No it doesn't and its not nearly as doom and gloom as you think.

Yes, there is a problem when the oversight committee assigned to oversee an intelligence agency gets hacked by that same intelligence agency and files removed.
That however does not warrant the agency's destruction. Punishment and enforcement of law to maintain the heirarchy of oversight is what is called for.

Do we dissolve the military when they screw up? Did we disband the NYPD after they choked a guy to death?
No. Beacuse they still serve an important function.

The same goes for the CIA: the fact that the oversight committee is toothless and the agency itself is really the one in charge when no one is looking is reason to bring the hammer down, but not reason to give up on their mission. Lock up the guys responsible, fire individuals who would violate their oath of service, who owe allegiance to agency first and country second, and get on with the real mission.

who modded this stupidity +5 ?

the only one lyiing is you, AC.

1) no part of the bill actually requires you to lose your doctor. they even went out of their way with various waivers and exemptions to make it easier. and anyone with a brain (key phrase, which explains the detractors...like you) knew that the only thing that could get in the way there is if your current plan was sub-standard. very few people actually lost their doctors as a result of moving to a plan that met the standards, particularly if they stayed within the same insurance company.

2) if you dont not acknolwedge the bill's funding being > the bill's costs that would only be because you are ignorant of the bill itself beyond what some talking heads have told you to think. even the most cursory examination of the bill and the CBO projections carried out almost conitnuously shows it to be true and not a lie.

and that's about all the effort on my part you deserve in terms of correcting your ignorance.
the onus of becoming well informed rests in your hands.
thus far, you have been failing miserably.

they just left out hte word "operational".
granted, the PBY isn't that large as flying boats go, so that's not a good one to use.
Better would be the: Martin Mars, Short Sunderland, or the Saunders Roa Princess, all of which are FAR larger than this new chinese one.

those aren'tlanding gear.
the Mars does not have landing gear.
those are ground wheels temporarily attached to the hull for the purpose of "drydocking".

they just left out the key qualifier word "operational". the current japanese one isn't that big at all, and puny compared to the ones we used in the navy even into the 60s. the new Chinese one here looks to be about the same size as the old trans-pacific clipper planes, maybe even as big as those huge navy seaplanes used to operate.

that and the largest planes at the time, including all trans-oceanic passenger planes, were all flying boats.

the only reason flying boats fell out of use is the range of land based aircraft increased sufficiently that the ability to land and refuel on the water was no longer a strength, and the ability to have a streamlined fuselage is an efficiency and speed advantage over seaplanes.

but there are still many cases where seaplanes have important uses, such as maritime operations, particularly search and rescue.

you had AC?
i worked in a warehouse one summer down there...long miserable days with no AC in a metal building.
Fun.

you dont run multiple electrical busses into a building for the same circuit, especially in a large building.
there may be multiple busses, but they each supply power to a seperate system.

they meant "bus". as in electrical bus. the main line running into the building.

only if you think in terms of leaving the Earth's gravity well every time.

we could, right now, with todays technology, begin exploring.
it would be hard.
it would expensive.
but we could do it.

it starts with learning to harness the resources already in space.
then turn those resources into ships. some of the mterials would have to come from earth, at least initially.
hell, we could turn the moon into a manufacturing and launch facility.
and just being 1/6th the earth's gravity leads to expenentially lower fuel requirements.

the problem is we dont even have the collective will to start.
because "its too hard" "its too expensive".
we went to the bloody moon for chrissakes.
ya ya, to beat the commies. but also because we could. to prove it could be done.

even then we could have started this greated of all human endeavors: conquering space.
but we didnt.
and its stupid.

but point is once you get going, the easier it is to keep going.
and we could do it today.

but if we keep waiting "for the right moment", for it "become easier", with the right "magic tech"...IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
over time we will develope better tech. but the thinking of waiting for tomorows tech is a trap, an endless cycle.
so start now, start today with todays tech.

So fund NASA.
And get us off the rock.
Before we make it uninhabitable.

spacex is commercial space.
NASA is federal space.
they are not mutually exclusive.

NASA shouldnt really be in the business of boring day to day work, ie, space trucking.
That role should fall to commercial enterprises, or at least public/private partnerships.
NASA itself should have as its core responsibility research and exploration.
Pushing boundaries, trapping/visiting asteroids, etc.

Your statement has no bearing on reality let alone the ACA.

Actually the ACA doesnt cost even close to trillions.
Simple fact of the matter is it doesn't "cost" anything.
It makes more money than it spends.
That's right: it actually turns a profit and REDUCES THE DEFICIT.

You must have missed where I said a typical "flight of four" aircraft.

The F22 is currently capable of carrying 6 missiles (typically the larger AAMRAM) internally in the main bay and 2 Sidewinders (1 each) in the smaller side bays. In addition it has 2 hardpoints under each wing, each of which can carry an additional 2 Missiles, for a total of 8 additional missiles. That's a maximum loadout of 16 AA missiles, at the cost of stealth capability.

So for a flight of four F22s you're looking at a typical "At Range Engagement Capabilty" of as many 32 enemy aircraft, and up to 64 aircraft if they're loaded for bear. And that's not including the aircraft's dogfight ability using its 20mm cannon.

The F35 is currently equipped with 2 internal bays capable of carrying 2 missiles each (and is already planned on being expanded to 3 each), as well as 2 underwing hardpoints, and wingtip rails. this combines for a maximum current AA loadout of 8 AAMRAMs and 2 sidewinders.

So even the F35, for a typical flight of four aircraft, in an all AA loadout, can engage as many as 40 enemy aircraft.
And the F35 still packs a 25mm cannon as well.

(and even if you want to factor in countermeasures and get real nitty gritty, the numbers are still impressive)

And your opinion on its maneuverabilty is frankly ignorant.