busdriver

Functionally, NATO served the purpose of keeping the European nations from fighting one another. The US underwriting their defense allowed them to focus on trade. The post WW2 economic boom was what happens when people don't fight and instead trade. The US benefits from NATO existing, but not directly from being a member. Being a member may be a pre-requisite for it to functionally exist, but that's a different point.

I think those are the types of people she doesn't think should be anointed.

For some reason, her implication that having a blue check mark should mean more than just being who you say you are bothers me more. Her idea is stupid and childish. She wants hall monitors. But, reserving verification to "legitimate" people or whatever her stupid emotional idea was is creepy. Some people's ideas/thoughts should mean more based on who they are... an aristocratic ideal.

You have to be actively trying to not understand the stated pro-life positions in this thread.

The Roe opinion lays out the history, and goes back into English common law tradition. Generally the line was previously drawn at "quickening" (baby movement starts) as a delineation between murder and something of a lesser offense. American more severe laws came into being en masse in the second half of the 19th century. Basically the laws in place pre-Roe were not that old in the grand scheme of things is the argument made by that court. Alito's doesn't agree with that obviously, and there was plenty of weird stuff in Roe, but just not mentioning the previous logic is a problem in my view.

All of the life altering consequences of having a child, or disproportionate effects do not in any way stack up to countering the right to life. The Roe decision even lays that out. I think carve outs for rape, health of the mother, etc are actually fairly easy arguments to make based largely in self defense law. However, the simple question, that no one can agree on is when does that cellular structure become a person? I think the Alito argument about not having an historical tradition of accepting abortion is bunk (ref Roe examples) but his point that no one can agree on question one, so the correct place for the discourse is within the electorate has some merit. It's gonna be ugly though.

oof. That sucks. Off the top of my head, seems like you can: -try to convince his staff that he isn't the authority, and they're actually required to forward the packages with his non-concurrence. At least on active duty, proving your case in AFI, based on process that something has to happen usually wins those types of arguments. -go to the IG -go get a guard job instead The first two might fail regardless. If he's actually as vindictive as his staff fears, he may have the ability to tube the hire regardless of waiver.

So his office is not an approval step, just coordination?

It's probably worth bringing up here, even if I think I've mentioned it elsewhere. Jonathan Haidt (and his colleagues at U of VA) wrote a series of papers starting in 2004 (one of them) that explore the psychological underpinnings of liberal and conservative thought processes. Follow on work added libertarian studies (one example). He also wrote a handful of really good books. Also a TED talk (link) The gist of Haidt's work/story is that he is/was a liberal that didn't think the prevailing Liberal idea that something was wrong with Conservatives rang true. So he looked into it from a psychology perspective, building on his PhD research. His basic starting premise is that people have an intuition (emotion) base of decision making rather than rational. The rational part evolved later, and barring outside inputs (from peers as an example) our rationality mainly functions to rationalize our intuition. Which he calls the elephant and the rider. So mapping what concerns drive liberals/conservatives/libertarians onto that model, it makes a lot of sense why political factions just don't understand one another. It also makes it pretty clear why each "sect" has massive blind spots in various directions. For the short Liberal vs Conservative look at page 8 of the first link I dropped. Figure 1 in the second link is probably the best libertarian comparison to add to the mix.

I'm confused. You got denied retirement? But I know a guy who's working Palace Chase to the guard after 21 years AD (signed bonus to something past that). I also know a guy who straight up retired from AD, then got some waivers signed to join the reserve, then more waivers to return to flight status. When on orders, his pension got pro-rated (reduced) for that time. But that was years ago. So yeah, should be possible I would think. I'm not in a position to definitively tell you, but maybe that's encouragement to keep digging.

Gross. Scrambled or omelet..... or wait until you can batter and fry them.

Agree, with you and the opinion article. Fundamentally, if the public is successful with swaying a SCOTUS ruling, it reduces the legitimacy of the court itself.

Did you read the draft? This is pretty clearly covered. Long historical tradition of inter-state travel/commerce.

This is basically all of modern politics. Right, Left. Chicken, Beef.

Then re-read the second half of my post. Edit: I'll be more clear. I think the answer from the religious right would be: "first things first"

This is a common error made by just about everyone. Assuming that everyone thinks and values things the same as they do. In this case, you're projecting how you would think and behave if you believed that a new person started at conception. It's also really common in this specific case to not look around at all, and miss that sometimes people do mean what they say. So you get this opinion piece from Time of San Diego lamenting that fathers should have to pay from conception if abortion is illegal (this is one example, I've seen plenty). It is of course filled with snark, implying that the concept is inconceivable. The ironic aspect is Utah now requires fathers to foot 50% of the pregnancy medical bills, Arkansas is pushing something similar, North Dakota has a R led push to require child support retroactive back to conception. An Oklahoma dem pushed a bill to do the same as a sort of thing as a snark move, and then pulled it back. I assume partly due to the fact that its passage would implicitly set a precedent of person from conception. Maybe they actually do believe what they say. And if you offer up your "suggestions" they'd probably agree with them.

Justifiable homicide has a long precedent of legality. Reasonable belief of death or grievous bodily harm. I think an outright ban on all abortion would be an easy slam dunk legal victory to overturn. CH is correct though. This is going to get very ugly.

What if the NKVD found hidden papers that proved a political candidate was an actual serial killer? Should the public be somehow required to abide by the fruit of the poison tree concept? How about an actual historical example: Pentagon Papers. What you are describing has never existed, and is anathema to an actual functioning fourth estate. Foreign fuckery in American politics has been a thing since at least the 1796 election. Russia has been at it in earnest for a hundred years.

She is saying there is no gatekeeper. This is expressly, and openly about controlling what is allowed. The only other explanation is DHS is launching a government funded version of super snopes, which seems unlikely to me. Congress has been tap dancing on the Harrison decision for awhile now. The disdain these people apparently hold for the common voter is disturbing.

The Pulitzer prize was established from an endowment set aside by Joseph Pulitzer, whose paper war with William Randolph Hearst established the concept of yellow journalism. Those same yellow journalists bragged about their ability to start a war (Spanish-American War, "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war" - Hearst). Walter Duranty flat out lied about the Holodomor in Ukraine, and defended Stalin's show trials. Disinformation isn't new. Historically it comes from "authoritative sources." The solution has never been to ignore the first amendment.

The only tax related source document I could find was on the RCID website. Lots of reference to ad valorem taxes. So I suspect the taxes breaks are property related.

It's full of political buzzwords, but the substance is mostly stuff they were probably doing anyways (investing in base schools, helping spouses get jobs, etc. etc) There's a bit of investing in STEM at HBCUs and the like, but whatever. So basically, standard response from the bureaucracy. Insert all the buzzwords into the current plan and claim to be doing the thing.

It's linked in the article you posted. Second link. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Apr/13/2002976515/-1/-1/0/DOD-EQUITY-ACTION-PLAN.PDF

Did any of you actually read the action plan?

The problem with solar and wind is one of time. Their peak production is not aligned with peak demand. There's also a square foot of land for production vs. population density problem if the suburban NIMBYs ever lose their fight. Although I suppose we could just turn the desert southwest into a giant solar farm and storage facility. The problem then is that the entire production system needs to be very oversized (expensive) or a storage system is needed. All the current storage technologies are not really suitable (huge and expensive), at least for now. The other option is dispatchable energy sources, natural gas currently plays that role in Texas. They ran into some issues with the big freeze, but that was mainly a system design problem not a fundamental problem with their concept. They use a lot of renewable energy. In the longer term, less reliance on oil/fossil for energy is a good thing for multiple reasons. Nuclear power production technology has been stagnant for a long time, and I'd be fine with some R&D grants/competitions/etc to get the technology caught up. nuclear good idea fairies: Fusion: obvious, but also may be a pipe dream Recycling reactors: something like 80% of the energy is still in spent fuel from legacy reactors, France does re-refine the spent fuel to reuse. Negative: produces plutonium as a by-product. New design fission reactors: goal of reducing proliferation concerns, improving safety Ramp-able reactors: current reactors can't ramp up and down quickly, and are only designed to completely shut down a limited number of times in their lifetime. Not sure if this is a pipe dream too.