busdriver

For the love of the flying spaghetti monster, please stop saying this inane quasi-religious horse-shit. Also, you place way too much credit in the hands of political "leaders" to actually influence and shape the public's opinion. There are no JFKs in the wings, because that type of political actor is no longer possible.

Gas is the new shit paper.

It's a Festivus miracle!

I would argue a person has agency, and therefore a right to life and liberty. I don't believe in god, and don't think there's any inherent value in human life. Euthanasia and doctor assisted suicides are fine by me, even if the actual implementation is super sticky. I wasn't being snarky, justifiable homicide is generally how I think about an acceptable abortion at this point in time. I realize you can argue about levels of agency in a baby, but we all know babies grow. I can't see how a zygote is a person, I also can't see how a soon to be born baby isn't a person. I don't have a good answer beyond that. I'd probably be fine with an arbitrary line drawn somewhere in the middle. But I'm not personally wound up about, since I can't parse a 100% answer myself. Of course this is all philosophical. If you aren't dogmatic about it, that's the only place this conversation ends up. There are many people who aren't capable of actually having a conversation, nor agreeing on what the conversation is actually about.

If at the point in time in question, the fetus is a person: Ask what circumstances would make you think justifiable homicide makes sense. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

My point is it was enforced violation of individual liberty by government. Arguing about which government body gets to be big government misses the point that big government is a danger to individual rights. The state having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is (I think) necessary, but it carries risk that must be mitigated. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

But it was the state enforcing segregation. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Man you really just waffle around the middle of the conversation don't you.

You assume that the minority is inherently fucked without big brother to step in an help/protect them. Why? Historically it has been the government that has been the one doing the fucking by actively enforcing violations of liberty.

I agree. Unfortunately, both Republicans and Democrats don't want to compromise, and both sides are happy to fuel the fire and polarize politics, largely on single issues to try and get a majority and push things through unilaterally. Of course they're intransigent jerks. The government has too much power. My statement has nothing to do with political compromise. The point is someone who views the government's role to make a better society will try to figure out which policy levers to pull to get closer to their vision of a better future without negative consequences. That lever is a myth. There are always negative consequences.

Of course "they" wouldn't be. If you're seriously looking for a nice tidy answer, there isn't one. Everything is a compromise of trade-offs.

Reduce the power of the government. Less ability for overreach and less ability/incentive to buy favor.

It just shows you how disconnected the two "sides" of this country are. It's also not really new, reference the 1976 painting "A View of the World from 9th Avenue".

Copy, so a base cop is different than off base. For what it's worth I have a substantial libertarian type bias against police, so I get your impulse. It's the same mindset, and it's human nature. In one case you have an additional "STF" option, the other you don't. In both cases, STF is rarely the first choice. So know the threat and react accordingly. Talking to the CC doesn't mean you have to be a dickhead (it almost never works anyway), and is easier if you're the same rank. But, an FGO to FGO talk about something you noticed during an interaction with one of said commander's troops doesn't have to be a bad thing. If you came to me to tell me one of my guys was being a little shit, I'd listen and file it away to see what may need to be done to mentor said troop (in this case that it's ok to be wrong if you fix it, but it's not ok to be an asshole). If you came into my office ranting and demanding something, I'd tell you to fuck off and get out. Something I learned dealing with the Army (granted, as a LtCol and group deputy): don't argue with the enlisted troops, don't plead your case to a CGO. As a LtCol, I talk to CCs/O5s and above. If it's worth my time, it's worth theirs.

Copy, so a base cop is different than off base. For what it's worth I have a substantial libertarian type bias against police, so I get your impulse. It's the same mindset, and it's human nature. In one case you have an additional "STF" option, the other you don't. In both cases, STF is rarely the first choice. So know the threat and react accordingly. Talking to the CC doesn't mean you have to be a dickhead (it almost never works anyway), and is easier if you're the same rank. But, an FGO to FGO talk about something you noticed during an interaction with one of said commander's troops doesn't have to be a bad thing. If you came to me to tell me one of my guys was being a little shit, I'd listen and file it away to see what may need to be done to mentor said troop (in this case that it's ok to be wrong if you fix it, but it's not ok to be an asshole). If you came into my office ranting and demanding something, I'd tell you to fuck off and get out. Something I learned dealing with the Army (granted, as a LtCol and group deputy): don't argue with the enlisted troops, don't plead your case to a CGO. As a LtCol, I talk to CCs/O5s and above. If it's worth my time, it's worth theirs.

You aren't the public WRT a base cop. It's different, and I think you know that. Practically, the worst thing they're gonna do is waste your time and tell dad on you. That SrA cop isn't any different than a defensive student that gets backed into a corner and refuses to budge. Know the threat, and react accordingly. If the OG got involved, then all you can do is assume it's taken care of until proven otherwise. I took re-qual to mean you are coming off a staff gig and are an O4/O5.

My point is a SrA base cop acted like a SrA base cop. They didn't know the rules? I'm shocked. SocialD's inclination to talk to the SFS/CC was the correct one, regardless of missing the sortie.

A SrA acted like a SrA, and you felt embarassed/disrespected and wanted an apology? Grow up.

If the vaccine doesn't actually stop the virus from spreading, it will still make an infected person less of a transmitter. That has the effect of increasing the number of people needing vaccination to get to "herd immunity." Which isn't stopping the virus, it's dropping the reproduction number below 1, so it eventually dies out. Considering there isn't any data that I'm aware of that actually pins down how transmissible a low grade infection or borderline asymptomatic infection is, well, I think point 1 is an educated guess. People think "the experts" know all sorts of secret knowledge, when they're just modeling with lots of assumptions. The models get better with data, with no data they have to use past experience to make a best guess.

I'm not going to watch the stupid video. Based on comments thus far, the good general did a piss poor job of advocating for getting rid of PPL advantage. Logical argument for PPL: someone who's already a pilot obviously can already fly, that means they have a higher likelihood of getting through UPT. Safer bet. Argument against: Everyone knows the policy, and prospective applicants who can afford it will spend the money to pad their resume (partial PPL, or all the way). Couple problems: just getting a PPL isn't all that hard given enough time, I would contend that being an experienced pilot vs a brand new minted PPL are very different things. The former should absolutely be given "credit" the latter is the USAF allowing the public (applicant) to fund it's screening program.

I find it amusing that people confuse the concepts of right and left with respect to modern American politics and 19th/20th century European politics.

The joy of the market valuing his contributions to music without discriminating against him for his poorly thought out ideas.

Their entire body of work is blatantly marxist and anti western. Also, musically amazing. Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

"Take the Power Back."

This has been RATM's politics for a long time. Have you actually listened to their lyrics?