Lord Ratner

March 7

1 hour ago, Biff_T said:

I'm not sure the wokes (intentionally plural) know what they want. They appear to spout nonsense just to make normal humans mad. Like children. It's complete insanity to believe what they're pushing. History will not be kind to them. They are a cult of fat chicks. Nothing more.

I know exactly what they want. Meaning and money.

They spent decades fighting the good fight, and the cause was righteous. Problem is, eventually they ran out of victims. Now the people who made their living as professional activists when activists were needed (Al Sharpton, Gloria Steinem, etc) are facing economic doom if the battle is over, and the younger progressives grew up believing they would carry the torch, only to reach adulthood prepared for a war that already ended.

It benefits both groups to "find" victims, mentally and financially, so that's exactly what they do. But the only people you can inaccurately cast as victims are the mentally broken, and so we see the "homeless" drug addicts, those with gender dysmorphia, women who confabulate ridiculous fantasies of sexual abuse (e.g. the Kavanaugh accuser), men who are attracted to children, all become the oppressed.

It's not because any of these activists actually care about these "victims;" they want fame and money and found a way to get it.

March 6

1 hour ago, BFM this said:

An understandable hypothesis, but not so fast...

"I would rather be governed by the first 1000 people listed in the telephone directory, than by the Harvard University faculty." -Wm F. Buckley

What on earth was he getting at? Examining one of the most vivid examples, take a look at the rise (and fall) of the Third Reich. The thought leaders driving that movement weren't the disenfranchised plebes, not by a long shot: it was the intelligentsia, the intellectual elite, PhDs, professors, doctors, lawyers--they were the ones nodding along to the rail cars, "showers", and brutal empire building.

Same thing is germinating today, on University campuses, hospital systems, corporate governing boards.

Yeah except for fundamentally there's a key difference. The universities are teaching the citizenship that they themselves are the enemy of the cause.

The third Reich did not teach that german-born German citizens were the fundamental roadblock to Utopia. They picked a minority internal demographic, and larger external demographics to villainize.

The force of the modern progressive movement in America, for better or worse, is fueled by well-off white liberals. They will happily preach and post about an ideology that paints themselves as victimizers, oppressors, and tyrants, so long is nothing actually comes of it. "Virtue signaling" is the most appropriate term.

However if that glorious day comes that the progressive movement is ready to act on their nonsense, it will require the sacrifice of it's largest support base.

Not going to happen. All those upper middle class, well-to-do white ladies are Republicans the day the revolution starts. And half of their husbands who provide for their privileged lives by exploiting the evils of capitalisms are already silent conservatives; they just have no inclination to scream about politics with their ignorant partners.

March 6

2 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

I've wondered the same thing. I've also considered that these people go through life in a constant state of self induced misery and want to drag down rest of humanity to join them in that pit of unhappiness. Or possibly, they have imagined themselves marginalized and must extract revenge on their perceived oppressors. Maybe both.

Are we just talking about the random people who make these movies and shows?

I think overwhelmingly the people involved with these movements are not true believers, they're just regular people, slightly below average in intellect and well below average on the assertiveness scale, who just look for a movement or ideal to attach to and do so. They were never "social justice warriors" when it was risky or uncomfortable to be one (pre-1960), but now you get all sorts of "likes" and back-patting for changing your profile picture to a black square, so that's what some of the sheep are doing now, including writing shitty TV episodes that are "woke."

The right has them too. They are very conservative now that conservatism means nothing in the Big-R Republican party. Cut spending? Yeah sure, but not any of the spending people are actually used to (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, military). Pro police? Hell yeah! But don't raise my taxes to fund them. Get rid of the homeless? Finally! But I'm not going to support government funded mental asylums to house them...

It's also why I don't see a real civil war in the US anytime remotely soon. Most of the most vocal partisans will vaporize the moment their beliefs and positions put them at risk.

I was seduced into the ideology.

I didn't realize what "the leaders" really meant!

*I'm* the victim of a cult.

I never really believed that in the first place!

More likely we will be pulled into a World War of sorts, and the deaths of our young will have a focusing effect on the population. After the first couple judges or politicians or activists are beaten to death in the street for saying something stupid, the rest will fall in line quickly and without protest. That's just what sheep do.

I'm not looking forward to it, but there will be some silver linings.

March 5

5 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I think even without the DEI cert, she could see this guy is roided out of his gourd.

Yeah humans don't look like that, no matter how much muscle milk you drink 🤣😂

March 3

12 hours ago, gearhog said:

Dune Part 2.

Fantastic. Up there with Blade Runner 2. Warning: I did feel the plot was as complex as Zandaya's hairline, so some foreknowledge of the story is needed. Such a welcome reprieve from the cute snarky pop-culture sci-fi wokefest Star Wars has become.

Amazing what happens when you have a director who respects and adores the source material.

March 3

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I know I do like the new speaker though.

The new speaker, who has accomplished exactly nothing and is passing a clean CR that McCarthy was annihilated for suggesting. Gaetz is a preening hack. I like the new speaker, but he has no business doing that job and anyone who thinks he belongs there has no idea what that job actually entails. You want a principled conservative, look to Chip Roy.

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I'll take his brand of spear throwing aggressive showman over the weak sister cry baby frauds like Kinzinger.

Both nothing more that actors, just playing different roles. Interesting comparison.

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Anyway, I wasn't trying to have a deep dive into Gaetz or the unpleasant realities of our current political process, I was really just dropping a dirty dozen reference.

No worries. I did like his grilling of Austin, it's just the only thing he provides, and he fucks up other things.

It's going to take a war. A bad one. Something to refocus the population and provide a new batch of heroes to vote for.

March 2

43 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

He’s good at making comfortable bureaucrats uncomfortable, which is both useful and entertaining. We don’t have to like people to acknowledge they may have utility in certain environments; haven’t you seen the Dirty Dozen?

That's all well and good, but that skill set is a dime a dozen, and he did far more damage with his McCarthy stunt than his theatrics can offset.

He is, however, just another useless politician in an ocean of unaccomplished amateur actors pretending to be competent and in control. I can't fault a sociopath for finding a position to exploit.

March 2

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I live here & voted for him, let's fight!

kidding of course. But I love moments like this, it's his speciality. Wouldn't support him for any other office but I do enjoy the rabble rousing and spear throws.

Yes, about the only thing he's good at is theatrics

March 1

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

When I used the term "reasonable expectation", that is a legal term and how I intended it. You seem to be applying a gut instinct as to what the term "reasonable" means to you. There are as many personal definitions to what constitutes "reasonable" as there are people.

No. I am applying the legal sense. There's not a court in the world that will convict that cop for shooting Babbit, applying the reasonable expectation. That's why no one is in jail for her death, aside from the obvious political bias in DC. You said it yourself. Beyond a "reasonable" doubt.

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

But as I said before, if you believe that any of us should have a reasonable expectation to be shot and killed for entering locked door in a government building, then you must also believe that it is reasonable and justifiable for law enforcement to do the killing

You don't enter a locked door. It's locked. You break it down, or at a minimum defeat the locking mechanism. Those are proactive steps to violate a space. If you do not have a right to the space, which citizens do not have an unfettered right to occupy government buildings, you can not defeat the barrier mechanisms innocently.

And if you do it as part of a rioting mob, as she did, I don't expect a cop to wait to find out, with his life, if they are just there for hugs. Trespass at your own peril.

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

Perhaps there is nothing you feel strongly enough about that would compel you to protest your government, but don't you want there to be significantly high threshold for the taking of anyone's life should you one day feel the need?

Rioting ≠ Protesting. It didn't for the George Floyd riots, it didn't for the Jan 6th riots.

If things get so bad that I feel the need to riot, I expect for people to die. Sometimes blood is the price. Possibly even mine if I feel strongly enough about it.

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

Should we have mowed down the Antifa protestors smashing windows and lighting things on fire? Most of us would admit a part of us would find it satisfying, but if you spend the time to sort through the logic and downstream effects of giving your government the authority use kill someone over a property crime... you may one day wish you hadn't.

Breaking Windows, no unless there were people behind those windows that could be hit by the bricks. Lighting fires, if there was any reasonable possibility that innocent people were in the vehicles or structures at risk of being set on fire, open fire, and shoot to kill.

March 1

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Ummm, we invaded Iraq because we said Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat due to their WMDs. Wars tend to escalate at times, and for what we think are stupid reasons. Just saying this as a response to your “no basis” as we had no basis to invade Iraq, but I still spent a year deployed there.

So seriously, if a NATO country deploys combat troops to Ukraine and kills Russian troops and Putin believes their best response is to attack said NATO country to keep that from continuing to happen, does this invoke the charter?

I don't think I implied anywhere that Iraq made sense. It didn't.

To your second point, yes.

February 29

3 hours ago, gearhog said:

If it is reasonable to expect to die, then you must also believe there is a reasonable expectation and legal justification to kill an unarmed person who has committed no acts of physical violence purely for the reason of attempting to enter a locked door.

Surely there must be some law, or even Supreme Court decisions that address this.

Sorry dude, but you're being willfully obtuse if you can't see how a crowd of people trying to force their way into *any* structure that is being defended by law enforcement, knowing full well that their presence in that building is not welcome, and that their numbers require the use of lethal force to satisfy the concept of proportionality, would be setting themselves up for a fatal interaction.

Our system doesn't work if it has to be designed for the dumbest people amongst us. This concept is why we have such a litigious society now, where you can sue McDonald's because you didn't realize your cup of coffee was too hot. If it is unreasonable to assume that breaking through a window and crawling through with a literal rioting crowd behind you into the line of fire of a sole police officer will get you shot, then the word "reasonable" has no meaning.

If the police tell you not to go somewhere, and you go there anyways, and especially if you have to use force to literally break your way into that location, you should know that the potential for getting shot is high. That is a reasonable expectation. People defending January 6th have gone from reasonable to unreasonable, because everything must be black or white now.

February 29

3 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So, hypothetically, if a NATO country were to send troops into Ukraine and kill Russian soldiers and in response Russia then retaliates by striking that NATO country, would that invoke the NATO charter?

If they (let's say France) only kill Russian soldiers in Ukraine, then Russia has no basis to attack France. If France launches attacks into Russia, then it's game on for Russia to attack France, but NATO should not have to join in.

February 29

11 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

look man bottom line is this:

if NATO commits troops into ukraine WW3 is on. is that what you want? i dont.

pretty incredible how careless the pro-intervention crowd is.

But it is Europe's fight, yes? So France and Poland have an interest and right to participate as they see fit? Or does NATO membership mean the US dictates everything?

I don't want it, but I'm much more sanguine about it. WWIII is inevitable. The details are flexible but the catastrophic nature is not. I would rather get it over with while we are morally weak but physically strong, rather than both morally and physically weak. Another decade or two of "peace" and I think we will look much more like the European countries do today. I don't want to give China any more advantage than they already have.

Interventionism doesn't have a bad track record, weak commitment does. Our intervening in world war II led to a pretty incredible period of prosperity and calm. South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Israel, and even Taiwan are evidence. Righteous intervention can yield good results. Fucking around in the Middle East without a goal or real leadership is proof that mindless intervention can be catastrophic.

Let's not forget that the Western governments had no interest in intervening in Ukraine with military support. It was only when the populations expressed shocking and very loud support for the Ukrainian cause that the politicians jumped on board. Everybody assumed that after 20 years of pointless wars the citizenship would be permanently biased against any form of intervention, but the cartoonishly evil nature of the Russian invasion hit a part of the human psyche that we forgot we had.

Before world war II the youth of that generation were all hot and bothered over the Oxford pledge, yet when the actual war came, that generation became the "GI generation" and then the "greatest generation" and formed a sense of community that they rode to the grave.

February 29

14 hours ago, gearhog said:

There's still an important distinction to be made. One committed a deliberate act to end his life, the other had no reasonable expectation to have her life ended while committing no acts of violence against herself or anyone else.

If you're making the case consumption of unhealthy information leads to death, I guess you can do some logical gymnastics to reach that conclusion. But, only on one side do we see the completely irrational conclusion that self-destruction is a reasonable way to achieve a political goal. That's what makes wokeism dumb, and different.

You absolutely will, always, have a reasonable expectation of dying if you are trying to force your way through a locked door with law enforcement behind it. That doesn't make it right. But it is absolutely a reasonable expectation.

You have to be fucking delusional to think otherwise.

February 29

17 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

but we ARE meddling. we're attached to a little boys club called NATO. and if NATO troops get overrun and fucked up in Ukraine then what do you think will happen?!

and once again Ukraine is NOT NATO.

if europe wants to fuck around and find out IRT russia have at it, but don't drag our country into it.

my arguments were correct about COVID. i assume they will be correct about ukraine.

Being right about covid is like being right against a flat earther. Not a very high bar.

So now your argument is that because the European countries are a part of NATO, they are not allowed to engage in military conflict outside of the alliance without the permission of the US? Or of all NATO countries combined?

So basically the existence of NATO means, non-nato countries are expressly excluded from any form of direct military support from NATO countries, because that would, in your opinion, necessitate the intervention of NATO as a whole, including the US.

What a fantastically interesting argument, and then why wouldn't Russia want other countries excluded from joining NATO? Not only are they not part of the alliance that Russia overtly hates, but they are now fair game for conquest because NATO countries cannot defend non-nato countries by your logic, regardless of their regional interests in the war.

Now, if you want to make an argument that the United States should declare ahead of time that they will not invoke Article 5 if NATO ground forces participating *in* Ukraine are attacked *on* Ukrainian soil, that's a more reasonable position.

But your arguments is the best advertisement I've heard yet for other countries joining NATO. If you don't join NATO, there are literally no circumstances under which friendly NATO countries will intervene on your behalf. You're on your own, good luck.

You're just arguing for pure isolationism. That doesn't have an impressive track record.

February 29

11 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

You aren’t!?

No. I thought the whole point was America shouldn't be meddling in European affairs.

Now the European countries are deciding they don't want to tolerate Russian expansionism in their back yard. That's their choice, right? But you're against that too? So countries should be able to defend themselves without external assistance, or be taken by whoever decides to invade. That'll play out well 😂🤣

So now you're not an America First isolationist, you're just pro-Russian.

You've always had the weakest arguments on this board, but this is a particularly interesting development.

February 29

9 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

The Russians are happy to pay for it. They are winning. As evidence I submit the panic in the EU. And nato. Floating ideas of committing NATO ground troops in Ukraine. That type of dangerous rhetoric wouldn’t be happening if Ukraine was winning.

so celebrate all your tactical victories as we lose the strategic war. Typical American officer corps.

Wait, are you against non-US NATO countries sending ground troops into Ukraine?

February 28

On 2/26/2024 at 5:40 PM, BashiChuni said:

its gonna happen. ole joe gonna lead us right into WW3

This has been building for decades. The election of an idiot political class is part of the process, not the cause.

Francis Fukuyama is going to have to release a revision to his book. I'm just glad my kids will be too young for what's coming.

February 27

8 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Terrible end for a clearly disturbed person. Obviously had no business near a commission or a security clearance.

Small blessing. His mental breakdown involved just killing himself, rather than shooting up a base.

February 25

10 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Amen. I actually read all of that and if a GS-11 civilian can do this, that is such a massive failure of so many people it’s hard to fathom. I don’t care if they have a strong union or not, you fire that chick immediately (assuming all his allegations are true).

You'll notice this dude was shit-canned as soon as he started hinting that the disappearance of expensive equipment would need to be reported. As soon as his "antics" transitioned from obnoxiously advocating for his unit to potentially tarnishing the reputation of his leadership, he was toast.

You don't get to the top in today's military (college, government, etc) through competence, results, and successful leadership of your subordinates, you get there by protecting those above you.

When the consequences for failure are restored, the institutions will resume filtering for and rewarding competence. It's going to get a lot worse before that happens, I fear.

February 25

13 hours ago, McJay Pilot said:

320th STS/CC fired at Kadena and there’s a data dump on FB here, that reads similar to the 27 SOG/CC’s rebuttal from awhile back.

I know a lot of the names mentioned, it’ll be interesting to hear what all they have to say.

This sounds like the O6 leadership at every base I was stationed at.

At some point people are going to realize that the corporate, academic, and political rot within the leadership class has completely infiltrated the military as well. It's a bummer, but it should not be surprising.

February 24

12 hours ago, nsplayr said:

In my very limited interactions with Dag, I was not impressed. If he is indeed next, it sucks that AFSOC's leadership selection process keeps hitting foul balls over and over again at the highest levels...

An economist would ask: what is the organization maximizing?

They aren't hitting foul balls, they're just not playing the game you think they are.

February 17

1 minute ago, uhhello said:

How is anything getting through?

That'll be the innovation part. 20 years ago we could track debris the size of a baseball, and that was just the unclassified level. Model the debris, predict the hole, and launch. We got bombers made of century-old tech to fly through oceans of flak, this won't be the challenge some are predicting it to be.

Not ideal, but it never is. I can't even think of a capabilities scare that came true. Peak oil, deforestation, the ozone hole, Moore's Law, overpopulation, etc. Our problems will always be socio-political, not technological.

February 17

5 minutes ago, Dogs-N-Guns said:

This is called the Kessler syndrome. Some already think we are there and just waiting for the trigger event to start the cascade.

I don't know if current satellites can change there orbits enough to make a difference, and if they could, the expended fuel would severely shorten their lifespan.

Once the cascade starts, I don't think there will be enough time to react. Getting a launch vehicle through the LEO trash cloud would be difficult (maybe impossible) after the cascade. Atmospheric drag would eventually clean things up, but that would take a very long time. There is a lot of research into how to de-orbit space trash without making things worse.

Sorry, by everything I meant the new, replacement stuff. I worded that very poorly. 😂🤣

Existing satellites are fucked. But the replacement cost will be much lower. I'm not saying it won't be an issue, but there's a whole lot of room left for orbital innovation, and usually a disaster is the perfect catalyst.

In fact, I'd wager an "orbital reset" would put the US into a near space monopoly, over the medium term. The rest of the world can barely get assets in orbit now, imagine if it required an entirely new regime of space tech?

February 17

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

It's only cool when we do it. 😄

In 1962, it looks like there were only about 25 satellites in orbit.

Today, there's about 7000-8000, mostly in LEO. It's a near exponential increase. Somewhere near half a million objects 1cm or bigger. Some believe we're approaching a number where loss of control and/or collision of a few satellites could create an uncontrollable cascading effect that would make orbiting the earth near impossible forever. That would suck.

We'd just move everything to the next orbital level, each with exponentially-increasing room for more satellites. And no real effort has been put into cleaning up space trash. There will be innovation there for sure.

It'll be costly, but not prohibitively so. We can thank Elon for proving that. Still, not ideal.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Blogs

Downloads

Wiki

Posts posted by Lord Ratner