busdriver

I'm confused. You got denied retirement? But I know a guy who's working Palace Chase to the guard after 21 years AD (signed bonus to something past that). I also know a guy who straight up retired from AD, then got some waivers signed to join the reserve, then more waivers to return to flight status. When on orders, his pension got pro-rated (reduced) for that time. But that was years ago. So yeah, should be possible I would think. I'm not in a position to definitively tell you, but maybe that's encouragement to keep digging.

Gross. Scrambled or omelet..... or wait until you can batter and fry them.

Agree, with you and the opinion article. Fundamentally, if the public is successful with swaying a SCOTUS ruling, it reduces the legitimacy of the court itself.

Did you read the draft? This is pretty clearly covered. Long historical tradition of inter-state travel/commerce.

This is basically all of modern politics. Right, Left. Chicken, Beef.

Then re-read the second half of my post. Edit: I'll be more clear. I think the answer from the religious right would be: "first things first"

This is a common error made by just about everyone. Assuming that everyone thinks and values things the same as they do. In this case, you're projecting how you would think and behave if you believed that a new person started at conception. It's also really common in this specific case to not look around at all, and miss that sometimes people do mean what they say. So you get this opinion piece from Time of San Diego lamenting that fathers should have to pay from conception if abortion is illegal (this is one example, I've seen plenty). It is of course filled with snark, implying that the concept is inconceivable. The ironic aspect is Utah now requires fathers to foot 50% of the pregnancy medical bills, Arkansas is pushing something similar, North Dakota has a R led push to require child support retroactive back to conception. An Oklahoma dem pushed a bill to do the same as a sort of thing as a snark move, and then pulled it back. I assume partly due to the fact that its passage would implicitly set a precedent of person from conception. Maybe they actually do believe what they say. And if you offer up your "suggestions" they'd probably agree with them.

Justifiable homicide has a long precedent of legality. Reasonable belief of death or grievous bodily harm. I think an outright ban on all abortion would be an easy slam dunk legal victory to overturn. CH is correct though. This is going to get very ugly.

What if the NKVD found hidden papers that proved a political candidate was an actual serial killer? Should the public be somehow required to abide by the fruit of the poison tree concept? How about an actual historical example: Pentagon Papers. What you are describing has never existed, and is anathema to an actual functioning fourth estate. Foreign fuckery in American politics has been a thing since at least the 1796 election. Russia has been at it in earnest for a hundred years.

She is saying there is no gatekeeper. This is expressly, and openly about controlling what is allowed. The only other explanation is DHS is launching a government funded version of super snopes, which seems unlikely to me. Congress has been tap dancing on the Harrison decision for awhile now. The disdain these people apparently hold for the common voter is disturbing.

The Pulitzer prize was established from an endowment set aside by Joseph Pulitzer, whose paper war with William Randolph Hearst established the concept of yellow journalism. Those same yellow journalists bragged about their ability to start a war (Spanish-American War, "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war" - Hearst). Walter Duranty flat out lied about the Holodomor in Ukraine, and defended Stalin's show trials. Disinformation isn't new. Historically it comes from "authoritative sources." The solution has never been to ignore the first amendment.

The only tax related source document I could find was on the RCID website. Lots of reference to ad valorem taxes. So I suspect the taxes breaks are property related.

It's full of political buzzwords, but the substance is mostly stuff they were probably doing anyways (investing in base schools, helping spouses get jobs, etc. etc) There's a bit of investing in STEM at HBCUs and the like, but whatever. So basically, standard response from the bureaucracy. Insert all the buzzwords into the current plan and claim to be doing the thing.

It's linked in the article you posted. Second link. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Apr/13/2002976515/-1/-1/0/DOD-EQUITY-ACTION-PLAN.PDF

Did any of you actually read the action plan?

The problem with solar and wind is one of time. Their peak production is not aligned with peak demand. There's also a square foot of land for production vs. population density problem if the suburban NIMBYs ever lose their fight. Although I suppose we could just turn the desert southwest into a giant solar farm and storage facility. The problem then is that the entire production system needs to be very oversized (expensive) or a storage system is needed. All the current storage technologies are not really suitable (huge and expensive), at least for now. The other option is dispatchable energy sources, natural gas currently plays that role in Texas. They ran into some issues with the big freeze, but that was mainly a system design problem not a fundamental problem with their concept. They use a lot of renewable energy. In the longer term, less reliance on oil/fossil for energy is a good thing for multiple reasons. Nuclear power production technology has been stagnant for a long time, and I'd be fine with some R&D grants/competitions/etc to get the technology caught up. nuclear good idea fairies: Fusion: obvious, but also may be a pipe dream Recycling reactors: something like 80% of the energy is still in spent fuel from legacy reactors, France does re-refine the spent fuel to reuse. Negative: produces plutonium as a by-product. New design fission reactors: goal of reducing proliferation concerns, improving safety Ramp-able reactors: current reactors can't ramp up and down quickly, and are only designed to completely shut down a limited number of times in their lifetime. Not sure if this is a pipe dream too.

What brabus said. As a wise man once said: "Never pass on the opportunity to instruct"

90% of the time when someone talks about the OODA loop I want to put my head through a wall. So of course I looked at the link. Like a masochist. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Regular is up to $5 in Vegas. And I get 13mpg. Driving to Cali in two weeks is gonna get pricey. Vidal Junction is up to $6.59 (it's in the middle of nowhere) Feel my pain!

Point of order: The first amendment protects the people from the government. Free speech is a concept, and as the bill of rights are only an enumeration of natural rights the conceptual framework can stand as a point of argumentation. One can argue that social media is effectively the public square based on how politicians and the press treat it. A conceptual argument for free speech would be applicable. God help us that the youtube comments without the youtube is now considered public discourse by people in positions of power........

People should read "The Law of Self Defense: A Guide for the Armed Citizen" It's by Andrew Branca, a lawyer that specializes in self defense. If you carry a weapon you MUST read it.

It's hard to stir up controversy when the Georgia law that was the only thing those three were attempting to stand on was changed before the trial even started, and everyone who looked at that case thought they were guilty as sin.

Once a member submits a religious exception request, their status should be changed to "admin refusal" and they are no longer bound to the current requirement timeline. The exception process from start to finish takes about 6 calendar months, including an opportunity to appeal AF surgeon general if denied at majcom level. Ref: AFI 52-201, 48-110 DoDI 1300.17 Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Mea culpa. 618% is what I should have wrote if I hadn't F'd up in excel.

About 6-9 months ago I was curious about this debate and dug into average annual pay on manual labor jobs in 1969 compared to the 2007. Those years didn't have any real significance, other than having data that was easy to grab. The average annual pay of all manual labor jobs had risen very slightly in real terms (43k to 44.5k). The average cost of healthcare had risen 5.5% to 22% of that annual pay. The median home value had risen from about 400% to 3500%. An average college degree has gone from 22% to about 100%. Average car cost had gone from 60 to 69%. Everything else stayed the same cost or got cheaper. So there is a real something in medical costs, home costs, and college costs. Any discussion about addressing those needs to actually look into the root cause of why the cost went up. Throwing government money around doesn't inherently do that.