing as we have for half a century, despite the redundancy of promoting this. Just expire tax subsidies and exemptions for buildings that don't do this, phasing them out 10 percent a year and causing the wholesale razing and replacement as these 'substandard' structures are legislated out of existence.

3. There is no 3. steps 1 and 2 are certain to accomplish one of the goals of climate change alarmists - destruction or minimization of the industrialized world, and the commensurate punishment of those who enjoyed the standard of living made possible by profligate, in the opinion of these activists, consumption.

If Ara is to Google as Android is to Google, I'm with that.

It doesn't matter. Islam has been going this way for centuries.

That AC might not twang to quit their day job.

Yes, it was funny. Till it became real.

What would be a third role for a 1-2 seat Jet aircraft without a cargo bay? Oh, bomber, if you don't need much capacity.

I don't think of the A-6 as a fighter. Not does the F-104 seem to be much of a ground attack craft. It may not be difficult, but true air superiority fighters are nor automatically also serviceable ground attack craft, and some were never multi role

I'm not sure the F-117 is a fighter.

It means you need a hobby. Or your meds are low.

That is exactly how to fight a theater air superiority battle.

Bring in low-observable aircraft and elicit a missle launch.
ECM/maneuvers to survive, hopefully.
Loitering anti-radar aircraft target the missle site and hopefully the control site(s).
Ground probes monitor and report on communications traffic and identify transmitters.
More anti-radiation missles on the way.
Enemy loses its ability to command SAMs.
Ground assaults now only deal with handheld or small arms/AAA.
Profit.
;
Most likely the modern battlefield, be it air or ground, will see C&C denial the key to victory. Jamming, countermeasures, selective obfuscation, usurpation, spoofing.

The Islamofacists will not trust tech enough to be defeated by this. They will, however, learn to fight the cyber battle against their enemies. Us first-world combatants will keep trying to out-tech them, and end up using overwhelming force. And raising another generation of fascists with a more convenient excuse for murder than just hating everyone else.

The F-4 was multi-service. Navy variants may even have different refueling probes and avionics.

And its multirole functionality was largely due to avionics and weapons systems.

Look what they did with the F-15/16s, everything but carrier ops.

Ditto. And again.