Lord Ratner

Haha, and I usually fail. You shouldn't have much trouble relating😂🤣

This is like Jews who only go to synagogue a couple times a year, but take every opportunity to call themselves Jewish while they advocate for and support political stances that are in direct opposition to the Jewish faith. Being raised both Catholic and Jewish, I've seen many of both. And for clarity, I am firmly atheist. Since I don't believe in any of the sanctity or spiritually of the religion, perhaps I have an easier time identifying religious vs non-religious people. You are religious if you follow the teachings of your religion. You are not if you don't. You can love the idea of airplanes, respect the history of airplanes, marvel at the complex engineering of airplanes, and even spend a lot of time hanging out at FBOs, airshows, and in airplanes. But if you don't fly them, you're not a pilot, regardless of whether you believe yourself to be one. One of the most vital elements of religion is the formation of a clear and definable identity that one can use to guide their life such that they can successfully adapt to living in a given society, and advance that society through their participation. Each religion has different prescriptions for doing so, but this new-age nonsense of I don't have to do anything but identify as the religion in order to be a part of it is strangely reminiscent of the new and obnoxious dogma regarding gender.

Fair hit on the periodic table, but that just means my point is correct, my detail wasn't. I'll own that slip. It also wasn't anything more than a small example to refute your very weak (or very poorly made) point that international supply chain security are economic factors that aren't worthy of killing people over. Usually I try not to come off as rude on the internet, since the internet biases us towards that type of behavior. But now you're playing the victim, and it's boring and disingenuous. I called you out on a very (very) obvious straw man, and now you're doubling down, which which is a type of internet debate I have less time for. So when you can read someone's opinion without mischaracterizing it to buttress your own (or weaken theirs), maybe we can have that talk. Otherwise it's the same pointless team-ism that's crushing the national dialog in all parts of life, and I get enough of that in the real world. No thanks

Neat. Next time let's have the conversation people are actually having, like that, instead of using straw men to... Honestly I have no idea why you feel the need. We can get into your hyper simplistic view of international trade tomorrow, but we did create a supply chain, in Taiwan. And Ukraine, actually. Now other nations seek to threaten that. And with the blessing of Taiwan and Ukraine, we abso-fucking-lutely are entitled to blow up some enemies to protect those supply chains, should they be attacked. Doesn't mean we should, we have to balance other interests, but we certainly are entitled to the decision. When you say "violate sovereignty" I have to imagine you mean the idea of attacking China for semiconductors that are produced in China? Another straw man.

The above is not in the same universe as: If you are arguing that only existential threats merit intervention, then we can have that conversation. But you're not, just like I'm not arguing we are on the brink of extinction. "A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making." There are plenty of economic reasons I'd consider justification for blowing up our enemies. We can use any threats to our access to advanced semiconductors as one example. He doesn't need your help making bad arguments.

Straw man

Don't forget semiconductors. Ukraine produces a ton of helium.

What do you consider a current international threat to the USA? Something that, if not addressed, will result in a weaker America.

Both can be true (and are).

100% a sign of dementia. It's sad, but also a bit horrifying. I guess it didn't end horribly when Regan was in office, so I doubt it will this time either.

I love when people try to redefine Catholicism in a way that suits their political beliefs. The Catholic Church is structured in a very clear manner, and the accepted views of the church are equally clear. You either believe them or you don't, but you don't get to pretend that you're part of the club if you're not willing to abide by the Constitution and bylaws. It's one thing to claim to be Christian when you don't have mainstream Christian beliefs. But Catholicism is a very specific type of Christianity

We had a crew in the tanker fail to pressurize. The maintainers in the back all passed out, pissed themselves, etc. One even busted his head. The boom had to drag one up front to get him on oxygen. When they finally pressurized the AC decided to fly another 6 hours, at altitude, to the Died. When people fuck up, they tend to convince themselves that completing the mission will somehow minimize the reality of the fuck up, even if it actually makes it worse.

Isn't that how all opinions work here? I guess I'm new to the internet. I don't think we have a single woman here who has opined on abortion. Definitely no Ukrainians or Russians. Not a single climate scientist or immunologist to be seen. If I was unclear that I am not a Delta pilot, my bad. If your point is that only a Delta pilot could have a beyond "noted" opinion, then I am excited to hear how the Delta pilots managed to exist in a different macroeconomic environment than the rest of us at American, United, Southwest, etc. I will reiterate. Your pilot group (are you Delta?) are fools if they pass on this TA in this macro environment. Especially in light of what the mediator said before Bastian & co. walked into the room. And since I work with a pilot group full of fools, I can have an opinion on that too 🤣😂

Does JFK have the auto red lights for takeoff and crossings? Break break The Delta TA is a game changer, and they would be absolute fools to vote it down. DAL management has clearly decided that predictability for this summer is more valuable than money right now. Voting it down will intentionally remove the primary leverage point that got the huge gains in the first place. There is also rumor that the mediator made it clear in no uncertain terms that failure to recognize (and pass) the "generous" offer would not be viewed favorably when deciding how to meditate any prolonged negotiations.

We knew that COVID targeted fat old people from what, January 2020? We knew it didn't affect kids either by the time we went into lockdown in March. We knew it spreads almost entirely indoors by April, because I remember the Florida beach controversy. Nearly everything we "learned" about COVID after the summer of 2020 involved an "expert" prediction that proved inaccurate.

You and I have agreed and disagreed on a lot, and I commended your ability to change your mind. But this part gets to the crux of the issue, and why I think your assessment is so wrong. The ability to make decisions in an environment of incomplete information is quite literally definitive of intelligence and leadership. There's a whole lot of people right now throwing their hands up in the air and saying " well we just didn't know," but that's bullshit. Part of the job is not knowing, and being able to accurately assess and communicate that lack of knowledge, and recognize that without perfect information, your ability to compel others should be equally limited. This is foundational stuff to the way our government was designed and is supposed to work. The "experts" lied. Flat out. I'm including using intentionally misleading language. There are plenty of examples in this thread. But worse than lying about things they knew (to cover their asses), they lied about what they didn't know. They did so because they knew we-the-people wouldn't have done what they commanded if it was based on a hunch. But it was, and unfortunately (as any real scientist would admit) when you act on a hunch, you'll be wrong more often than not. So the point isn't "we would have done things differently if we had better information." The point is "will we do things differently the next time we have a crisis with little available information?" Based on the experts skittering like cockroaches into the shadows to avoid responsibility, and a whole bunch of well-meaning Americans seeking to look the other way because their "team" was the one that got it so incredibly wrong, I'm not sure we've learned much at all. Maybe when the 2018-2019 babies hit their teenage years, and we see the devastation wrought by depriving them of the irreplaceable socialization training needed between the ages of 2-4, we will have that conversation. But saying "hey, you didn't know anything either, we were all in the dark" doesn't cut it. How you act in the dark is what matters... (giggity). Again, not directed specifically at you, but I think you're missing the point. It's not that they were wrong, it's what they forced us to do while they were (knowingly) wrong.

Cliffs notes?

That's one. Go find enough for all of us... I'll wait 🤣😭

There might not be enough Scotch in Scotland to bring the British women up to Nordic standards...

It's almost like people can't be put into two categories with pre-ordained beliefs spelled out. Yet somehow most Americans act like that's exactly the reality. Turns out that when people think there are only two opposing teams competing, they cheer/donate/vote/campaign/rage far more than if they believe there are many teams with varying overlaps.

What happened last time? This literally already happened. We were alive when it did.

If Russia isn't a threat, why do we have a military? Just China? Or are we worried about South Africa? Brazil? World's most expensive military just to counter Al Queda? Russia must be considered a threat if you accept at face value that we have a military due to foreign threats and not just for defense contractors. And if the size of our military (and thus the cost) is determined by the scale of our adversaries, wouldn't we be better if with weaker enemies, allowing for a smaller military?

I mean, if we're going to play shocked, pearl-clutching humanitarian, this conversation will be even less fruitful. We judge the worth of a cause every day from the homeless panhandlers you drive by to the countries we send missiles to. Don't be intentionally obtuse. The Nigerians aren't offering us the opportunity to decimate the military capacity and reputation of a geopolitical adversary. Part A: That's MMT, which I certainly don't make arguments for. The spending increases matter, but they matter as part of an overall economic problem. They do not matter in regards to Ukraine, because the funding for Ukraine does not represent specific type of spending that, if halted, would solve our budgetary problems. A weak analogy: If you have hypertension because you only eat bacon and chocolate burritos three times a day, you have a heart condition that could kill you when you exert yourself. But when the neighbor's smoking-hot ex-wife is putting the last of her things into the U-Haul, and she offers you VIP tickets to the suck parade for helping her get the tailgate closed, one might argue that your heart-condition is going to be materially worsened by by accepting her offer of oral nirvana. But it wasn't MILF blowjobs that put your heart at risk, and this opportunity is about to drive away forever. So you do the math and take the risk, because at the end of the day it's your addiction to deep-fried butter that put your heart in danger. Part B: There is no "healthy for the country" solution; we are well past that. The disease is now a cancer, and the treatments are all going to be a whole lot more painful than life would have been if we had just put sunscreen (balanced budgets) on in the first place. But there are treatments, and they will still work in the future, though they will be more painful the longer we wait. A lot is going to depend on the attempted bifurcation of the world currency system by China and Russia. They might be able to accelerate the collapse of fiat to the point we see some solutions in the next decade as opposed to the second half of the century. With the worldwide decline in birthrates and the suicidal refusal to produce cheap energy, the grow-our-way-out-of-it solution that the entirety of the planet has been relying on seems completely unrealistic. So that leaves the really shitty solutions.

Because those causes aren't as worthy, or favored, or popular, or whatever you want to inject as the adjective. Just because nobody cares about the debt enough to do anything about it, doesn't mean we don't still prioritize and select for spending opportunities. The consequences for the global debt bonanza are going to be devastating. On that we agree entirely. The same reason I don't support slashing the defense budget to zero, due to our massive debt, is why I support spending the money on Ukraine. At some point in the next 50 years the debt issue is going to be resolved. And while it is going to get worse each year we wait, it will still be resolvable. The Ukrainian situation/opportunity does not have the luxury of time.

Incredible. So Kinzinger is a liar in addition to an attention whore. Woof.