busdriver
-
Posts
1,417 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
25
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by busdriver
-
-
8 hours ago, dream big said:
-----Crazy shit AOC has said
The fact she got re-elected (over a Jamaican Republican businesswoman as her republican contender) tells me everything I need to know about the people in Queens and why it’s the armpit of America. She sucks, and so does the rest of the “squad”.
She's like a left wing female version of Trump. Just spews nonsense. I suspect her actual supporters believe the crap she says at about the same rate as Trump supporters.
So the left wing equivalent of that hand-full of retired guys we all know on facebook.
It's mostly a nihilistic big old middle finger to the other tribe.
-
6 hours ago, HeloDude said:
So is this a protest or harassment? I’ve got plenty more other examples btw.
One of the great ironies of pictures like this: protestor screams in face of representative of the institution, while simultaneously relying on the restraint of the institutional representative.
It wasn't that long ago that protestors relied on the lack of restraint to make their point.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, uhhello said:
And to back all of that up, there are loads of previous shootings where the police went immediately in and ended the threat. Case studies show shooters give up immediately after encountering any resistance either through suicide or surrender. This isn't a groundbreaking new occurrence.
Wasn't disagreeing what should have happened. That is pretty clear. My point was why it didn't.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:
I think your point is simply the cops needed better training?
I totally disagree. Those cops are not worth investing in.
Quality and quantity, yes. I feel safe saying most patrol officers don't routinely train anything.
And some of those in that department may well be lost causes. Obviously the department level and on-scene leadership was terrible and have proven incapable of doing the job.
-
30 minutes ago, uhhello said:
So you're saying none of these police officers were cowards? I'm not getting what you're throwing down other than the obvious. These guys from leadership down to the youngest cop on scene there failed to take ANY sort of action when it was required of them to do so. You sound like the Uvalde mayor. Nice.
It was an absolute top to bottom failure, no doubt. Was it cowardice, well in a definitional sense (lack of bravery), sure I guess. What I'm saying is righteous indignation about a bag of pussies doesn't fix anything.
In other words, is the root cause of the problem a constitutional problem with the specific people hired to do the job? Or a complete failure of department training and culture?
You want cops who will act in that type of situation, then you have to have enough on the force that you can pull a percentage of them off the street on a routine basis and have them drill building entry. They have to have to tools to actually solve the problem. If they haven't drilled it to the point of second nature, they won't do it under stress. They "freeze."
How many people in the military who've done amazing things, have afterwards basically said they didn't think about it, they just did what they were trained to do?
EDIT:
I guess I'm just really beating around the bush of an old dead guy quote:
"We don't rise to the level of our expectations; we fall to the level of our training." -Archilochus
-
29 minutes ago, uhhello said:
The training which the officer in charge of the scene attended just before this massacre
How many days of drilling over how many years of training?
How many years of training within a culture of constant learning as an aircrew member before you started acting in a leadership role? Academically knowing what you are supposed to do, is different than doing it with proficiency under stress, without thinking.
Whatever training system produced those cops will produce the same in the future. "Courage under fire" isn't innate. It is taught and built over years.
-
1 hour ago, uhhello said:
They know exactly what classroom the gunshots are coming from almost immediately. All active shooter training for the past 10 years or more says to immediately stop the killing. No waiting. Grab a partner and go.
Is there only one shooter? So they shouldn't be covering other potential axis' of approach?
I'm not saying they shouldn't have gone in, obviously they should have. I said this fits the description of an emergency situation.
Put it this way. Look at the first handful of cops going in on the video. Do they look anything like any video you have ever seen of dudes going into a building? But they are moving towards the shooter. Then shooting, and then running. Panic. No idea what to do. Success in that environment requires speed and teamwork, which requires training to acquire.
If one or two of them had straight up banzai'd the shooter, the outcome would have likely been hero of the day. But if the plan is rely on a hero emerging instead of training competence and confidence, well hope is not a tactic.
So the lesson learned in debrief of this thing is to stop hiring pussies? Essentially "do better," great lesson learned....
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, uhhello said:
Horse shit.
Clearing a school building is a MFer, I would guess that they're taught to wait for SWAT and only go in, in an emergency. I would guess they've never drilled the emergency part, which is based on their god awful movement/positioning/etc.
My contention is if those pistol packing cops had drilled that emergency situation (clearly this situation fit that description) repeatedly, to the point of automatic response, they would have moved in this case. Your contention is they are just a whole group of pussies? Some of them, maybe, but all of them?
-
39 minutes ago, uhhello said:
The full Uvalde video was released. Absolute cowards. All of them.
That's a complete lack of training. They have no idea what to do, they're out of ideas. Not knowing what to do, is what breeds that fear.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ecugringo said:
It's a massive expense.
Thanks.
-
8 minutes ago, ecugringo said:
Most refineries can and will process sour.
Question for you then: Peter Zeihan has made a point about refineries and setup/re-tool costs and timeline when switching from one crude formulation to another.
How much of an impact is it to go from refining light/sweet from a shale field to a heavy/sour crude from where-ever?
-
4 minutes ago, ecugringo said:
What is your experience in O&G btw?
Zilch. I just remember reading some stuff years ago about how Venezuelan oil was so gross that they were essentially reliant on US refiners to buy it, since no one else was willing to re-tool to deal with it. Not saying the Texas refineries can't deal with it (they obviously refine Canadian tar sands oil), just that my understanding of the business model shifted a bit after the US went from net oil importer to exporter.
-
Ironically, US refiners used to specialize in shit oil. Not so much after shale and Venezuela collapsing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk -
1 hour ago, nsplayr said:
Life pro-tips:
And politicians say all sorts of dissembling nonsense
Edit: I don't think nsplayr is dissembling, Biden is in reference to what I assume is a monkeypox question.
-
2 hours ago, HeloDude said:
What was your time between the original and the booster?
14 years or so? I thought it was one and done, but they re-stuck me before my '18 deployment.
-
9 minutes ago, HeloDude said:
Isn’t the small pox vaccine a one time dose for military members?
I got a booster for it a bit back.
-
12 hours ago, nsplayr said:
“rules don’t apply to me” behavior,.........entitled, flagrant rule-breakers.........charismatic “bad boys” who just do whatever they want with few to no consequences
agree with your point 100%. I'm not sure what the actual personality trait is that we're batting around, but I don't think entitled rule-breaker really covers it. That seems more trust fund baby, teen angsty to me. Aristocratic narcissist maybe? Although charismatic bad-boy is probably useful. But I digress/ramble.
In an age when the social media popularity contest is how people succeed or fail in politics, social media star personalities will be the norm.
Is everyone ready for President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho?
-
1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:
Truth
We had one crash them into each other, drop one and then step on it.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Smokin said:
Yes. Although if an intelligent alien species showed up at our doorstep, it would probably not be wise...
Animal examples...... Similarly, under this argument, someone in a coma may no longer meet the definition of human life.
This is kinda my point, that any argument that denies life is begun at conception has to have a definition that is extremely nuanced and with assumptions that will quickly change based on technological advancements.
So other than the stupidity of it, no qualms about killing a hypothetical sentient species?
Intelligence in animals is not the same thing sentience. Although it's possible that some animals have some kind of proto sentience, on the way to evolving it. I will grant the definition isn't nice and pat.
I never said life doesn't start at conception, I said that it's irrelevant. Nuance is life. In the desire for a pat answer, you've just said that killing a sentient creature (alien, my hypothetical super dolphin, whatever) has no more moral weight than killing a dog or cat.
-
Why in the hell are so many pro-choice folks so bad at making a rational argument?
Point of human life is irrelevant. Living things die all the time, why does the presence of human DNA make one particular life more important than another? All animals have heartbeats, unique DNA is a characteristic of all non-hermaphrodidic life.
I contend that the ability to make choices based on conscious thought to exercise agency is what differentiates the human species from the rest of the living things on earth. From that basis, individual rights from a state of nature flow.
While a Zygote will eventually develop into that, it does not have those characteristics yet. I would argue that a new born has enough of it to qualify. Where that specific transition happens, I don't know.
Fetal viability in the original Roe argument is actually a compromise with some logical basis, even if I think it's a ham handed one that misses the point. A better theoretical logical cut off point would be development of consciousness, however I suspect that there is no single light bulb comes on moment.
For the religious folks, I'm also fine with euthanasia, and doctor assisted suicide. You and I will never see eye to eye on this, I get it.
-
4 minutes ago, Smokin said:
Ultimately, if our ancestors evolved from single cell organisms in a primordial soup, then the only value life has is the usefulness of that life from the beholder's perspective. Any other value is illogical with the theory of evolution and is simply stealing from the Christian worldview. ..... that is the logical end of the pro-choice argument.
Consciousness, agency, choice. If we someday find out that Dolphins are actually conscious in the human sense of the word, your view that they are not made in God's image would make it fine to kill them? Likewise if an intelligent alien species showed up at our doorstep, not in God's image?
One doesn't need a belief in God to rationally come to the conclusion that moral relativism is dumb, or that your logical end-point isn't logical.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Clayton Bigsby said:
But look at how the world was reshaped post WWII, and how prosperous that has been for everyone, and then take a look at those who lived under the Soviet boot and see the deep scars there. Pretty sure I know how I'd like the world to be molded. Don't cede that, or you'll be back again.
Functionally, NATO served the purpose of keeping the European nations from fighting one another. The US underwriting their defense allowed them to focus on trade.
The post WW2 economic boom was what happens when people don't fight and instead trade.
The US benefits from NATO existing, but not directly from being a member. Being a member may be a pre-requisite for it to functionally exist, but that's a different point.
-
2
-
-
31 minutes ago, pawnman said:
She realizes there are conservatives who have blue checkmarks too, right? Elon, Rand Paul, Candace Owens... does she want them editing tweets as well?
I think those are the types of people she doesn't think should be anointed.
-
For some reason, her implication that having a blue check mark should mean more than just being who you say you are bothers me more.
Her idea is stupid and childish. She wants hall monitors. But, reserving verification to "legitimate" people or whatever her stupid emotional idea was is creepy. Some people's ideas/thoughts should mean more based on who they are... an aristocratic ideal.
-
1
-
The Congressman is back yo
in General Discussion
Posted
That bent towards bloviating showmanship is exactly what I was talking about. Their presence on the political stage, not what they have or haven't accomplished in their lives.
He vomited out stupid shit constantly. The most comical was the sharpie modification of the hurricane thing, at least that was my favorite. 90% of of the stupid bullshit, people on the right just ignored. "Trump's just bullshitting" sort of response. At least that's my response.
I have to think there is a similar thing going on, on the left. She opens her mouth and I get pissed off. But that's the same response on the left when Trump opens his mouth.