segnosaur

Uhhh...no. Just no. - There is no need to worry about the hormone level getting 'too low'. If the thyroid isn't working at all, its not going to be not working even less - Even if the level does start dropping for some reason, there are far more symptoms that will show up long before she goes into a coma. - There is pretty much no chance of the hormone level getting "too high". After all, if the thyroid is not functioning, its not going to all of a sudden start functioning. Hypothyroidism doesn't work that way. Hypothyroid patients don't NEED monitors like diabetic patients need. Diabetics need to test their blood frequently because insulin is "used up" fairly frequently, and blood sugar levels can change rapidly, leading to significant health concerns. The hormones produced by the thyroid gland are relatively long lasting in the blood. Even if the patient stops taking synthroid (unlikely in this case), they can continue to function properly for several weeks before there is any apparent problems. (And if there is, any problems will be mild at first, allowing doctors to adjust medications appropriately.)

What, apart from us wanting to see if he really donated to NAMBLA? (I don't believe it myself, but people are talking about it. Smart people. The best people.) Well, in general we want to see any Candidate's tax returns to see if they have a conflict of interest that voters should be worried about. In Trump's case, that could involve financial dealings with Russian politicians and oligarchs. (Given the fact that American banks seem to want to avoid dealing with Trump now, he needs to get his funding somewhere. If he's going to be dealing with the Russians as president, it makes sense to know whether he is in current financial debt to any of them.) And in Trump's case, we want to see his tax returns to see what his real wealth is. He has claimed he is a billionaire, and he has built his reputation and campaign strategy on his business savvy. But if his tax returns show that he has no more money than what he inherited from his dad, that would indicate his business abilities aren't as good as what he is letting on. Actually, Trump inherited a substantial amount of money from his family. He also benefited from loans from his dad, one of his earliest jobs, AND he was able to secure credit based on his family name. Now, his wealth has grown since then, but in general it has grown less than the wealth of many other billionaires. More importantly, it has grown slower than the stock market. For all his wheeling and dealing, he would have been better off to take the money he had in the 1980s and stick it in the stock market. All his "work' has given him less money than he would have otherwise. http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-vs-other-billionaires-2015-8

Can you show this photo. From: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/mark-foley-donald-trump-226896 Disgraced former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley — accused in 2006 of making sexual advances toward congressional pages — was sitting behind Trump the entire time Wednesday in Sunrise, near Fort Lauderdale. There is also a picture at that link. The person in question (Mark Foley) was very well known and his problems were well publicized. Of course, its possible that Trump had no idea who this guy is... But the problem is, Trump was also blaming Hillary for having people at her campaign stops that she shouldn't have. So, either Trump is a giant hypocrite. or he knows who Foley is and approves of what he did.

That is some first glass bunk right there. Your thyroid is a gland in your neck that produces hormones regulating your metabolism. A hypoactive thyroid means that the glad is producing less than it needs to. Treatment involves taking a simple pill once a day containing Synthroid. Testing for it is simple and treatment pretty much always effective. (Its also a very common disease.) The term "flaring hyothyroidism" probably doesn't know what they're talking about... what's going to "flair up"? The gland already isn't producing the hormone.. Its not like its going to take hormones OUT of the body. Anyone who claims there is a risk of 'flaring hypothyroidism" can probably be ignored. I've been treated for a hypoactive thyroid for over a decade. It has not affected my health or lifestyle in any way. Yes she is almost 70. And trump is older than her. Many candidates for the presidency ARE fairly old. But, women do tend to live longer than men. AND, when a person gets older, their expected life span actually increases.

Perhaps, but certainly not unheard of. I've seen the same sort of "no military" arguments elsewhere (and I think one or 2 posters had made the same argument in this very thread, although it was a while ago, and I hadn't really bee keeping up with things.) Perhaps he thinks we do need an airforce, but just not one with the F35... in that case, he 1) didn't make his point very clearly, and 2) made a very questionable statement about how "nothing" would convince him, which shows a remarkable lack of inflexibility, even if he just paid lip service to the possibility of accepting the F35.

Now you're talkin'. Of course, even if Trump's success is due to certain problems being ignored, it doesn't mean that Trump is actually correct on any of these issues. For example, rather than ripping up trade deals that benefit the country as a whole (even if some areas are negatively affected) he could propose keeping the trade deals in place and giving help specifically targeted at the affected areas.

Well, when I asked what he'd consider convincing for the F35, Eyeball said "Exactly nothing at all. No enemies, no threats, no conflicts...nothing...at all". If he's pointing to "no threats", it certainly suggests that he doesn't believe in the need for an air force.

Exactly nothing at all. No enemies, no threats, no conflicts...nothing...at all I see... the sort of "stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing bad will ever happen" argument. Brilliant! So tell me, how would you propose Canada handle a situation similar to the Payne Stewart incident (plane has a malfunction resulting in the death of everyone on board. Plane is on autopilot. The possibility of shooting it down should it possibly crash in a populated area is discussed. How would you handle such a situation with no military planes at all? How would you handle a situation like Matthias Rust, who flew a small plane and crashed it in red square as a "stunt"? How would you handle a possible hijacking (similar to 9/11) over Canadian territories, or on a trans-atlantic flight with a flight path that passed over Canadian territories? After all, even if Canada itself "has no enemies", we share a border with perhaps the biggest target in the world. What if Canada should host another G8/G20 summit? Generally those things are expected to have decent security, including regular air patrols. How would you handle air patrols without an airforce? And does that mean you're completely content with genocide and other abuses happening? Although military intervention doesn't always work, NATOs air campaign is generally seen as being beneficial in eastern Europe. How do you feel about innocent people being killed there? Feel good?

And of course the irony of supporting a candidate with the slogan "Make America great again!" by linking him with the confederacy, a group that actually fought against America and tried to separate.

In the case of our current Hornets, we use it daily 24-7-365 Sorry, I guess I should have been precise... We don't use them in military conflicts that often. (I do recognize that they are flown daily, on training exercises, on patrols, etc.) My point was not to suggest that the F18 was "just fine"... my point was to show how the Liberal government could buy the wrong plane, but not really suffer backlash because the time when the advantages of the F35 are most needed (e.g. a combat situation) doesn't occur very often. Well, they could always ignore the long term, buy Super Hornets, just stick to the original 65 plane order, buy the minimum of spare parts, claim "big cost savings", and leave the mess for other governments to clean up. Short term gain for long term pain. Trudeau and the current Liberal government wouldn't care... they probably would have been retired long before the true cost of the planes becomes an issue. If they're lucky, there will be a conservative government some where in their to blame their mistakes on.

Stay classy, Trump supporters.... http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/11/confederate-flag-donald-trumps-flies-florida-rally.html A Confederate flag with Trump’s name on it hangs at his Orlando, Florida rally.

Really? I thought the latest thing going around was that Trump was going to use military courts for Civilians charged with terrorism (something that might actually be unconstitutional) as well as send Americans to Guantanamo. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-military-courts-election-2016/index.html

Obama kept NAFTA in place, and under him the TPP was negotiated. Trump has threatened to kill both NAFTA and the TPP. So, I don't think you can reasonably label Obama 'Protectionist' when compared to the policies of Trump.

Hey, I just heard that the reason Trump didn't release his tax records is because it contains information that he donated to NAMBLA. Some people are saying it, so it must be true. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/many-people-are-saying-donald-trump-donated-to-nambla.html This is kind of like the way Trump always talks about how "people are saying" or "He heard that" Obama is a secret muslim or that the unemployment rate is 42%. Neither is true, but the repetition of the claims, along with the ability to avoid any sort of verification (because its just what "people are saying" allows him to make false allegations with impunity.

Why is that relevant? The question that was raised was not whether trump was supported by a particular group. The question that was raised was whether trump "Does what he says". I gave more than 1 example... claiming he raised money for vetran's charities was one, failure to give money he promised to medical charities is another. That is the issue... whether Trump follows through on what he says and the promises he makes. Evidence suggests he does not. Now, if Veterans groups are willing to overlook his claim to raise charity money for them, they certainly have that right. But that doesn't mean Trump followed through on his promise. Well, news organizations followed up on his promise by contacting the charities and found no evidence that any such donation had been made. Ah yes... so, you claimed that most of the money raised by the Clinton foundation was wastefully spent. I provided evidence that it was rated as one of the best/most efficient charities (even rated higher than the red cross!) at delivering aid to people that need it. Yet for some reason you decide to insinuate once again (and without any sort of real evidence I might add) that charity money is "going into her pocket". Seriously? It was in one of the links that I provided. Why should anyone listen to what you say if you wont even bother reading anyone else's references? Giving the exact same link I gave before: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html IOne case in point was the promise, made in the promotion of “The Art of the Deal,” that Trump would give royalties “to the homeless, to Vietnam veterans, for AIDS, multiple sclerosis.” He did give to those causes — but not very much... He gave $12,450 to AIDS charities.... Much of the rest went to charities tied to Trump’s life: society galas, his high school, his college, a foundation for indigent real estate brokers. The School of American Ballet, where Ivanka Trump studied from 1989 to 1991, got $16,750. A private school that educated Trump’s son Eric got $40,000 — more than the homeless and AIDS contributions combined Yet for some reason you seem to be more concerned about Clinton's charity work. Ummm... what? Trump did not hire Mnuchin to help run his businesses. He selected him as an economic advisor should he get elected president. So, one of the people that helped cause the economic meltdown of 2008 will be giving advice to Trump on how to run the country. Its a little like getting cooking tips from Jeffery Dahmer. Don't you find it a little hypocritical that you will automatically assume the best of Mnuchin (hey, he helped cause one of the biggest economic collapses in U.S. history, but lets assume he's really a good guy) but will condemn Clinton? Ahh... alternative media... such a fine source of information, where you can find all sorts of useful facts, like the fact that Bigfoot is alive, and that there are government conspiracies to cover up UFOs. Here's the thing... the mainstream media is not perfect... they do sometimes get stories wrong (especially on breaking news). But, more often as not, they get things right (and often correct things when errors are found). When dealing with "alternative" media, you often find a much more pronounced bias, and much shoddier investigation. But hey, why don't you enlighten us with some of your "alternative media" sources? And if you think such alternative sources are acceptable, what about sites like "Daily Kos"? (Its a questionable left-wing site that I would typically ignore, but if you seem to think that "alternative media" is acceptable for information, shouldn't you give the same acceptance to sites you disagree with? Yes she is. She is also getting support from other wall-street firms, unions, people in the entertainment industry, etc. The fact that she is getting money from the banking industry does not mean she is beholden to them. From the bank's view, they probably see Hillary as the lesser of 2 evils. Besides, typically candidates generally hope to win more than 1 election. Trying to appease one of her donors is likely going to torpedo any chance she might have in future elections. Here's what I find hypocritical... Hillary has (as part of her policy) plans to keep existing regulations in place, and even add new regulations to prevent risk. Its right there in her platform. Trump has said that he is going to lessen regulations, returning us to the situation we had pre-2008. And he is getting economic advice from one of the people that caused the 2008 meltdown. And you still seem to accuse Hillary of being the one that would "start another 2008". Oh, and speaking of being "in debt", did you know that Donald Trump owes millions to foreign banks, including Deutsche Bank of Germany (an organization that has been fined repeatedly for breaking U.S. laws). So unlike Hillary, where she has received money from Wall Street corporations but has no real ties, Trump actually could be in severe financial difficulty. In other words, Trump is in a much more significant conflict of interest. http://fortune.com/2016/03/21/donald-trump-bank-loans/ There are 2 things you need to know about Pence... 1) he is a hard-right social conservative, who is against gay marriage and in support of "conversion therapy" (basically "pray away the gay", a rather abusive tactic used by religious groups.) Trump selected him, then during the convention made the claim that he would "Protect" the LGBTQ community. The fact that he would both pick someone who is anti-gay yet claim he would support gay people is generally seen as hypocritcial 2) He voted for the Iraq war. Trump said it was OK because "everyone makes a mistake". Yet he regularly condemns Hillary for voting for the war. Another act of hypocrisy. (Never mind the fact that Trump himself supported the war, something he regularly lies about.) Ben "stabby stabby" carson? You claim he's honest and knowledgeable about politics, even though he's never been a senator or congress-critter? Buchanon may be more knowledgeable about politics, but he's also anti-gay, anti-evolution and wants prayer in schools. Ah yes, the whole "outsider" rhetoric. You see, here's the thing... running a government is not easy. A good leader should have knowledge of both the rules/procedures of the office, and the various individuals with whom they may interact. Just like any profession... experience can be an asset. Although its easy to condemn "the establishment", putting someone in place with no experience and little knowledge may not necessarily be a good thing, as they could easily make costly mistakes when trying to learn the ropes. No politician will be perfect. I certainly recognize that hillary has flaws. But whatever flaws she has, Trumps are greater. Some of the stories are true. Other stories are either false, or embellishments by Trump or other republicans. Its politics. Trump said those words because he has the mentality of a schoolyard bully and is unable to put together a decent coherent set of policies. So instead he has to resort to slander and personal attacks. Oh, and you know what else Trump has said? Hillary Clinton, I think, is a terrific woman....I know her very well and I know her husband very well, and I like them both…They are just really terrific people...smart, tough and a very nice person. She really works hard, and I think she does a good job. I know Hillary and I think she’d make a great president,” http://time.com/4417151/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-ad-praise/ True, some of it is not that great. On the other hand, some if it is actually pretty good... As secretary of state brokering a cease fire between Israel and Palestine, built up networks to ensure the State department was not isolated, a push for freedom of the Internet. No, she doesn't. Trump has: - Lied more than Clinton (According to Politifact, 54% of the statements Trump has made were classified as outright lies. With Clinton its 13%) - A far less successful record in the business world than you might think. (His "wealth" is actually less than it would have been had he taken the money he had back in the 80s and just stuck it in an index fund.) Well, Trump can make it worse by: - Having terrible economic policies - getting rid of free trade agreements, eliminating banking regulations which could cause a repeat of 2008's meltdown, and a plan that will add $10 trillion to the U.S. debt, mostly through tax cuts that benefit the wealthy. (Clinton's plans may also increase the debt, but by a tiny fraction of what Trump's plans will.) - Having bad foreign policies - He seems to be willing to let Russia have whatever it wants, and at one time wanted the U.S. to engage in war crimes - Having domestic policies that are doomed to fail - Building a wall that will cost billions but will ultimately be ineffective, trying to stop muslims visiting - By being willing to make idiotic comments, either because he doesn't know better (i.e.soldiers will commit war crimes "if he tells them to"), or because he is inarticulate. That sort of thing will alienate both foreign leaders (with which Trump will have to interact with) and national politicians. So much of what trump has given is empty promises... He'll talk about ripping up trade deals and negotiating "deals that are great" but doesn't give any details on how he will do so (especially since he's likely to annoy any foreign leader from his over-the-top rhetoric). He talks about "defeating ISIS", but doesn't really lay out any plans to do so.

Those experts include people involved with the state department, with trade negotiations, and the intelligence community. So yeah, I think many (most) people would be considered "experts", or at least more knowledgable than your average voter.. And your proof of that is what? Actually, the experts in question all spent at least some time working for Republican administrations. Yet despite the fact that they worked republicans in the past, they have all decided that they don't want the current republican nominee to become president. That should tell you something. And lets apply occam's razor here... you claim that they were paid "big bucks" by the democratic party. (Without proof I might add.) First of all, what exactly does that say about Republicans in general if so many were able to be bribed? And if the Democrats were running around offering all this bribe money, how come no other security experts came forward and said "they tried to bribe me"? Did each and every person they approached agree to their bribe? That's some rather impressive selection there. Of course they're trying to frighten away the voters for voting for Trump. That's because they see his policies and the way he conducts himself as detrimental to the U.S. The issue isn't whether its right to "frighten voters" (whatever that means, since any attempt to point out faults in one candidate might be considered "frightening"). The issue is whether they have a valid reason for taking that stance. Based on the experience they have and the way Drumph has presented himself, they probably have a point. There is a difference between making false allegations in order to appeal only to fear (as Drumph often does... "Obama is a Muslim! Hillary is coming for your guns") and actually examining the policies and background of a candidate and coming to the conclusion "this is something to avoid".

The problem is, military procurement is a long-term activity, and governments only run for ~4 years before another election. And, on average, we don't really use our military that much. The major problems with the Super Hornet (if we bought them) would not be apparent before the next election, or perhaps even for the next decade. (The F18 is not necessarily a bad plane, when compared to at least some of its competitors.) The problems with the Super Hornet would start showing up in 10-20 years, when spare parts start become hard to find and the military technology of other countries has started to improve. So Trudeau will look like a hero ("Hey I saved all this money buying planes!") but future governments will be screwed.

They could have just said "Trump not great".

It may not have led to his death.... Yet that didn't stop you from posting: Is this poor scientist another casualty of Hillary's negligence?. It would have been easy to google the death of the scientist yourself, yet instead of taking the time to actually create a post based on facts, you jumped in and posted an easy-to-debunk question dealing more in empty rhetoric than the truth. And that is the problem that many of us have with Trump and the Republican party. Here's the thing... I recognize that Clinton did not properly secure documents. Its unfortunate. Overall, i wish it did not happen. If there was a candidate that had similar policies and similar experience, it would be enough to say "vote for the other person". But, we don't have an infinite number of candidates. Its also true that Trump never mishandled secure documents. But on the other hand, he's never actually been in a position to do so. (And unlike Clinton, he has also never negotiated a middle east cease fire, nor was he in the situation room when Bin Laden was killed), He has, however, been in the business world, where several of his businesses have declared bankruptcy and he is currently being sued by former students of Trump University. So, both presidential candidates may have had some success, but they have also made mistakes. So, if you're going to suggest a failure of Clinton disqualifies her from the presidency, shouldn't Trump's failures likewise disqualify him from the office?

Quite doubtful. Hillary has been investigated by the FBI, and has been under a microscope by the republicans for years. If there was anything indictable, it likely would have come out long ago. For the most part, Wikileaks and Assange seem to be more of an echo chamber than anything else... providing material for those who are already anti-Clinton to repeat, distort, and then repeat the distortion. Even the last big anti-Clinton "Wikileak" (that Democratic party insiders preferred Clinton over Sanders) was pretty irrelevant. I have no problem believing Democratic party insiders preferred Clinton... (Its understandable. Clinton was a long time Democrat and until recently, Sanders was not. Plus, Sanders would likely loose any election badly. The idea of an outsider taking over the party and leading the democrats to defeat would be unpleasant to democrats who had spent years working for the party.) But the fact that some Democrats favored Clinton does not mean that they took any steps to rig the primaries to favor her.Even the most damming email (suggesting using Sander's religion against him) didn't actually lead to any actual action. So while BernieBros and Trumpettes will have their little orgasms over Wikileaks, its unlikely to have any real effect. It appears that all this is to satisfy the ego of Assange. Seems to go against the idea of Wikileaks being some sort of "open government" initiative.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly would you consider to be "justification" for buying the plane? In favor of the F35 we have: - Multiple successful tests, including the successful launch and shoot down of a drone by air to air missle - A previous "green flag" exercise showed that it was able to provide close air support with no losses (something that, if memory serves me correctly, the A10 and F16 were not able to do). Granted, some people dismiss the results since the F35 was not deemed 'combat ready' at the time, but still, pretty good results for a plane that is claimed to be "far from working". If its able to get those results when its "far from working", what type of results will it see when all the bugs are worked out? See: https://theaviationist.com/2015/07/01/f-35s-role-in-green-flag/ - Its been selected by many other countries... some NATO allies, some not, some members of the JSF consortium, some not. If its really such a bad plane, why are all those countries picking it over the Super Hornet? - We know that the cost has come down substantially from the early prototype days - Flight tests by various pilots attesting to the abilities of the F35 in a dogfight scenario. See: https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/ - Well-established figures pointing to the plane's range and ceiling, which in most cases beat those of its opponents - A large number of countries that will be purchasing the plane, and a high number scheduled to be produced, which give a good chance that they will be building F35s for decades to come (long after the last Super Hornet or Eurofighter have rolled off the assembly line). This will give us access to spare parts and replacements for a long long time. Buy the Super Hornet, and we may find ourselves scrambling to find spare parts in 2 or 3 decades. Sounds like some pretty solid pro-F35 evidence.

Why do you need to wait until Trump becomes president to find out if he is all talk? We already have evidence... We have: - The case mentioned above, where he claimed to have raised millions for Veterans, but didn't - In the 1980s he promised to give profits from one of his books to medical charities but did not. (He ended up giving more money to his kid's ballet school.) In other words, we already have a pretty good idea how Trump will handle "charity". Lots of promises, but no action. (In fact, he may actually make money from charities, since charity events are sometimes held at his hotels. Which he charges them for.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html I find it ironic that you would accuse Hillary of wanting to keep "banksters in power", when Trump has appointed Steve Mnuchin as one of his economic advisors. Mnuchin was one of the executives at Goldman Sachs at the time of the melt down (i.e. he was one of the contributors to the problem) http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/05/news/economy/donald-trump-economic-advisers/ On the other hand, Hillary's policies include: - Vetoing any bills repealing banking regulations put in place following the 2008 collapse - Charging banks fees if they engage in risky behavior Sounds like someone who's a little more willing to challenge the banks than your standard republican. And your proof of that is what exactly? Keep in mind that Trump: - Has Pence as his vice presidential Candidate, who voted forthe Iraq war - Actually supported the Iraq war himself in September 2002 (before the invasion), as well as the bombing campaign in Libya - Questioned why we don't use nuclear weapons. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/flip-flop-trump-admits-suppoted-libya-intervention-article-1.2662238 http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html

The Clinton foundation has indeed raised roughly $2 billion since it was started. But that does not mean that it is worth $2 billion, as much (most) of that money has already been spent on charitable causes. (Those causes include things like helping stop Malaria in the 3rd world, efforts to curb obesity in the U.S., providing free consulting services to those in financial need, and disaster relief following hurricane Katrina, the Indian ocean tsunami, and the Haiti earthquake, just to name a few.) Some other little "facts" about the charity.... - It has been given a rating of "A" by the American Institute of Philanthropy - Its actual operating overhead is only 12%, and its fundraising costs are only 2%. This makes it one of the most efficient charities around - It is actually relatively bi-partisan, with involvement with members of the Bush administration, and past contributions by people like Cris Ruddy (who was a critic of Clinton and helped create the right-wing news site 'NewsMax') https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478 Now, it is true that many of the donors have been... questionable (e.g. countries with questionable human rights records, etc.) But their money is put to good use, and its more a case of such donors wanting to give the appearance of being "good guys" rather than them trying to curry favor. (Given a choice of accepting donations from countries like Qatar and seeing people die from lack of funds, many will see accepting money for humanitarian purposes to be the preferred option.) Well, let's take a look at Trump's record over charities associated with Veterans, shall we? From: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-veterans-controversy-goes-bad-worse Donald Trump ...boasted that he’d raised $6 million for vets, and he’d contributed $1 million out of his own pocket. ... ...the Washington Post started asking what happened to the money. The newspaper found that Trump did not raise $6 million as he’d claimed, and making matters worse, though his campaign said Trump had already made a $1 million contribution, that turned out not to be true, either. Does that sound like someone who will "take care of the needy"?

Oh oh.... looks like the F35 has encountered yet another problem during testing/training exercises. This is a serious issue and might end up causing them to scrap the entire program. http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-too-stealthy-2016-8

This information is only a minor inconvenience to liberals who never meet a truth that isnt worth lying about. It is a good step for the plane to be declared combat ready. A couple of points; - This follows on a couple of successful tests for the F35... A successful shoot-down of a drone with an air-to-air missile, and a successful firing of the gun on the F35B. - Just to play devil's advocate... keep in mind that there are issues that have to be dealt with... software upgrades, handling the helmet weight, etc. Plus, at least in the short term I'm sure they'll run into a few bugs. (Remember, the initial squadron of 'combat-ready' F35Bs had problems with spare parts and availability, but that will diminish as ground crews get experience.)