Lord Ratner

While I agree with the concept of debating the content and not the source, the only realistic way to do anything useful is to filter out sources that do not meet a certain standard. Being correct sometimes is not a high enough standard. As an example, it is unrealistic to expect someone to spend time disproving the many insane things Alex Jones says regularly. Even though he's right sometimes, and even though he's right sometimes when everyone else is burying the story. It's just the peril of dealing with unlimited information. As an intermediate solution, you can ignore a source with an obvious bias. A sort of "recusal" for media. I'm this case, it's rational to discard Russian-government-controlled media when discussing a war Russia is waging. Yeah, they'll be right sometimes. Too bad so sad. There's not enough time in the day to vet sources with a huge bias when other sources exist. I wouldn't trust the Ukrainian press releases either, nor waste time with them.

Awesome, thanks. This will simplify my life It's a shame USAA is "just another back" now.

Got a link to the jun 15 change on the sweep? Thanks for the heads up, I'm going to get this set up

Definitely a poet first... his songs all sound poorly produced and his voice is trash. But the lyrics are always amazing. I always had this one in my head when we'd all drunkedly stumble back to the base in UPT.

That was my thought too. 3 1/2 hours is a long way to go to randomly break into a house.

While I agree in principal, recidivism is a real problem with crime and we simply don't have the resources (or will power) to keep that many people locked up forever. I don't have a great answer, obviously, but a background check is relatively painless and there are definitely people you don't want having guns. For example, a murderer/rapist/gang banger awaiting trial out on bail. Abolishing the entire bail system isn't realistic. More controversially, I am open to limited waiting periods. Far more than background checks. No more than 7 days, but maybe an even lower limit. Crimes of passion are real and demonstrated, and cooler heads often prevail with time. I can think of no constitutional scenario where a gun needs to be purchased *now* as opposed to next week. You aren't forming a functional anti-tyrannical-governmental force in 24 hours. Concerns about self-defense (which are arguably not what 2A addresses) might require a gun sooner, but I think you can allow police the option to waive a waiting period and you wouldn't have a worse outcome than we have now. I think state-funded gun safety courses would be a brilliant move for the cause. Conservatives are so against spending money, but if you really wanted to change the narrative and get more people comfortable with the 2A, this would be a low cost way to make gun owners safer, make more people gun-friendly, and take away many liberal arguments against gun ownership.

This is a concept that was recently brought up in court regarding an illegal immigrant having a gun. The judge ruled in his favor. Do the rights protected by the Bill of Rights extend to all people, as they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" or is the Declaration referring to other rights? Saying that the Amendments don't stand individually poses the same problem as many of the proposed gun laws... where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide how much "responsibility" one must display to be worthy of the Rights? Obviously there is a limit somewhere, as we restrict the ability of felons to vote and own weapons, but even that is a contested idea, one I struggle with. As to the serial numbers, first you have to demonstrate that serial numbers are reducing gun crime. Not just helping track the gun to wherever it came from. Are criminals avoiding serialized guns? Are they getting caught because of the serial number? So many laws are some nerd's idea that might do this or might do that, without any evidence before or after that it actually does anything at all. Yet the law rarely has a sunset clause like the assault weapons ban of 1993 had. Serial numbers do absolutely help the government track guns. That's bad. So the associated good needs to be clear and supported. I don't see evidence of that right now. With "ghost guns" the problem would be if someone starts making a bunch of guns and funneling them to gangs/cartels. Is this already illegal? If so, do we need another law making it illegal? Is this (meaningfully) increasing the number of guns in criminals' hands? I think the argument for banning ghost guns is that the serial number allows the maker to be tracked down easily. Obviously someone making guns for the cartel isn't going to follow that law anyways, so instead this becomes a law that you can use to theoretically "get" the cartel suppliers for making unserialized guns without actually proving they were selling guns to bad guys. Like how Al Capone was nabbed for tax evasion instead of all the actual murdering and booze-running. But that was a bullshit tactic in the first place, not a victory of law-enforcement. Forensics have advanced to the point we don't need to play games like that anymore to catch crooks. But this is also so niche I just don't care much. I would much rather have the NFA restrictions on suppressors and short barrels addressed.

Bashi is getting a bit close. Continuously proclaiming the inevitability of Russian victory and arguing that Ukrainian corruption sets them up as an unworthy ally. Especially when there are plenty of examples of much bigger countries being defeated/repelled by well-funded underdogs. But he's also just a troll But yeah, the character attacks as Russian shills is getting old.

And I think people don't realize how natural the anti-human instinct is. You ever met someone who boils issues down to "humans just suck" or "humans are a cancer on the Earth?" My wife was like that way back. Never actually acted in a way that indicated she believed it, deeply compassionate and attached to her friends and family, but if you mentioned the environment, boom, humans are the worst and we probably need fewer of them. That impulse, I think, is just part of being a species with a hyper-advanced intellect and self-consciousness/awareness as a primary characteristic. Similar to how racism is a natural but "toxic" manifestation of tribalism. Keeps you alive in the jungle, but less compatible with advanced society. These impulses must be overcome with reason and wisdom. Instead the environmental movement has given in to them absolutely.

Are you sure the Afghans didn't just have superior firepower, superior numbers, a deeply secure anti-corruption apparatus, and direct support from US military units? Because I've been told that's the only way Ukraine has a chance here...

No rush. I've done the same. Perils of the Internet🤷🏻‍♂️

Right, you know, except for the whole invasion of Ukraine thing. I wonder if there are any other "historically Russian" parts of Europe... Definitely doesn't compare to Hitler targeting historically German parts of Europe for "reunification."

If you establish that you are going to feed someone, then stop feeding them without sufficient time or opportunity to feed themselves, then yes, you are starving them. You can argue whether you should have fed them in the first place, but once you establish a relationship, what you do in that relationship matters. We could have let them fend for themselves from the beginning, but we didn't. Maybe we should have, though I disagree. Doesn't matter, we did. And you now have to operate from that reality. For everyone calling for a negotiated settlement, that's not going to happen unless Russia has something to lose by refusing. And that's not going to happen without a re-armed Ukraine. I agree with all of the complaints about a feckless administration with no strategy and no goals. That's the hand we've been dealt. The North Vietnamese couldn't defeat us with unlimited weaponry. They didn't need to. This is unidimensional thinking.

Sure they have. Artillery is how this war is being fought, and they are out of shells. We are the resupply. Obviously there's a debate over whether we should, but we made Ukraine our proxy in this war, and now we are withholding. I've said it many, many times before, I don't care what their odds are if they want to fight. And for now, they still do. So arm them up. I'm a big fan of the negotiated settlement, but neither Russia nor Ukraine seems interested at the moment. And Russia will not be interested until we resupply Ukraine, at which point they may find a newfound interest in peace. Actually that's another paradox in your reasoning. We should be negotiating a settlement, but not give any motivation to Russia to settle.

This is an ironic thing to say considering they have been starved of the weaponry required to fight. If I were a bit more cynical I would say you are being intentionally disingenuous. We shouldn't be sending them money or weapons! *We stop sending them money and weapons.* See!? They are losing, so there's no point in sending the money or weaponry!

There are dozens of obvious reasons why they want Biden in the chair. You have to be mentally handicapped to think otherwise, especially considering many of the leaders of these organizations are quite vocal about the topic. Arguing that they are secretly pulling the strings of the entire government is another issue entirely.

"ICBM69, Miami center, leaving my airspace, change squawk now 3422 and contact Jacksonville center on 132.2."

I will buy Ken a drink wherever I meet him for the rest of my life 😂🤣

Don't worry, they learn how to read once they hit elementary school.

?

Another inevitability. The move to "re-shore" some critical manufacturing capabilities is the only good news these days. The sooner the better. Trading with China was the biggest mistake of the post-WWII era. We could have pulled the entirety of Latin America into the modern world, instead we funded the buildup of our biggest geopolitical adversary, and got an immigration crisis as a bonus.

No worries, internetting is fraught with communication errors. Let's try anyways. "War with Russia" is a bit vague. We can have an entire war with Russia within the borders of Ukraine. That's very different than marching on Moscow, with very different responses from Russia. We try to occupy Russia, yeah, nukes go from "probably not" to "possibly." Definitely not circling the drain, or declining to ruin. We've been through 3 turnings already. We emerge stronger each time. I think you misunderstand the theory. I agree with this, however I believe that complete economic isolation will absolutely provoke a Russian response we can't ignore, and thus, escalate. The oil embargo on Japan is a good corollary. We agree on a lot, so I probably had you confused with some other argument on this board. I don't think it's time for American troops to kill Russians. But I absolutely do support Americans killing Russians in Ukraine if it looks like Russia is moving to occupy the entire country. A march on Kiev would be the red line.

You have to define "start a war." I'm happy to keep dumping weapons, intel, and training on the Ukrainians to keep up the fight. And if The Russians start pushing towards Kiev, then I would be fine if western forces began supporting with airstrikes and other direct support within the borders of Ukraine. A lot of this simply boils down to my belief that what is happening is morally wrong, sovereignty matters, and letting weaker nations fall because of isolationist fears never ends well. What evidence do you have that they won't? Doesn't matter. You don't get to "take" sovereign countries. Controlling Ukraine gives Russia a massive strategic advantage if they do invade other countries. So now we have two reasons to stop them. I haven't argued for preemptive war. But I agree with some conservatives that continued support of Ukraine, even without direct involvement, will eventually "provoke" Russia into more belligerent action that draws us into a fight. So be it. That still won't be us "starting it," regardless of how much standard political maneuvering existed before the invasion. Any doubt was extinguished when Russia failed to take Ukraine in 2022. Are we seriously thinking otherwise? I have no interest in occupying Russia, so if you are referring to a land invasion then sure, that would be long, painful, and ugly. But beat them in a war to defend the currently established borders? Please. We beat the shit out of Iraq, and then the politicians fucked it all up. And yeah, we shouldn't have gone in the first place. But there's not a great comparison. Now, if you are arguing that we shouldn't have kicked Iraq's ass in the early 90's and saved Kuwait... yeah I just can't get on board with "let it all burn." We tried that with Germany and it wasn't great. Limited goals are the key to military success. Defending a sovereign nation is not escalating. End. Nukes have been hanging over the world for almost a century but it keeps spinning. It's a pointless paradox: If Russia is willing to use nukes because their attempt to steal another country is failing, then have to accept that they can take whatever countries they want because we avoid nuclear war at all costs. Why does the calculus change for Latvia? Are you really telling me you're more comfortable with nuclear war because Latvia is in NATO? Who the fuck is Latvia?

Another area we disagree. The longer we wait, the weaker we will be for the actual fight. As our weak governance racks up increasingly absurd debt, the pressure to divert military spending to welfare programs will only grow. The longer we wait, the fewer war fighting experts we will have coupled with less and less modern military equipment to fight with. I still think we win based on geography and natural resources, but it'll cost more lives and treasure to wait. Whether or not there is a nuclear exchange, which is not nearly as certain as you propose, does not change the calculus. Will we be better capable of fighting Russia today, or after another 10-20 years of peaceful decline? I'll be honest. I don't care about you. Or me. I want what is best for my kids. I am not interested in adding WWIII to the list of hardships we are pushing off to the future. Appeasement does not work. History is clear on this point, and that's exactly what you are proposing.

So, I'm glad you are at least honest about this. Thank you. The reason I am against allowing Ukraine to be taken, under your logic, is because I believe that *if* they truly want to take Ukraine, they will not stop at non-NATO countries. Wouldn't make much sense strategically. We're better off just starting the damn war now if that's the case. Unless of course the plan is to let them weaken their military by taking Ukraine and Moldova, at which point we immediately go in an crush them. But I'm positive that's not the plan. And to be clear, my primary reason for supporting Ukraine hasn't changed. Sovereignty matters, and a stable world order is not possible if it is not enforced. And here we are. I agree, the right answer is money and equipment, which we are somehow screwing up. And if we are willing to fund the perpetual Ukrainian insurgency, maybe it stays that way after Kiev falls. But it seems like Republicans have forgotten why the world needs police, and why it's better to be the ones in charge.