ViperMan

In addition to the many valid comments already posted, I would say the amount of preparation that needs to go into each sortie is far, far greater than anything I experienced in the civilian world. If you show up and can't talk your way through each maneuver, precisely, you're doing it wrong. If you don't know the sequence of what you're going to do ahead of the brief, you're already behind. Civilian instructors will probably take you up and treat the cockpit as a classroom. Mil instructor may no-step you. My approach in UPT was to treat the every sortie as a time when I was going to "demonstrate" maneuvers to my IP, not expect they would walk me through the things I hadn't adequately prepared for - there's not the luxury of time on any given UPT sortie.

🖕 Not Lord Ratner, but I do like his style. Whatever.

Right. Money. I agree, and it probably would have been had he not already been repeatedly arrested for the same crime (https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-police-officer-wont-face-criminal-charges-in-eric-garner-death-1417635275). Something tells me he's not getting the message? I don't know, but I get the feeling this guy decided he doesn't care about certain laws or consequences. Want to change a law? Awesome, there are ways to do that in our society, but continual and open disregard for the enforcement arm of our government is not one of them. "He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes." How many posting on this message board can relate to the type of life this guy leads? Has any of us been arrested 30 times? For the same crime? Would any of us resist arrest? Or would you rather just have your day in court? Here's video with as much context as I could find. The first minute has all the context required to establish the type of interaction it was. The officers attempted reasoning with him first. Attempted/offered a gentle arrest, which was rejected, and then escalated. I'm not saying that he deserved to die. I'm saying that this is yet another instance where circumstances are vital to understanding the whole picture. Here, this has been intentionally misrepresented in order to help paint a picture and establish a narrative that just simply isn't true.

Comparing required, necessary governmental functions (police) to not-required, unnecessary commercial functions (cosmetology) is apples to oranges and is a red herring. Much (most) of the ridiculous training, certification, and licensure that is attendant of certain professions is protectionism and regulatory capture - implemented in order to prevent others from entering a given market - and thus has little to do with the actually achieving proficiency in a given profession. Or do you actually think the 1300-2000 hours of training required to be "certified" to cut hair or paint nails is necessary? I'm sure each of the CBTs about hair-curlers are just bursting with new information and that if you miss a bullet point it's gone forever. It's ridiculous on it's face to license someone to cut hair. It's even more ridiculous that these licenses need to be "renewed." Please. So let's not draw invalid conclusions comparing "trainings" that serve wildly different purposes.

I agree with your general sentiment, but honestly, what is a victimless crime? If I don't pay my taxes, that's victimless, right? I mean, I should be allowed to not pay a dime in property taxes but keep my house, right? Likewise I should be allowed to sell an otherwise regulated product (cigarettes) whilst others abide the rules, thereby taking advantage of those who do, right? I'm in favor of the libertarian sentiment that I should be basically allowed to do whatever I want, but that's not our society. There are rules (this isn't 'Nam). If rules are going to be enforced selectively, that's a massive problem. And if we're being real, the only reason Eric Garner was even able to sell cigarettes is because other people were following the rules, which is the definition of wrong, and decidedly not why our laws exist.

Do you acknowledge that police officers are much more likely to be involved in a violent confrontations with minorities as opposed to whites?

Yep. It's misdirected fire. Invalid at pickle. And this is coming from someone who thinks Ted Cruz is basically a schmuck.

In the abstract? It's not, and is always a good idea to go to talk with people. In the context of the conversation at hand, it's an attempt to avoid dealing with the very real issue of disproportionate levels of violent crime being committed by the black community in the USA. And further, I'm not sure what would be gleaned from a conversation with one individual that would explain why blacks commit a greater number of murders than whites, whilst being outnumbered by whites ~ 7x. Maybe it would be illuminating, but even still, would at best be anecdotal. And I will say this, I am generally not convinced of "truths" about groups of people by emotion or personal stories - I'd say that makes me an anti-racist - in the true sense of the word, not this new-speak we're all being subjected to. Either way, the FBI is convinced that there is a problem. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to fit in to certain belief sets, but I have my ideas. And notice, none of you guys has/can/will acknowledge the data put forth. Why? Why is it hard to look at a data set and say, "yeah, that is a problem"? Is it a conspiracy? Do you literally not believe those numbers? Are there massive numbers of white murders that are going unreported and unsolved? Or are there massive numbers of blacks being convicted and incarcerated for murders they didn't commit? You see why people like me have a hard time even seeing where you guys are coming from on this subject.

How many 5000+ page bills did the founding fathers have < 24 hrs to read, evaluate, consider, and sign? Oh. Right. If it was me, I'd just bring a book I wanted to read anyway. Shit, I'd stop by the library on my way. Probably grab a few magazines, maybe some penthouse letters, definitely one of those astronaut piddle-packs that lets you drive maniacally across the country without stopping once... Don't miss the point of the filibuster because it seems ridiculous to you. It's point is to protect the minority in this country - and increasingly, all of us from a supposed majority.

So the responses proffered were "go re-read this forum," a tangential "his lot in life depends on this belief so he won't understand," "go talk to a black person," and most recently, changing the subject to "black people were historically discriminated against in this country." Hmmm? And I'm the person not wanting to have a conversation about this? Pfffffft. Scoff. Each of those responses is a prototype for avoiding something that challenges a closely held belief. Note, I don't deny that blacks were historically discriminated against in this country and that those policies have effects to this day (today). But that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about rioting and policing being unfair in this country. I provided data that (to me) fully explains why policing appears disproportionate. That doesn't square with some dogma, but it can't be addressed directly because it doesn't fit into an acceptable narrative, so we get the four side-steps outlined above. Let me offer this: there is middle ground out there, but if you're going to find it, you have to accept what's real. We can agree that blacks have been treated horribly historically in this country and that something needs to be done to wrench this community (and others) out of the death spiral it seems to be in. You won't find middle ground with people "on the other side" whilst denying obvious realities and pinning the tail on whatever donkey you've been told is responsible. The cops aren't your scapegoat. The greatest irony in all this "BLM" nonsense from the summer was that the police are the greatest actual BLM organization out there - but of course they're the ones painted as the villains.

IMO it's because he tells the truth. And people fucking hate the truth.

Can you show us a representative sample?

I like to think about how dumb the average American is, and then I immediately think about how half of the rest are dumber than that...

Jezus, what kind of beer and what kind of hookers?

Well, there definitely is something wrong here. We just disagree about what it is. You think that black people are being systematically mistreated and/or over-policed. Trouble is, policing in ~ 80% of cases is in response to a call - not because some cop goes out of his way to interact with a minority. https://lawliberty.org/the-facts-on-race-crime-and-policing-in-america/

Oh...sorry...help me with the difference? Normal Adjective REGULAR, NORMAL, TYPICAL, NATURAL mean being of the sort or kind that is expected as usual, ordinary, or average.

Oh, we're back to normal?!? Sweet, I hadn't heard!

I'm curious. What exactly is "social equality"? What does it look like? I like equality. I grew up as a white kid in the American southwest. Middle class parents taught me how to interact with the police. Be polite. Don't argue. Don't resist arrest. Don't grab cops' tazer/gun/other weapons. Don't make a cop fear for his life. Just the basics, you know? In regards to high-profile deaths of black people, in almost all cases (with the exception of Freddie Gray), they have been misrepresented, misconstrued, or otherwise shaped/framed in order to produce talking points and support the narrative that says blacks are systematically mistreated in the US. That is a fiction. What data? Data showing that different racial groups produce crime at different rates? The riots this summer were because of COVID. They would not have happened without a global pandemic that gave people nothing but time to think of something to be angry about. Cue the media and some sweet, sweet, narrative to push an agenda. Black crime affects the USA disproportionately. I agree that default police interaction and policing methods could broadly be made better in this country, but the notion that there is a disproportionate amount of policing affecting blacks in this country is unattached to reality. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43 https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2 Looking at pure data, in 2017 blacks committed more absolute murders than whites (5,660 > 5,070). If the proportion of the two races was about equal, that would make sense. So, if we're going for "equity", which of those black murders should we let go in order to bring it into balance with the white murder rate? Or, which white people should be charged with murders they didn't commit in order to bring it into balance? I don't see an alternative outcome given the left's current position. The fact that a much smaller minority is able to account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime in this country does say something - trouble is, it doesn't say there is systematic police discrimination. What it says, in actuality, is that blacks are committing murder at about 7x the rate of whites. Now, given that, what is the solution to the appearance of over-policing? I don't know, but I'm open to novel solutions.

Remember guys, getting the vaccine does protect others. Cutting people in line who need it more is not great, but there is still benefit. It's not a zero sum game.

Fair enough. I would ask you, though, if he did it by neglect, where else should we currently be at war? I would go a lot further, however. Modern-day politics has been completely F'd starting in '03 because of our ill-conceived venture into Iraq. I'm glad the rest of the world is waking up to how screwed up our politics is across the board. If it was Trump that woke people up, great, but Trump ain't the root cause. My main concern is that there are people who are only seeking to take advantage of the current situation who don't give one F about the actual future of this country. IMO those people are now in charge and that worries me.

Neil Gorsuch. Brett Kavanaugh. Amy Barrett. Kicking Iran's dick in. Not engaging in any new wars - something no President since Regan? Carter? has been able to do. Attempting to normalize relations with NK. Overseeing numerous ME peace deals. No president is morally perfect. Trump and Biden included. I don't think most conservatives are worried about Biden per se, though...most know that Biden is a place-holder; an empty vessel who is merely the wedge the woke machine needed to use in order to regain the executive branch. Look at the rest of people who were in the race - Kamala, Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, Beto, etc. There are not moderate people. Biden is the lightly salted mashed potatoes who they had to put foward in order to get moderate democrats motivated to think they had a shot and get out to the polls en masse - that wouldn't have happened with a Bernie. Personally I think Joe Biden is basically a good man - would probably have been an ok president at some point. That said, this guy is just getting started with probably one of the most stressful jobs in the world, and he's already (waaaaay) past his expiration date. Look at what 8 years did to Bush Jr. and Obama - they came out different men. Does anyone honestly expect this is a guy who's about to be a two-term president?

The only reason any of us know Bret Weinstein's name is because he had the temerity to call a spade a spade when he stood up to the extreme, racist, left wing mob that attempted to enact a "day without white people" on his campus. He (rightfully) took a stand against that effort and has been in the limelight ever since. Probably because he's not woke enough. So most of his exposure on the internet is derivative of that one-off event, hence why 95% of it is complaining about democrats...since it was a reaction to democrats. It's the same fundamental story behind Jordan Petersen. These are "normal" guys (professors, scientists, etc.) who wake up one morning and go "WTF is going on around here?" and they call it out. Call me crazy, but we need more of that. For goodness sakes, he's an evolutionary biologist at Evergreen State College...none of that suggests secret conservative mastermind. And the only reason we hear about him via Joe Rogan (left, right, centerish) and Sam Harris (leftish) is because no one on the true "left" wants to engage in an honest way with what he's saying. That says way more about the left than it does about Bret Weinstein and it certainly doesn't implicate him as a (gasp) conservative.

I think that's a mistake - it would destroy the internet as we know it. This message board, and others like it would likely be collateral damage, as now the owners, administrators would be liable for whatever gets posted up here - legal or illegal. A much cleaner kill, and IMO the right move, would be to regulate portions of Amazon's business (i.e. AWS, etc)...ala AT&T and their phone business.

It's because it's their turn now. That's all it is. Next time, it'll be someone else's turn.

Ok, I hear you. I just don't consider their social security as being "reduced." I agree it's less than it would have been had they continued working (and paid more into it), but to consider it reduced, it arguably needs to have had been higher at some point, and then re-gonkulated to a lesser amount. It's not insurance. I know it's considered insurance, because it's literally titled "FICA tax" (Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax), but you and I both know that just because something is named something doesn't mean it is that thing. I could have car insurance my entire life and never file a single claim - or I could be hopping from claim to claim. Insurance kicks in when you need it to cover unforeseeable, rare, and catastrophic events. Getting older is literally the most predictable thing there is, and SS kicks in for everyone. None of that seems to me unforeseeable, rare, or catastrophic. It would better be title "welfare for old people" because that's what it actually is, but we can't call things what they are, so we slap an "insurance" moniker on it. If it were to actually function like insurance, there would be some sort of need-based means testing - which we will probably have to go to at some point. Yeah I hadn't indicated they get divorced in the example. I agree that circumstances matter and will change things for every couple/person. I'm sure we're both capable of constructing examples that will demonstrate different points. My point was simply to say that lower-earning spouses are paying a 100% marginal tax rate on some portion of their earnings. Having worked or not worked, getting divorced at 9 years and 11 months is an awful financial decision for a low earner. Akin to quitting active duty at 19 years and 10 months. Who does that? No one informed, that's for sure.