Jump to content

nsplayr

Supreme User
  • Posts

    2,576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Everything posted by nsplayr

  1. 👍 On your second point, I don't think the Court redefined anything, I think society did. Like I said, many denominations of churches/temples/etc. in the US already performed same-sex marriages before SCOTUS got involved. You're right that historically marriage was one man and between one and dozens of women (here's looking at you prophet Muhammad and Joseph Smith!), but that had clearly changed by time the Court got involved. What was really at stake in Obergefell was government benefits, not religious approval, because some religions already approved! And some didn't and still don't and that's totally fine and outside the purview of judicial review. People can believe what they want. Rather than creating some new asspain process every couple would have to go through, I think the Court did the right thing by just using the commonly-understood word & process of "marriage" and began applying it to everyone equally instead of only to some as was previously done.
  2. I used to think as you do, that the government should have just created a civil union that all couples would need to apply for and enter into if they wanted benefits from the government for being legally together, and then let churches/temples/mosques/etc. do whatever they wanted with "marriages." Then I came to realize that there was already this thing "one weird trick" elegant solution in existence: it is called "marriage." Everyday people know what that means and implies and all laws and benefits were already setup to apply certain benefits to married couples. No need to invent some new government thing and change all the laws. Furthermore, it was mostly the religious institutions I was most familiar with (Catholic & conservative protestants/jews/muslims) that didn't accept gay marriage pre-Obergefell, there were plenty of other denominations of christianity and other religions that already did. There's no reason why one church-recognized marriage should be less valid than another in the eyes of the government. So honestly the small government, small-c conservative thing to do was just say look marriage is for everyone now rather than continuing to uphold legal discrimination from an important human institution. The new status quo post-Obergefell keeps the government out of religious matters (i.e. no church is forced by the government to conduct gay marriages), and keeps some of the more conservative churches out of government matters (i.e. no government can now withhold benefits to couples just because certain churches don't approve of their choices). And big surprise - now 70%+ of Americans support this outcome because honestly I think it's plainly fair without burdening anyone - if you don't like gay marriage don't get one!
  3. I’ll stick to regular masturbation please and thank you 🍆💦 maybe a mutual with BQZip’s mom now and again for some variety. Seriously…I’m not super woke. I’m a fairly center of mass neoliberal democrat and I spend plenty of time rolling my eyes at the true social justice warriors on the left in texts with likeminded friends. Just like a lot of run of the mill conservatives don’t love the insane rabid radicals on their side, I don’t like the left wing ones on my side either! You may just not have a very representative circle if you really think what I say here is representative of some pronoun-pushing trans communist or whatever. What I first started saying in this thread is that I felt that gay rights were backsliding and that there were truly anti-gay people out there who think it’s all a choice and a disgusting one at that and who once again have started openly discriminating against gay people…and was proven correct fairly quickly. It does seem like most folks here want the forced wokeness to stop but are fine with a diverse team in the military and accepting of gay teammates, to which I say amen. 🇺🇸
  4. So basically magical, telekinetic fuck bois with laser swords…where can I sign up?? 😆
  5. Nothing has been selected yet and I am still in the camp of, "I'll believe it's happening when I see it on the ramp." Light attack and active duty AFSOC MC-12s were ideas that got really close to happening and then just didn't. It should be really cool overall, and Armed Overwatch will be a replacement for the U-28 fleet (in theory), so talk to an active U-28 CSO and ask them about their job. I'm happy to put you in touch with some if you DM me. ACJ CSOs should be able to speak competently too since those two communities share a lot of overlap in technology, mission sets, and mentality from my experience at least. If you want to fly Armed Overwatch, graduate Nav school #1 and rank U-28s at the top of your list. And probably put ACJs #2.
  6. @tac airlifter I mean sure, but would you want your boss/CC/professor to say (sic), "I have to temper myself big time to not verbally bash on men?" Or "blacks?" Or "jews?" Or "Italians?" Or "tacairlifters?" I believe that being gay is an immutable characteristic that deserves no more discrimination than skin color, ancestry, disability or gender. Obv some good-natured joking around on all these topics among friends is fine and I do it myself, but I would venture approx. 96.9% of us would agree it's not good to "verbally bash" black/asian/latino/white people, men/women, or jews/muslims/christians/hindus, especially when most of us are active or retired USAF officers or NCOs. I am fine with people disagreeing about choices made in life, including religious practices, sexual practices, lifestyle choices, etc., but again, disagreeing and "verbally bashing" is not the same thing. I disagree with honor killings; I would not "verbally bash" even a very conservative Muslim I might be talking to, supervising, teaching, etc. In the most favorable interpretation possible, my own religion teaches to love gay people and accept them but to condemn their out-of-wedlock & same-sex sexual choices. I disagree with that distinction and basically accept it all as fine, as do the majority of Catholics, but I am versed enough in the Catholic tradition to see the Church's POV that there is a difference between the sinner and the sin and that gay sex itself is a sin. I still go to mass and write checks each week despite that disagreement. However if a pastor started "verbally bashing" gay people from the alter, I'd walk out of that parish and never return. I think the big disconnect between where I'm at and maybe what @bfargin believes is a lot of folks who don't like gayness believe it's a choice and an immoral and/or disgusting one at that. I only need refer them to any gay person about when they "chose" to be gay, or to ask themselves when they "chose" to be straight. Every gay person I know says it's an immutable characteristic they were born with and many fought for years against actually admitting it even to themselves, and personally I can tell you I didn't "choose" to be straight, I just am. The fact that these debates are still being had in 2022 show just how young and fragile gay rights are, especially in light of what some other societies in the world still do to gay people who happen to be born there.
  7. Ok this is exactly what I was talking about. There are folks who sincerely think being gay is bad and have thinly veiled disgust toward and contempt for gay people, beyond any minor annoyances over pushy pride month videos or whatever. As demonstrated by comments like this. I sincerely hope you don’t lead any LGBTQ troops. And I apologize for lumping some others who are just annoyed at pride stuff in with dudes like this, but at least now y’all can’t say they don’t exist…
  8. That checks with a lot of people I know. Others are mad at the corporate feel of pride now vs being an organic thing. I am highly supportive of leaving people alone but some of the rub (sts) comes in when gay folks are still targeted for what would be normal for a straight person. “My husband and I went to Mexico on vacation, it was fun!” and oh no, that’s a foul if you are a dude teaching in a school for some reason. If that person was a straight woman, no prob obviously. That’s not what acceptance and equal rights looks like. Maybe I also just know enough conservative Catholics who are now quite publicly, openly anti-gay again seemingly all of a sudden and they want to go back to the 90s with hide it away, pray it away 🤷‍♂️ I humbly ask how well that has worked out for the Church in the past? 😬😬 Glad everyone replying here is mission focused and supportive of gay service members fighting on the same team.
  9. Nah, don’t put words in my mouth. All I’m saying is that it’s a short road from, “Man this pride celebration is stupid” to “Haha yea man we should kick all the gays out again.” I’ve heard it. Maybe none of y’all feel that way and ok, I’ll be wrong on that. But like I said, I’ve heard it. Acceptance of gay people is still very young in terms of the list of “who gets full human rights?” and I don’t want to see any backsliding. I know too many good friends who are gay and who serve in uniform and they’re an absolutely critical part of our military team.
  10. Why does it take a current civilian CFII 3 years of training to become a T-6 instructor but a FAIP can be made in, what, 18 months? A bunch of morons must have written the requirements for this...same with anyone who signs up. If you wanna fly T-6s that bad just, IDK, join the Air Force!
  11. Fair enough. Like I said, I would rather celebrate the accomplishments of a diverse group of service members rather than just their identities as this or that. I know some who hold genuinely anti-gay views and they are feeling emboldened to try to turn back the clock 20 years, strike down legal gay marriage, and send folks back into the closet if not worse. I would like to see them fail in those efforts and not be unknowingly helped by folks like yourself that might be anti-celebration or against highlighting different identities or whatever rather than truly anti-gay.
  12. It also lists the G Fund as “cash,” which is not true!
  13. Good god whoever signed off on the new TSP site design should be shot.
  14. I know it's uncomfortable to admit, but some of y'all can just come out and say (sic), "I don't like gay people and don't want to see/hear/think about gay stuff." It's not a popular POV at this point in history, but you can just come out and say it. It's ok...this is a "safe space" 😆 I'll be fair to you vs just snarky and say point taken that perhaps some of our "celebration" months go a bit overboard on identity itself vs accomplishments of people of that identity. I agree. I don't care if you're gay and in the military, but if you're gay and did something worth celebrating while in uniform I'd love to hear about it and share that story. But overall, if people wanna fly flags and be proud of who they are or celebrate their heritage then by all means go for it! I do all of those things for my identities as an American, an Italian, an Irishman, and an active service member. Feel free to grill a hamburger, eat a spicy meatball, down a pint of Guinness and blow some shit up in July to celebrate with me! 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇮🇪🎖️
  15. You've identified the root cause...now what's your instructional fix? No detectable viral load = not transmissible. We've basically cured AIDS with modern medicine (for those who can afford it and get it and take as prescribed) and frankly it's a miracle unthinkable to folks back in the 80s. The difference re: COVID vaccine is a person refusing the vaccine is disobeying a lawful order and choosing not to get protected against a deadly virus, while the person with undetectable AIDS who wants to stay is following doctor's orders to reach undetectable virus levels and has done what they can to protect themselves and others from disease.
  16. No clue what the administrative law here says re: what the Secretary of Transportation has power to help with vs encourage vs incentivize vs force. I also could never find an actual video or transcript of the full interview of what Buttigieg said even after some moderate googling, appreciate any link if y'all can find it. I am a fan of strong, capable government administration to help/incentivize/force (in that order) industry to do what's in the best interest of US persons. Maybe we're talking more like customer service reps to cut down on call wait times and curbing some frustrating consumer-facing scheduling practices i.e. stop selling tickets for flights you know are very likely to cancel due to staffing shortages? More like, "Hey airlines, just be upfront and say 'we're staff-limited and flying a more limited schedule' and detail to the FAA/DOT a plan to staff up to meet current demand, etc. Hard to say exactly without more expertise and context. I mean, if Sec. Mayor Pete wants to waive the 1,500 hour limit down to ~100 hours manned fixed wing PIC time and count CSO and RPA Pilot hours for the rest, I'm more than willing to get trained up by DAL/AA/UAL/SW/FedEx/UPS and fly the friendly skies haha! That'd be +1 in the pilot pool - crisis averted 😎
  17. I'm not super into debating politics around here anymore (haha), but to help fill in the gap of the other ~50% of the country tends to think compared to what you typically read on BO.net: Unemployment under Biden is down about 2.5% from when Trump left office, and is basically tied with the record low unemployment we saw under Trump in Jan 2020. More jobs is good! The strong allied response re: sanctions & war materials supporting Ukraine and opposing the Russian invasion. Going from 1.1% of the US population vaccinated against COVID to 67.4%. The vaccine development under Trump admin was a highlight for me and the distribution under Biden admin is similarly important. At this point everyone who wants one can get one and dying from COVID-19 is relatively optional for all but the most elderly and/or vulnerable. Almost forgot, but the bipartisan infrastructure bill was good and long-overdue. Biden actually got this done where several previous admins had talked about it and failed to get something across the line. Obviously there are counter-points to what I wrote above, different interpretations of what happened, and other prevailing factors that influenced those "successes" I mentioned. Copy, cool. I can understand why if you're a conservative you will never like a Dem administration much, fair point. No need to @ me and stir the pot on any of these points. I do think the GOP will win seats in Congress in 2022 and the WH in 2024, which is utterly predictable given Dem congressional control since 2018 and the Dem presidential win last time. It would be unusual to have 2x 1-term Presidents in a row but I guess we'll see. The advanced age of both Trump and Biden is a factor there I think & will be even more so an issue in 2024 if it's those two facing off again. I am a big proponent of an age ceiling (70?) so long as we accept an age floor of 25 for Congress and 35 for being President. Personally I'm rooting for DeSantis on the GOP side in a theoretical 2024 primary. I think he's the only one who might be able to be Trumpy enough to win but not actually be named Donald Trump. There are lots of Republicans I as a Democrat like better, but none of them can win, so I'll settle for him over Trump. I imagine some of y'all should have felt the same way about Biden vice someone like Sanders or Warren based on policies more than personalities. Policies aside, Trump's negative personal characteristics and opposition to a peaceful & lawful transfer of power after taking a valid electoral loss is disqualifying to me beyond any policy disagreements. IMHO Republicans can get all the policies of Trump with a more normal, less dangerous leader in DeSantis. DeSantis/Crenshaw or DeSantis/Haley or some such arrangement, the GOP has plenty of bench strength beyond one or two families. I'm curious to see if that matters at all or if what GOP primary voters really want is the Trump id or "vibes" as the kids say now and perhaps they don't care one lick about policies...after everything I'm more and more in that camp TBH.
  18. Agreed. I would 100% have a beer with him & his work with veterans is commendable.
  19. More like they foolishly shut down half of their nuclear plants shortly before deciding to finally get off russian gas. Seems unwise! Meanwhile France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear...all carbon-free! FWIW while I'm a strong supporter of renewables (solar/wind/hydro/geothermal), I'm also a strong supporter of nuclear. Steady nuclear with peaky renewables are really an excellent pair if you wanted to design a sustainable fuel mix for electricity. All until we crack the nut on fission, then it's game over for anything else. The power of the sun, in the palm of my hand!
  20. nsplayr

    USAA

    My opinion is that until DC fast charging infrastructure is more plentiful (in progress), it makes a lot of sense for the average two-car family to have 1x EV for whoever has the longest commute + normal in-town family driving, and 1x ICE vehicle for road trips if that's something you do regularly. That'll probably be the case for the next 6-9 years if I had to guess. My family does not do a lot of road tripping, but we make an annual ~750 mile one-way trek to the beach and yea, that will be challenging if we decide to take the EV on that trip because it's already a long haul. Probably will opt to take my ICE truck for the duration/ease of fueling + larger cargo capacity, even though 14 mpg and $5 gas will be very painful. The EV vs ICE fueling numbers are still overwhelmingly favorable for 99% of our driving though, but as always (and literally in this case), YMMV. If/when we get some combination of swappable batteries, 500+ mile range, and > 800v charging, at that point even road tripping across our impressively big country will work great in EVs. The Porsche Taycan that you can buy today already has an 800v charger on board, which is awesome.
  21. From what I understand the F-15 EX Eagle II is replacing, in part, the single-seat F-15 C/D models, not the F-15E Strike Eagle, i.e. the one with the WSOs onboard. Boeing apparently offered that as a possibility back in 2020, but I haven't seen any movement on that actually happening; perhaps someone in the Strike Eagle community can speak to that more intelligently. It should not make a big difference one way or the other. Either the Strike Eagle will continue on unchanged, get replaced with a two-seat EX, or by the single-seat F-35, meaning slightly less CSO seats in the Air Force, or who knows. It doesn't really impact you as a individual unless you're actively a WSO in that community already. And most importantly, don't put the cart before the horse...there are plenty of platforms with CSOs/WSOs/etc. and if you're trying to board for CSO, I would get excited about the possibilities of any/all of them. I might recommend shooting for the U-28 or the AC-130J just based on my experience but YMMV 🇺🇸 Good luck!
  22. Lesson #1: Never pass on the opportunity to STFU on controversial subjects Lesson #2: I would get the vaccine both on the merits of being vaccinated against a deadly disease, and also because it's a requirement of employment in the military, so you might as well knock it out ahead of time if you're able to. Try not to lose sleep because the interview is over and there's nothing you can do to change the outcome at this point most likely. Hopefully whatever was said isn't a factor in hiring one way or the other, because it won't be an issue if you do get hired. Uncle Sam will make you get the vaccine if you haven't had it already, and you said you're not opposed to it, so problem solved. Good luck!
  23. A 2 year old, 34 minute long Ben Shapiro video, posted twice. Well hot damn consider my mind changed! 😆
  24. nsplayr

    USAA

    I paid $950 for the installation & $750 for the equipment, although prices for the same charger are $200 higher today it looks like on Amazon at least. So that does factor in to your year 1 fuel costs for sure, but I look at it more like a necessary hardware investment that pays off relatively quickly rather than a outright cost. I also went with a pricier installation of hard-wiring the charger to a new, dedicated 80amp circuit run from my outside panel rather than a more typical dryer plug installation that would have been about $250. I wanted to future-proof that setup for something like the F-150 Lightning that I have on order. The battery on that thing is *massive* (131 kWh i.e. like 10x Tesla powerwalls or 2.7x what my ID4 has) and I wanted to be able to fully charge that vehicle overnight if required. My charger as installed puts ~37 miles of range on my ID4 per hour, whereas if I had done the cheaper dryer plug-type install that would have been more like 20 miles of range per hour, and I felt the need...the need for speed! Even factoring in those costs, it's 40% paid off already just in 4 months based on my savings over the gas car we replaced.
  25. nsplayr

    USAA

    Outstanding! It's off topic, but I never miss the opportunity to plug how much I love my EV (pun intended 😅). We do insure with USAA currently but that'll change here shortly. We've had a VW ID.4 since February and put 8,181 miles on it (my daily commute is ~65 miles plus all family driving). That took 2,912 kWh of electricity to power, we averaging 2.8 mi/kWh, and in total that cost $257 with my at-home Level 2 charger where we plug in most nights. The vehicle it replaced took regular gas (now priced $4.25 around me) and got 35 mpg. To drive 8,181 miles at that price & efficiency, it would have taken 234 gallons of gas and cost $933, i.e. 3.8x more expensive cost-per-mile than the fuel for the EV. And the ID.4 (even the AWD version that's Teslaish-fast) is under $40K once I realize my EV tax credit next Jan when I file, is a typical crossover family SUV that seats 5 comfortably, tows my kayak, and it's a near perfect daily driver. Literally YMMV, but I highly recommend EVs for daily driving needs for the vast majority of people even at current prices & technology; the numbers don't lie.
×
×
  • Create New...