Lord Ratner
-
Posts
2,466 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
139
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by Lord Ratner
-
It's not necessarily mandatory. If you can demonstrate that you have a certain amount of money, insurance is optional depending on the state. The rule is there to protect other drivers from your mistakes. Not to protect you from anything at all. In either case, you have a choice.
-
Spread it out. Move the major federal institutions to different states. Dept of Education in Iowa, NRO in Maine, HUD in Alabama. You get the idea. D.C. is a big part of the problem. It's 2020, you can operate with physical separation. Build a government made of the people who make up the country.
-
Trump is the polarizing balance. Conservatives have been called Nazis and deplorable for years. Liberals just weren't used to such overtly shitty treatment by the political class. The left set up the conditions under which Trump was possible. He did what other Republicans refused to do; he mimicked his opponents. No more masks. If the average citizen hadn't finally seen the political class for what it is, we deserve what we get.
-
Calling bullshit on this one. A candidate using a teleprompter *during interviews* is mind blowing. If a Republican candidate made even a fraction as many gaffes, you'd never hear the end of it. Oh wait, that's exactly what happened with W. Bush. Does anyone really think Bush was in worse mental shape then as Biden is now? The coverage sure indicates otherwise. He's always been a moron. Now he's a moron who can't think straight. If Trump had any brains, which he probably doesn't, he would just let Biden talk for the entire 90 minute debate. Instead he interrupted for the entire debate, protecting Joe from his greatest weakness: talking.
-
There is a group of people, mostly very smart, who believe through the most altruistic intentions that the world we have could be much, much, much better for everyone if everyone simply listened to them. And they're right. If everyone just agreed to the system they propose we would all, on average, be much better off. Problem is, it's that universal compliance bit that is the impossible prerequisite to Utopia. There's nothing new about it. Ask yourself why the leaders of BLM would proudly describe themselves as trained Marxists. What does Marxism entail? And how have previous Marxists accomplished their revolutions?
-
Shack
-
Yeah... The whole "he was asking for it" by driving a "drug dealer" car is a bit much. If drug dealers suddenly discover the amazing heated and ventilated seats, near silent road noise, and two panel panoramic sunroof of the Hyundai Sonata, am I supposed change cars to protect myself from unjustified police intervention? America absolutely, positively has a problem with police brutality and general policing philosophy. An analysis of the evidence suggests that this problem is not due to race, but the complex relationships in America between crime, race, poverty, and the history of racism make it easy to blame skin color. But changing the automotive tastes of law-abiding citizens is not the answer.
-
On the contrary, it's on the scientists pushing the theory. When their models are capable of accurately predicting the future temperature changes, and the associated effects, then it will be "settled" or close to it. As of now the track record is *terrible.* This is a fundamental concept.
-
Ok, it's pretty clear you don't have anything to go on here, just repeating what you've been told. There's so much evidence, because there just is! Everyone agrees. Well spoiler alert, there's a lot of evidence to the contrary, pointed out by a wide range of involved professionals, not just pilots online. We know the Earth is round because we have observed it, and any theories to the contrary are easily and repeatedly disapproven. Further, we can predict physics outcomes based on the round Earth theory that occur every time. Not so with global warming. To compare the two is gross ignorance of the science. The point of the hypothetical is that if we wouldn't stop nature from doing it, why do we stop mankind from doing it. The fact you consider these types of questions to be simple or irrelevant displays the lack of thought you've put into it. There's no nuance in your position, which generally indicates that it's an adopted position. Anyways, best of luck. You'll just stop talking about it one day, rather than issue a mea culpa. Global cooling, overpopulation, global warming, peak oil, acid rain... Global catastrophe is a natural human interest. It just never seems to pan out. Also, I'm not a Republican you walnut. Don't project your own inadequacies on others just because they disagree with you.
-
I did the AU ACSC masters course. It was actually pretty good, focuses on leadership, costs nothing, and had very good instructors with 100% flexibility for the travails of military life.
-
The irony here is that everything you ascribe to skeptics is equally applicable to believers. I'm not type 1, 2, or 3, I'm all of the above Your lack of understanding of how research and science works is on display. The finality and confidence which supporters of the theory display is completely out of line with the tenuous nature of scientific inquiry. But for fun, let's hit all three. Type 1: The Earth is only warming (by the amounts claimed) if you take every or any form of measurement and apply specific, subjective adjustments to the recorded data. If you take the most accurate and consistent measurement source, satellite data, you'll see very little warming at all, not at all in accordance with the models or headlines. This happens to be the case with *every* temperature data set. Every single one is adjusted in the same way. Older temperature are lowered, newer temperatures are raised. Type 2: I've already gone over the weaknesses of the theory of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Much weaker as a supposition than arguing the temps are rising, which is why type 2 is so common. Type 3: Valid. Concern. But I like to ask a hypothetical to reset the baseline. If we found out next year that global warming is 100% real, it's happening at the rates advertised, and the forecasted effects will all come to pass, *but* we also discover definitively that it is completely natural and uninfluenced by humans, do we try to stop it? Do we fight against nature? To a number, every environmentalist and supporter I've asked has said no. So if it's ok for natural global warming, why does man made warming suddenly become a problem? All three types have valid complaints. And everyone someone comes in preaching about the science (which most haven't read), they have never spent any meaningful amount of time researching the opposition. High profile scientists have been run out of the sector for low levels of dissent. That's not science, it's religion.
-
Isolating the causal link isn't enough if you completely destroy the correlation by using a more granular scale. The theory of human-caused global warming is based on a whopping 50-100 years of industrialized activity and the associated rise in CO2 as a result. Any historical use of temperature and CO2 activity (even when ignoring the near impossibility of estimating a "global" temperature from times before precision and satellite instrumentation) needs to compare short-term shifts measured in years and decades, not centuries and millennia. Climate change is much closer to economics than it is to science. It's almost entirely retrospective with no ability to effectively isolate the multivariate problem down to individual, testable components. And like economics, the theories and models are often unable to predict the future, making them invalid. The rabbit hole to go down is the actual temperature datasets. The Manhattan Contrarian has a great series in this where the arbitrary yet consistently one-sided adjustments to the data sets are shown to be loose at best. Those datasets are the foundation for nearly all climate research. Bad foundation, bad house.
-
Exactly. The only people who are certain of this movement are the people with no direct connection to the science. It's just another team position to be certain about because the other team disagrees.
-
Charts can be funny like that. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/ Even if I knew nothing about the theory, models, or underlying data, the overwhelming and religious-like commitment to the cause by a whole bunch of politicians, actors, other non-scientists is enough to make me skeptical. But I do know more, and dang near every time a supporter of the theory posts a chart, there's something the chart is misrepresenting.
-
For decades the government pushed the notion that, to be healthy and slim, we needed to avoid fat and intake carbs. Decades and an entire epidemic of obesity before we are finally starting, only now, to realize how wrong they were. Clean air ≠Carbon dioxide reduction. The science of climate change, and all the incredibly complex measurements, studies, and theories about the effects, boils down to a single theory. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas of small impact, but it increases the major greenhouse gas (water vapor) such that we are seeing and will continue to see a temperature runaway directly caused by humans increasing the CO2. There is all sorts of research showing that the Earth is warming. Granted a lot of that research is not nearly as concrete as the narrative would have you believe. Take a look at the satellite data and compare it to the theory. Digging into the various generations of temperature records and seeing how lopsided the adjustments are is another eye-opening chore. But even if you take the historical temperature data, as presented by the proponents of the theory at face value, the most critical component, that mankind has caused it, is dependent entirely on a theory of carbon dioxide that is not supported by the long-range historical data (ice ages during periods of much higher CO2), and is almost impossible to test on any sort of scale that would prove it one way or the other. And on this shaky ground, the United States is supposed to reduce its carbon footprint in a manner that would utterly devastate our economy, and only have a single digit percent impact on the overall change in temperature. So even if you accept the temperature data at face value, and you accept the theory of carbon dioxide as an impactful greenhouse gas at face value, you also have to accept that the rest of the world, including the largest polluter (China), is going to follow our lead in a manner that will have an actual meaningful impact on the rate of warming. That's a terrible bet, and the billions and trillions of dollars that we put towards this endeavor are much better spent on protecting forests, cleaning the plastic island out of the ocean, reducing known pollutants from being put into the atmosphere (like the smog plague of the 70s), defending endangered species, or any other number of measurable and worthwhile environmental endeavors. That's the short version.
-
Biden did what he needed to, not seem sick or weak. His answers were ok, but he didn't say anything that I thought had a good punch. But it's hard to notably punch the guy that everyone else spends all day punching. Trump needed to back off, save the "classic Trump" stuff for later. Came out of the gate way too fast. But he has no crowd, and that's his happy place. It seems like his best line of attack was the Hunter Biden stuff, but he flubbed when Joe brought up his dead kid. Should have praised then pivot, instead he just pivoted. Not sure what his plan was for the taxes fight. Either just lie it all away, or what he meant to say was "I pay millions in taxes through my business, not personal income, that's just how it works." But he didn't get that across. His climate answers were good-not-great, but firmly good. Medical was all over, but Republicans have been dropping the ball on Obamacare replacement for years. Better answer: I'm not going to bankrupt the American economy on unproven technology and theories when we can spend the money meaningfully protecting our rivers, forests, and oceans from pollution. He did get Joe to fumble a bit with the green new deal. The pandemic stuff was weak. He could have slaughtered Joe by pointing out the sheer stupidity of blaming him for the number of deaths, and keep going back to January, but instead he just kept saying how couldn't handle it. Weak. The hunter biden stuff seems to shake Joe the most, so I bet there will be more of it. You can tell Trump doesn't do well in a dynamic debate. There were some softballs he missed completely because he's so stuck on what he expected to be asked. Two examples were condemning white supremacists and committing to an orderly transition. Those are "Yes, but..." questions, and he turned them into just "but..." questions. He could have scored home runs on both of those. I don't think the first debate moved the needle.
-
If that's accurate, it explains why Obama never stepped into the controversy. I hope it's not accurate
-
There's a factual story I don't hear many on the left talking about. It's the story of how the top of the FBI literally conspired against an incoming president because they didn't like him. The stuff coming out of the Durham investigation is pretty appalling. I can't stand Donald Trump, but I'll support him 10 times out of ten if the opposition feels like using the might of the federal police to destroy someone against law, procedure, and the evidence is now an acceptable practice.
-
I thought the China comment was pretty obviously a joke, and a hilarious one at that. And whether you like it or not, calling the younger pilots/people "kids" in aggregate is common. I do it. Calling someone "kid" in an interaction is demeaning. Even contextually, your comment clearly meant it as a pejorative.
-
No. There's no chance he's remotely as rich as he portrays, nor is he the businessman he claims to be. He is, I'll confess, a brilliant marketer. But I knew that going into it. The best and most concise explanation I've ever read came from the Atlantic: It’s a familiar split. When he makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. Liberals spend so much time agonizing over how Trump has the conservatives fooled. He's not fooling anyone. Like brabus said, it's team sports now, and Trump is wearing the right jersey. You think conservatives are downplaying his insanity? You're right. They are. Liberals are currently downplaying the rising Marxist movement in their party. But his insanity is just a collection of character flaws, whereas marxism is a societal death sentence. I wish we could simultaneously denounce sociopathic character flaws and socialistic tendencies at the same time in the same political party. But you play the cards you're dealt.
-
Exactly. I don't like Donald Trump, I think he's the worst type of person. I think he lacks any sort of moral foundation, he certainly doesn't care about the issues, and he's addicted to the drug of power. But the only, and I mean only difference between him and the rest of the politicians who have lived in Washington for decades is that he lacks the veneer. His shell is completely transparent, and that's why the most established characters on both sides of the aisle hate him. None of his policies are new, so it can't be that. He simply exposes to the rest of the country how completely depraved the whole enterprise is. He's the first president who outwardly looks the way Washington inwardly acts. He campaigned on draining the swamp, and so the voters sent a swamp monster to clear it out. But many of the voters never truly understood what the swamp looked like until now. He's the portrait of Dorian Gray, except instead of one aristocrat, it's the entire political class.
-
You're referring to the text that you got caught plagiarizing? You literally accused the conservatives here of not thinking for themselves in a post you stole from someone else... It's not that your post can't be responded to effectively, it's that no one is interested in responding to you personally. It seems like that's a bit upsetting to you, but it's well earned.
-
I did, and like all studies, there are weaknesses. So much of this boils down to "systemic." POC *are* more of a threat. This is an inescapable statistic fact in 2020. Racist answer: black people are genetically prone to violence Systemic racism: The punishment for carrying a weapon is 5 to 10 years if you're white, 10 to 20 if you're black. Racist judge: sentences white people to fewer years in prison for the same crime as black people Racist cop: gives black people tickets for all speeding infractions, gives white people a warning Three of the four exist. The second does not in 2020 America. There's a very real and critical conversation to have about why people of color are a bigger threat. And it has nothing to do with the amount of pigment in someone's skin. Putting 18-year-olds in prison for decades because they committed a crime that anyone of us would have committed had we grown up in a broken home, in a shitty neighborhood, with no schooling, and no opportunities is insane. The modern disincentives towards a two-parent household, which is affecting all races, but black families at an alarmingly higher rate, is another problem we need to address. Conservatives have no interest in acknowledging the disparities that exist today, and that fixing them will require a tremendous allocation of resources. Liberals have no interest in a solution that doesn't involve racism as the primary driver and focus. So neither side is going to get anything done. Racism started this whole mess. Actually, slavery started this whole mess, it just happened to be black people that were the slaves in America. The racism part has been solved systemically. Making up for the after-effects of that racist system (and the good-intentioned policies that have made things worse) is the problem we face today. But the people who are around today, who are not racists and who are not responsible for the racist systems that caused these problems, are not going to be a part of the solution if that solution mandates labeling them as racist by association. And calling the system racist *is* akin to calling the people involved with the system racists. Because what decent person would be involved in a system that is so blatantly racist?
-
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877 Maybe spend more than two minutes next time. Nice chart though. Read up on the hazards of trend lines. Also interesting that you skimmed over the whole part about rates of violent crime by race. Statistics matter.
-
If you reach into your pocket when you were told not to, you can be shot. No weapon. It has happened and the officers walked. I get it. Dangerous job. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect police officers to adhere to some of the same standards that military members must follow, and in some cases you have to get shot at first before you get to shoot back. many of these situations don't take into account the proportion of officers to assailants. In a one-to-one situation like Michael Brown, and officer absolutely should use deadly force to protect themselves. But what if there were 3 officers? Six officers? Ten officers? at a certain point bodily harm is part of the job, that's what makes it noble. Responding with deadly force is not always the right answer to someone posing a physical risk. And to be clear, I don't blame the officers and many of these cases. Like I said the problem is with policing philosophy in general, not those who are taught it.
