Leaderboard

You used to serve as a good counterpoint to the obviously conservative tone on this forum, but you’ve drifted into an ideologue spewing outright falsehoods...you can't admit a single fault with the actions on the left. Most people on here have been clear they disagree with plenty of what Trump says. That’s not in dispute. What is disconnected from reality is your insinuation that the “party of Trump” is poised to destroy or kill anyone who isn’t in lockstep with some imagined orthodoxy. Let’s talk about actual violence, not vibes. Which side burned entire city blocks, torched police stations, and caused billions in damage during the 2020 riots—riots that left dozens dead? Which side created “autonomous zones” enforced by armed mobs where people were shot and killed? Which side spent years firebombing courthouses and attacking federal buildings in places like Portland? Which side shot up a congressional baseball practice after being radicalized by partisan rhetoric? Which side regularly labels ICE agents “Nazis,” a term historically used to justify violence against them? Which side cheers assaults on political opponents as “punching Nazis” when the definition of “Nazi” seems to be “anyone who disagrees”? Which side shot Trump in the ear, nearly missing his brain stem? Then tried again on a golf course? Political violence is wrong—full stop. But pretending it’s some uniquely right-wing phenomenon while ignoring years of documented left-wing rioting, assaults, and intimidation isn’t principled. It’s willful blindness. If you want to criticize Trump or Republicans, fine. Plenty do, including people here. But rewriting recent history to paint one side as uniquely violent while memory-holing the other is exactly the kind of bad-faith argument you used to push back against. You can do better than that.

Buddy just got Laughlin 15 May IPT 20 Oct UPT. Good chance they're going down the list and loading assignments alphabetically.

It's kind of a weird flex to criticize me for asking for Cliff's notes, then giving me the Cliff's notes. So, thanks? I guess? I agree there is some interesting stuff in there, in isolation. Certainly about Elon, who has been unstable at best since he became famous. Considering silicon valley has rather poorly hidden secret regarding parties loaded with sex and drugs, it would not surprise me at all if Elon was an eager participant. But as with all things, you are once again picking very specific parts of a story and putting them together to craft the narrative you want. Elon wanting to go to sex Island is only a scandal if Jeffrey Epstein was sharing his underage victims with Elon. Bill Gates getting an STD from a Russian whore is only interesting if the Russian whore was underage and Hates knew it. Donald Trump raping a minor will certainly be interesting, if it is substantiated. Kind of remarkable how in a world where even the Chinese couldn't keep their coronavirus fuck up a secret, somehow Jeffrey Epstein was able to maintain a clandestine underage sex extortion operation, without so much as a single shred of confirmable evidence, long after he was dead. But can we please stop pretending like an allegation is anything more than that? Should an allegation be investigated? Absolutely. And from the looks of it everything you posted was investigated already. My entire adult life, starting with my time at USAFA, has been plagued by "experts" with an axe to grind insisting that 90% of sexual encounters for women are rape. If she's had a drink? Rape. If she's a subordinate? Rape. If she didn't give you verbal affirmative consent? Rape. If she regretted the encounter the next day? Rape. Also: A woman would never lie about being raped. A woman would never use sex to get ahead in her career. A woman who used sex to get ahead in her career would never lie about it if the relationship was discovered... It's all absolute nonsense. But like everything else in politics today, if it's good for your team, you'll ignore every shred of common sense you once had and pray the story, no matter how absurd, is somehow true. You know, like that woman who claims to have been raped in a department store, but doesn't exactly remember when and doesn't exactly remember how and doesn't remember exactly where? Even though that alleged rape so thoroughly ruined her life, according to her own testimony, she couldn't remember any details that would have actually helped in substantiating her claim. Same goes for all the good MAGA Christians I know who insisted that Donald Trump is really a good man, and Stormy Daniels was just making that story up for more attention. Normally I would say let's do a full investigation of the incidents you posted here from the latest document dump. But there's already been an investigation. These women have already been milked for every drop of information, and both you and I know damn well that if there was anything even remotely substantiated in any of these claims, Donald Trump would have been publicly crucified a long time ago. There is simply no universe where the Democrats would have sat on this information. So no, I don't support another investigation because it's painfully clear at this point that the investigations are being used as just another tool to win elections. You either know that, or you are every bit as stupid as you sound online. It's also fucking stupid to tell another person that they should be reading mountains of evidence released by the justice department. Are you kidding me? Is your life really so empty and boring that you have time to do something like this, that will have no effect on anything or anyone anywhere anytime? Jesus Christ man, learn to knit. At least then you'll have some socks and a lot less mental anguish. I already spend more time on my phone than I should, when I should just be playing with my toddlers, and you think I should spend even more time "doing my own research" about the most investigated conspiracy in modern history? No thanks. I have every confidence that you'll bust the case wide open without my help 🤣😂

Drunk listening to something on BO

Yeah it was my first choice. I think it also helped that the board knows my wife will be starting med school close to Columbus in sept so they prioritized getting me Columbus.

Something came out it

The funny thing is they want it so bad, but haven’t connected the simple dots that the Biden cabal (including Merrick Garland) had these files. They did everything possible to destroy Trump to prevent him from running, including a massive, politically-motivated purge attempt resulting in a sham trial…but yeah, it’s completely plausible they just sat on a portion of the Epstein files that would have conclusively implicated Trump in something that would have easily crushed his electability.

More big tanker stuff Concept MD-11 tanker and article with KC-10 pilot commentary (reposted from a forum) in the article. Seemed like a very realistic appraisal of the concept and practical implications Avgeekery.comToo Big For Its Own Good: Why A MD-11 Based Tanker Was Ne...Why didn't McDonnell Douglas make a serious attempt to sell a tanker version of the MD-11 tanker to the Air Force?Needs boom and pods but a good render nonetheless This is what we need back in the fleet (among others), a strategic tanker / cargo platform.

So glad I left Va.

TL/DR: It depends entirely on the situation, but regardless I'm ready to be disarmed by a LEO. I'll fight it in court, not in the moment. It's about managing my own expectations and it all boils down to the officer and his/her assessment of the situation. If I talk to the sheriff in church as I walk by, I'm fine. She knows I'm armed. If I am the first responder who engages an active shooter in that same church, I fully expect that same sheriff to disarm me afterwards. A: the situation is over and shootings result in frayed nerves and shaking hands. B: evidence. The reason doesn't matter, I've decided before it all happens that I'm submitting to the proper authority. If the officer deems according policy/judgment that disarming me is advisable, I'm not resisting in the slightest. It might be a complete BS reason. There also might be a factor I don't know about. If I feel like my rights are getting trampled, that specific moment is NOT the time to take a stand. I must give the officer the benefit of the doubt. The officer is not required to reciprocate. In fact, the officer literally stays alive by NOT automatically giving people the benefit of the doubt. If it was wrong and/or illegal, we can figure that out in court...later...when loaded weapons aren't in play. I'm also of the opinion and experience that simply acting as described above will relieve any tension and most likely the officer will not escalate to disarming me. It's about expectations. If I act like I am superior with better legal knowledge than this officer, they can smell it, it's a red flag for them, and it does nothing to help the situation, regardless of how right I am. To use an analogy: I treat every police officer the same way I treat the range safety officer I've never met: With absolute deference to the authority they hold in that moment. Yes, some that suck. Most don't. But every single one should be treated with respect. If they prove undeserving, I bring it up with management later, not on the range.

Mostly this activist action against ICE is to distract the conversation from the electoral kryptonite of the MN welfare fraud scandal (and other states) They know the attention span of the public is short and they need a narrative they can spin against the Republicans in the mid terms This is a calculated planned funded political operation, a theater level action.