busdriver
-
Posts
1,417 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
25
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by busdriver
-
-
These people believe in magic.
-
Couple things for the non rotary folks:
Lights with no secondaries are not treated the same as lights with secondaries.
Land immediately over water means you're ditching intentionally.
Transmission chip detectors have a fuzz burn function that tries to burn up the chip. When that's active, it usually illuminates the chip light (it's completing the circuit). I'm told this is not abnormal on an Osprey. On a 60 it's pretty common on a new transmission, but not once broken in. Repeated fuzz burn is not normal.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Boomer6 said:
Yet, believing all of that was theft, you did it anyways, and now you're claiming moral high ground?
You're thinkin about me an awful lot.
Tell your mom hi.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
Obviously there are plenty of laws and regulations that fail this balancing test,
Dude, you're railing against straw men. I made no absolutist policy arguments. But the above is the whole point.
Have fun. I'm done.
-
2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
Libertarianism is arguing for something that cannot exist.
Also, taxation is not theft. Taxation is taxation........formed a society .......
But those majorities are supposed to adapt to the desires of the libertarians?
There is a lot of very good foundational theory in libertarianism.
Don't make the mistake in thinking libertarianism is a single coherent political ideology. It isn't. I mean there are people who claim that mantel while being anarcho-commies. I'm not even sure how that makes sense, but whatever.
In any event, I am not arguing for anything in particular here at all. I'm simply saying a violation of individual liberty is exactly that. Other people's desires means nothing in that context.
If you want to make the argument that good outcomes determine the morality of acts, have fun. I very much disagree, lots of death and suffering throughout history is down the consequentialist path.
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, Lawman said:
And just as believing taxation is theft but expecting protection from outside forces, there is the reality that conscription is an agreed upon by consensus of a societal contract for participation.
Agreed on by whom? If the person to do the fighting doesn't agree, then.... Again see chick at frat party analogy.
This line of argument is pure consequentialist utilitarianism.
And yes, taxation is clearly theft. However, I nor anyone else has a workable alternative, so we live with an imperfect solution. And a nation facing a perceived existential threat may do some shitty things to survive. Shit happens.
But, that doesn't make either un-alloyed good, moral acts.
-
25 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
You do enter with consent. As an adult you can fuck off to somewhere else if you don't like it. You just can't wait until your number is called to suddenly want to leave the country.
No other better options? Welcome to reality. This is like complaining that it's oppressive to be born as a male or female. I guess, but those are the options. There are biological realities to being human, and there are social realities to being human. The United States has done a better job than any state in history at mitigating the social downsides of humanity while still maintaining a system that functions across multiple generations/centuries. That doesn't mean every draft is just; Vietnam was a joke. But WWII was not.
As I said, libertarianism as a practical ideology is great until you actually need to run a society. It's a solid starting point for any political conversation, but the absolutism inherent in the ideology is why it can never actually work.
Limiting this to the US: you are draft eligible the day you turn 18. That's a hell of deadline. Being born and then not leaving is hardly consent. Apply that logic to the the chick at the frat party.
You can argue that it's necessary to ensure survival of a nation, sometimes shitty actions can be required, fair enough. But arguing that makes it moral is nothing more than consequentialism. If that's your thing, so be it.
We're not actually disagreeing on the ideology part by the way. All ideologies are only useful as temporary lens to look at problems. Being dogmatic about things never leads anywhere productive.
-
20 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
I used to think I was a Libertarian until
1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:as a movement they’ve proven incapable of operationalizing anything.
don't confuse bug L with little l. The group of people who think of themselves in something like libertarian are not a movement. It's more like a collection of wierdos, wonks, and philosophers. Many of them very much disagree with one another. And hence why the party itself will never amount to anything.
8 minutes ago, kaputt said:He still never actually answered why conscription is slavery.
It's not hard dude. You can't enter someone into a contractual agreement without their consent. Conscription is literally that, with unlimited liability. You can have a nut with pedantry around the definition of slavery if you like though.
-
20 minutes ago, Lawman said:
Also an important to point out that Meaesheimer’s viral video is getting a buttload of help from Russian assistance with their troll farms pumping the algorithm to keep it in view.
Weird how a video from 2015 somehow breaks out all of a sudden across social media (especially TilTok) around about the same time it’s useful for Russia to attempt operational impact by eroding support for Ukraine. Almost like they understand the information part of multi-domain warfare….
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI wouldn't put that much credit on the Russians here. I have no doubt they're doing their information warfare thing, but Mearsheimer is a very big name in political science and he's vocal. I don't think that video coming back up requires any nefarious action.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, bfargin said:
At the risk of being labeled a Putin propagandist,
However we (NATO countries) are largely to blame for much of whats happening including Russia deciding we were continuing to FA and we needed to FO.
Not trying to dogpile you. This point keeps coming up, not just by you.
This seems to be following along with Mearsheimer's analysis of how "we" got to this point. What this line of thinking omits is a strong defense of the counter factual. Said another way, I think the idea that if NATO had not continued to grow post cold war, that Russa would not have done any of the stuff they've done in past 20 years is silly. Putin considers the collapse of the Soviet Union the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century.
Fundamentally, this line of thought is a serious case of main character syndrome. All of that analysis contains the implicit assumption that all foreign affairs are essentially reactions to western (USA) action. No one else has agency. Which is completely at odds with one of his own key realism points; namely that all states will seek regional hegemony in order to secure their survival. Russia has always been an expansionist empire. They don't have defensible borders.
-
3
-
-
On 6/11/2024 at 10:43 AM, disgruntledemployee said:
PS, J&J's vax was more traditional and not an mRNA. Picking the biochemical method to fight a disease as a legal term for vaccine will be a fight too.
The headline of that article is dumb, and not what was ruled. What the 9th circuit is actually saying is a blanket approval of all vaccine mandates is a misapplication of the Jacobson ruling. Jacobson is predicated on a legitimate government interest in preventing the spread of a disease. If a vaccine does not do that, then Jacobson doesn't apply.
So the biochemical method has nothing to do with it, nor does the "newness" of mRNA vaccines.
-
7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
But, the police absolutely assume guilt before a trial, and have to. Explain how you have an authority to arrest, under any circumstances, if the police must assume innocence. It falls apart. That doesn't mean they take on the role of sentencing, but it would be insane if the police weren't using an assumption of guilt as the filter by which they decide whether or not to arrest someone. Arrest everyone?
The presumption of Innocence is a judicial concept.
Presumption of innocence does not mean anyone is brain washed into thinking the dirt bag Crip is actually a saint. It means the burden of proof is on the state. The standard in court (beyond reasonable doubt) is high because the risk to liberty is high. Police officers act on a much lower standard (probable cause), because the presumption is a much lower risk to liberty.
When making arrests the police are not acting on a presumption of guilt, they are acting on probable cause to believe that a crime occurred. If a crime occurred, then there is another party whose rights/liberty were violated, whether that party is an actual accuser or the public at large.
Yes, the actual cops think the dude they're grabbing is a complete shit-head. But that is completely different than their authority/place within the common law tradition. It may seem like semantics, but this is very important within the context of how the law is supposed to work.
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
The presumption of innocence is for the purposes of litigation. Not police arresting action.
He was (allegedly) the criminal they were after. But all of these permutations are different things with different moral implications:
- Raiding the wrong house and killing an innocent defending their home
- Raiding the correct house, but doing it instead of a less-risky arrest option resulting in a dead criminal
- Raiding the correct house, but accidentally killing a bystander you didn't know was there
- Raiding the correct house, but some cops are killed in the shootout when they could have chosen a better arrest method
All of those are tragic, but they are not all immoral or murder.
Your right to do a lot of things vanishes when you break the social contract. Depending on how badly you break it determines how much you lose. Losing the right to credibly defend your home against unannounced invaders when your actions set the stage for having your home invaded is not a travesty of constitutional magnitude.
You're mixing legal concepts with moral ones, and your logic is backwards. You're using a presumption of guilt in your moral balancing act. Then claiming otherwise.
Of your examples, the second is a prime example. You are assuming the criminality of a suspect prior to due process. That example is clearly immoral as written. The state has an obligation to choose the least risky option apprehend suspects. (Yes, a balancing act between risk to the larger public, the actual officer and the suspect.)
Aside:
No-knock warrants are predicated on the concept of being the safest option for all involved, based on a reasonable assumption that the suspect will fight. If done correctly it's over before anyone has any idea that something is happening. In other words, the state is actually balancing risk and finding the best solution for everyone, including the suspect. This is important since the "criminal" isn't one until due process is complete.
Anecdotally, it seems that there is a problem with the way SWAT teams are used in the current "policing culture" (not sure how to word that). Libertarians like to yell about "militarization of police" and point to DRMO of equipment to cops. Which I think misses the mark. I suspect it's actually rooted in balance of risk, and over focus on "officer safety." The latter was an important change from the 1970s, but I suspect like all advocacy and activist cultures, it became self serving.
-
8 hours ago, Lawman said:
But if you want to play the “look at the dumb Army game” posting some support troop (seriously look at her kit) I’d be happy to post videos of some of our AF weather kids the next time we have a range. I mean when they hit the ECP at Bagram and all the kids in the CJOC were running around losing their shit, there is a reason all the Army guys just went outside to the wall. That was the safe place to be.
Lighten up Francis.
You entirely missed uhhello's point.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:
Dash's crash was 15 years ago today.
Nickel...
https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article/395729/t-38-crash-claims-life-of-edwards-pilot/
Him Him.
-
Crisis wasn't a kosher name? Or PA just wanted to church it up?
-
Him Him
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Negatory said:
Estate tax is levied on net assets. Passing the $2000 of stock and $1000 loan on your assets to an heir would be taxed the same as passing $1000 to an heir. So the capital gains that were "borrowed" don't get hit by the estate tax either.
Plus, regardless, it entirely negates the tax during the life of the individual. Estate taxes exist no matter what. Income and/or capital gains are supposed to exist before said person dies.
-Not talking estate tax. Just the mechanics of technique. The heir pays the debt rather than allowing the estate to cover it, which makes it gone and frees the burden from the estate and allows the step-up trick to work. Got it.
I don't care at all about your last point.
-
8 minutes ago, Negatory said:
You don't understand stepped up basis.
I do. My point is that the executor of the will must pay off legitimate debts before distributing inheritance. Those debts are paid from the assets of the estate. The kiddos don't get anything until the debts are paid.
-
1 hour ago, herkbier said:
More loans? That don’t get paid off til they die, then the estate pays them with probably some sort of generous tax advantage.
You know though, a good way to ensure everyone (ultra-rich, poor, legal, illegal) pay their fair share.. a national sales tax—tied to the elimination of other taxes of course.
The executer to the will still has to pay debts from estate assets prior to dishing out inheritance (which is where all the tax bennies are). So capital gains are gonna get paid eventually. Yes?
There have been a bunch of proposals to go after this in the past. Taxing gains at death before transfer, and dropping the carryover basis in favor of rollover basis being the two easy ones to remember. Either of these is better than taxing money that doesn't exist.
Taxing unrealized gains is taxing money that doesn't exist. This is emotionally driven nonsense.
-
7 hours ago, Negatory said:
What do you guys propose to do about the ultra wealthy who never cash in equity and take cash loans on their unrealized net worth?
And how are these loans paid off?
-
45 minutes ago, HeloDude said:
Folks like me?
Lighten up Francis. People who ascribe to your line of thinking.
-
17 minutes ago, HeloDude said:
If it doesn’t directly benefit our citizens, then it’s not a priority before other things that do benefit our citizens. If a treaty alliance is beneficial, then sure…but we are under no obligation to spend tens of billions of dollars we don’t have to fight for countries half way around the world.
Just so we're clear, under US law treaties are legally binding. We'd have to withdraw from NATO, otherwise we are in fact obligated. So if this shit roles into a NATO country, that's a problem.
If your point is that we should actually withdraw from NATO or simply say fuck that treaty....like I said, intellectual masturbation.
If folks like you win out, I truly hope I'm wrong.
-
56 minutes ago, HeloDude said:
So you want us to no longer trade with China?
If the choice is that or nuclear war, then yes. It would hurt, but hurt them more than us.
Based on your previous comments, I'd guess you think along the lines of: "we have a shit track record of not foreseeing blowback and we'd be better off just staying at home and leaving the world to it's own business." France seems eager beaver to do something, which would no doubt drag us back into things. So I assume you also want to withdraw from all treaties and alliances, which is a pre-requisite to staying at home. It's also a pipe-dream, and will never happen. Nothing more than intellectual masturbation.
There are no answers, only trade offs.
-
1
-
What's wrong with the Air Force?
in General Discussion
Posted
Unmask AADs, crack down on 36-2903, no friday shirts or patches, guess we're about due for no civilian clothes at the gym, reflective belts and Rescue back to AFSOC.
As the world turns, this too shall pass, and all that....