Jump to content

nsplayr

Supreme User
  • Posts

    2,547
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

nsplayr last won the day on May 23

nsplayr had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

22,435 profile views

nsplayr's Achievements

Gray Beard

Gray Beard (4/4)

1.3k

Reputation

  1. nsplayr

    USAA

    Lolol...oh I got my mug and sent is straight into the trash. Thanks for nothing assholes haha! Glad y'all paid Gronk all that money for his promo though.
  2. This is true from what I've seen, although I have to admit that I inexplicably did BFM my way out of ever getting a smallpox vaccine despite deploying 8 times 😅 #StoryTime Our medical records were not really looked at closely when we were downrange due to some SOF hand-waiving (i.e. we did not processes in and out through normal Big Green/Blue medical facilities) and I guess the folks at HRT and CVS were just lazy and never really followed up effectively when I was at home the other 50% of the time. FWIW the successful strategy (n=1 so YMMV) is that if your wife is pregnant, might be pregnant, or you have a child under age 1 in the house, you shouldn't get the smallpox vaccine while at home. So when I was offered the vaccine at home a couple of times, we were "trying to get pregnant," and for 1 year and 9 months of my deploying time, that was verifiably true (late 2010 through mid 2012). Home station med techs were like, "cool, you'll get it when you get downrange" and then because we never really turned in our deployment med records to anyone, I never did. 🤷‍♂️ I was never ordered to get it and I never "refused," I just kinda slipped through the cracks and was perfectly happy to let that happen. Now I'm feeling dumb because it was an irrational desire to not get it in the first place and also since apparently the smallpox vaccine is potentially effective against the next plague God has potentially decided we as a species are worthy of lol. My rule-following wife is shooting me daggers with her eyes and double-checking on my life insurance policies just in case I get The Pox and kick the bucket haha. Good luck if anyone ever wants to attempt to replicate...I imagine they look at that stuff a lot more closely after some small % of folks apparently decided all vaccines are optional now even though they joined the US Air Force and are not in the drive-thru line at Burger King.
  3. nsplayr

    USAA

    Ok I've finally had it with USAA. I'm moving all my stuff (banking, credit card, car/home insurance) NLT 31 Dec 22 after they nerfed their limitless cash back card, which currently is a great deal at 2.5% unlimited cash back. Their website has gotten worse and worse over time, customer service ain't what it used to be, and it just blows trying to keep external accounts updated. Who are y'all banking with? Who has a slicker system for keeping a financial dashboard up to date? I basically want to see checking, savings, Amex & Chase credit cards all in one place with easy transfers and billpay. Bonus if they integrate car/home insurance but I can find that elsewhere if need be. Ally? PenFed? Navy Federal?
  4. No worries! I took the COVID vaccines voluntarily in order to protect myself and my family, along with many others over the years. I also got about 6-9 anthrax boosters on a more "voluntold" basis but what are ya gonna do 🤷‍♂️ I'm sure taking doxy for approx. 690 days while deployed (all while breathing in burn pit fumes!) was also totally harmless and healthy 😅 (live look at me seeing my buddies retire & get their ratings) And as a commissioned officer in the world's greatest Air Force, yea, I do "trust in our federal government" a fair bit I suppose despite all the shenanigans and buffoonery I've seen in ~15 years of service. Much more good than bad overall, plus the checks keep coming on the 1st and 15th which I greatly appreciate & hope to continue for the rest of my life. 🍻 Re: monkeypox...I knew all that sketchy unprotected sex at European raves would come back to bite me in the ass someday... https://apnews.com/article/health-world-organization-united-nations-animals-72a9efaaf5b55ace396398b839847505 How can you blame me though??
  5. If “the current thing” is not dying of preventable infectious disease, I do indeed support it!
  6. Yep, bunch of weirdo Goop chicks sticking crystals up their cooters and spreading measles around! Good riddance.
  7. Wow, the President wants to look into if we can use an existing vaccine or develop a new one to help protect people from a deadly virus, what an asshole!! /sarcasm Folks, vaccines are really really good. Massive net positive for humanity. The levels of disease and pestilence and death our ancestors regularly had to suffer through are just unthinkable today, in part because of vaccines (and clean water & sanitation!). Life pro-tips: Don’t shit where you eat, don’t drink from that murky stream of runoff, and get your MFing vaccines.
  8. I agree with you 100% on this. As a famous person once said, “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” Normal folks would rightfully roast for a lifetime of this kind of “rules don’t apply to me” behavior, and I genuinely don’t want our leaders to be rewarded with power and privilege when they are like this. Bill, Hillary, Trump, too many of them acted this and we all collectively let them off the hook and continue to do so. To their credit, Reagan, Carter, GHWB, Obama and to a lesser extend GWB were not entitled, flagrant rule-breakers IMHO and we should elect more people like them and less who are charismatic “bad boys” who just do whatever they want with few to no consequences (JFK, Bill, Trump). Nixon is obviously also in the “rules don’t apply to me” camp although minus most of the charisma…
  9. Found one from March 24th 2022 after about 6.9 seconds of googling 🤷‍♂️
  10. The ability to borrow at low interest rates, as the US government can, is a tremendously powerful tool. The price of having that tool is paying some interest. Just ask anyone with bad/no credit history how much you get jammed up when you can't take out a loan when you need one. At the rates Uncle Sam gets, I'm fine with borrowing, in fact I wish we would borrow more for things that have a tremendously positive return on investment and less on things that are just a straight-up cost. Basically: borrow to invest, don't borrow as a shortcut to spending above your means. All caveated with the idea that the sovereign debt of the country wielding the world's reserve currency is not like a household budget, that really can't be said enough.
  11. No, it's actually spreading: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-61506562 The point was that it would not be the first time that a tabletop exercise ended up being very prescient. I say good on them, I wish some of the BS exercises I've taken part of had been more accurate to real-world events!
  12. I'm still holding my breath! 😅
  13. I vote we keep this thread more focused on abortion / when does life begin / when are rights conferred and take the odd detour to "Banking 101" to a dedicated thread.
  14. This is an interesting fear, since the GOP has had trifecta control of the Texas state government since 2003 🤷‍♂️ Can't say I blame the Democrats for any laws passed in Texas anytime recently... @Lord Ratner I think you've argued in good faith here, cheers. I am not a lawyer, but here are a my thoughts on some of the topics you've posted about previously, in no specific order (too many to quote). Feel free to respond if you'd like, or just skip the #WallOfText and have a great day: It seems like while you don't like abortion, you're basically pro-choice, along the lines of what Roe allowed, as modified by Casey. Early-term abortion is perhaps regrettable yet is allowed, but not late-term abortion, life of the mother medical exemptions notwithstanding. The exact definition of where the line falls has changed over time but is now IVO 15-21 weeks. Do you agree with that characterization? In fact, this is where I fall. I'm "pro-choice" if you ask me in a survey but I've only personally been a part of two pregnancies and we have two children, so we've "chosen life" both times, easy call. I am opposed to abortions after the point of fetal viability unless there's some threat to the life of the mother. The vast majority of abortions that take place in the US (approx. 95%) happen before 15 weeks, and 98% happen before 21 weeks. That is the status quo under Roe et al today and it feels like a fair line to say ok, that's the tipping point between a woman's freedom of choice and the fetus' freedom to have a life, both of which I can see the argument for. Therefore why are we overturning an important right (in my view) and landmark precedent for the 2-5% of cases that are unsavory to my personal morals? Maybe you support the likely decision on Dobbs simply because you believe Roe was badly decided to begin with rather than because you are rabidly anti-abortion in all cases, and that's fair. But don't be deceived, several state laws already on the books ban abortion entirely, from 0.001 weeks onward, and have no exemptions for rape, incest or the life/safety of the mother. Idaho and Texas come to mind there. Many others have full restrictions except for life of the mother situations, i.e. no timetable, no rape/incest exemptions. These laws will take effect immediately if Roe is overturned. I get what you're saying in that states should have the right to legislate as they see fit, but the courts have always found limits to that - state and federal lawmakers aren't free to enact things that are not permissible under either their state or the federal constitutions, it's been that way from day one of our current system of government. Ok so you can't enact things that are unconstitutional, and presently under Roe total abortion bans are unconstitutional, so moving a thing from one category to another is a big deal! Which I can see why maybe you've been mad all along if you think Roe was wrongly decided, and now the forthcoming Dobbs decision would just undue that past wrong. I disagree. Granting a constitutionally protected right like Roe did is a major precedent that should not be overturned lightly, which is basically what Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB promised Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (and the Democrats) in their SCOTUS appointment hearings. Sic "Roe is settled law" and etc. I don't remember exactly what Alito and Thomas said on the subject. Roberts at least seems to be signaling that he is anti-abortion but doesn't want to destroy the Roe precedent, and especially no in the way that Alito does, which IMHO threatens other rights as well. If Roe is overturned for the reasons that Alito sketched out in the leaked draft opinion, I'm also very concerned it will open an enormous can of worms that will spill out into many other issues that everyday people will notice and care about. If the 14th Amendment is essentially gutted, which is where I think we're headed, i.e. the Due Process Clause (and perhaps the Equal Protection Clause also?) no longer include unenumerated rights and really it only protects rights with a (sic) "long historical tradition" as Alito puts it, that would allow states to legislate away gay marriage, sodomy, and perhaps even reinstitute segregation in schools. I can think of some very recent times when banning gay marriage and sodomy were A+ cool and not so long ago when segregated schools were also perfectly fine in the eyes of both the law and the public. None of those rights are specifically enumerated in the federal constitution nor do they enjoy a "long historical tradition" in my view, and therefore are vulnerable under Alito's logic. I for one don't want states to be able to get rid of the right to marry who I want, stick it in whatever hole I want, or send my kids to an inclusive and equal school with peers of all races/religions/etc., just because they don't like it, and I know basically all Democrats and even a sizable share of Republicans who share that view, especially ones < age 55. I will bet you a bottle of fantastic Tennessee whiskey that there will be a state that looks at Alito's logic, passes a ban on gay marriage, and that such a ban would be upheld by the current makeup of SCOTUS because well now the 14th Amendment just ain't what it used to be. Let's give it 10 years, you can Manchester me on that one if you want. Alito tries to says that's not on the table because abortion is a special case where there are X-factors blah blah blah, I don't believe it. Some state will argue passionately and honestly that they believe it's a huge moral imperative to preserve traditional marriage, and I think a state-level ban on gay marriage would pass muster if brought before SCOTUS again, overturning Obergefell. Despite what the polling says today, as recently as GWB's second term the GOP wanted to enact a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage! There are certainly crazy-ass state legislators who would be chomping at the bit to ban it in their state if they had the power to do so. Final parting shot: I know you have not argued this, but others have argued vehemently that "life begins at fertilization, and all human rights for the unborn fetus begin there." Essentially any act that intentionally destroys a fertilized egg is a heinous crime. Got it, that is a coherent worldview, even if I don't share it. Do we ban IVF treatments then? That process definitely involves destroying fertilized eggs, all in the name of actually getting the most viable one(s) implanted and successfully turned into a baby, often times for couples desperate to "choose life." If folks want to subscribe to the worldview that fertilized egg = full human with all the rights of you and I, IVF has to be banned unfortunately and they need to be honest about that. FWIW this is the view of the Catholic Church (full disclosure that I am Catholic), and ok fair enough. But a lot of fairly hard-line pro-life protestant christians I know are fine with IVF and I'm struggling to understand their rationalization there. Maybe it boils down to, "Look, I'm against things I don't like and think are bad and am fine with things I do like and think are good and I want the law to reflect that," with no underlying, coherent logical or legal throughline, and ok, that's probably the case honestly. Enough for now, good talk. 🇺🇸
  15. ^^ I for one am someone who does not agree with what seems to be the forthcoming decision to overturn Roe and Casey, but I do not condone protesting outside Kavanaugh’s house. Folks should have a reasonable right to privacy in their own homes and I also think it’s counterproductive in almost all cases. If I were to protest, it would be outside the Court itself. I agree with the following: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/09/stop-protesting-outside-supreme-court-justice-houses/
×
×
  • Create New...