ViperMan
-
Posts
638 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by ViperMan
-
-
8 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:
"WE" are not. Ukraine (NON NATO COUNTRY) is.
i'm all for supporting them (to a point).
I am 100% fucking opposed to American troops engaging russia in ukraine.
and i am 100% opposed to let ukraine dictate our foreign policy.
No American troops are engaged. Soooooooo, what's your point? You're worried about things that aren't happening?
Sometimes, country's foreign policy goals happen to align, that doesn't mean they are dictating our foreign policy.
By the way, back in the 90s, we guaranteed Ukraine's security in exchange for them giving up their nuclear arsenal - which was the 3rd largest in the world (bigger than China's). Here's a liberal source for you to brush up on: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion
So yeah, in some (real) sense, we owe them. Just like some other country would owe us...you know, if we agreed to give up all of our nuclear weapons in exchange for security...but you know, who cares about promises at the end of the day. Amirite?
-
1
-
-
Foolish war is an oxymoron. We're already there.
-
The naivete of some here is completely incredible. Who the F cares if we blew it up?!? Russia is the aggressor! Do you seriously think that we're just going to let Russia run roughshod over Pax Americana because a couple aging douchbags got their feelings hurt they're not empire they convinced themselves they deserve to be while chugging vodka?
Grow up. Some shit doesn't smell right upon first whiff, but makes sense when you accept that bad shit happens in war. We're not above that, nor should we be. We're not about to let Russia undo the last 70 years of history and us being in the right. If we did do it, we out-maneuvered them. You should be happy and proud you have people in our government capable of such foresight with the balls to execute on a bold plan. If Russia did it, then you should be glad they're such unbelievable idiots. If Ukraine did it, that's the price Russia pays for invading it's neighbor without just cause.
Stop listening to pundits who have zero skin in the game who cast moral aspersions in realms they wouldn't dare set foot in. I say again: you don't know what happened and you never will. It doesn't matter which source you read on the internet. Pick your side.-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, dream big said:
Makes Pelosi look like a petulant child from two years ago
In fairness, she looked that way without the juxtaposition.
-
2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
Our 1st amendment is under attack from many directions, I hope you are paying attention.
2nd amendment is the only one that actually matters. It's the only one with a meaningful "fuck you."
-
1
-
-
Best part was the safety cone sword vs. the chair hammer. Our weapons have become less deadly - but more embarrassing - to be smashed by. We're basically the same people we've been for thousands of years.
-
1
-
-
I just have to say, the previous pages' back-and-forth is pure comedy gold. I want to see the fight, and the follow-up hug fest afterwards!
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Tank said:
My biggest concern is that when Trump doesn’t win the Rep primary that he decides to run as an Independent and then in turn splits the Rep ticket.
This would almost guarantee the Dems to win the 2024 election…
Kinda like when Ross Perot kicked off the whole Clinton era back in the 90s. Never would have had an entire generation of bullshit without that guy. I liked him and have usually been a third-party/protest voter, but now I see the cost to such people. Without a different type of voting system in place, we're doomed to two candidates - especially with the way our politics currently operates.
-
4 hours ago, filthy_liar said:
That doesn't pass the common sense test to me. I'm not saying you are wrong, but millions of transactions per hour are taking place in the crypto exchanges. I find it very hard to believe that volume is being generated peer to peer absent an exchange. What would that even look like?
Tell me you don't know the first thing about crypto without telling me you don't know the first thing about crypto...
Bruh, the entire basis for the blockchain is to be a distributed, peer-to-peer, value-exchange system. It may be that more "action" is taking place in the exchanges, but that's like the fact that there is more action in the futures markets for soybeans. None of the soybeans traded in Chicago ever make it there, but I assure you there are soybeans that would still exist if the CME was shutdown. Think of it like that. The CME plays the role of the exchanges in the cyrpto market, but the actual blockchain (the bottom line behind crypto) are the soybeans growing in everyone's own backyard.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:
ViperMan did you come up with that moral choice on you own? If you did, you would certainly have come up with that prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. You would certainly be morally opposed to Russia's involvement in Georgia yes? And going back further, Russia's involvement in Afghanistan yes? Russia is doing what Russia does. I'm good with the argument of nuke em, they are evil. But this johnny come lately oh dear god they are picking on Ukraine? Get the out of here. Where have you been since 1989?
Nope. I am morally opposed to all those things Russia did. That's not the point though.
The unstated assumption supporting the logic in your argument is that because I haven't intervened in every conflict where a moral case can be made to intervene, I cannot, therefore, ever intervene upon moral grounds. You don't get to simultaneously deride someone's moral justification for war on that basis, and then immediately turn around and cast moral judgement upon those who wish to intervene on those grounds. At least not using that formulation. Morality isn't our reason for going to war. Morality is our justification. You're looking at morality in warfare in reverse, and just because we don't intervene in every conflict where we could morally justify it, doesn't mean you can wholesale discard morality's role in warfare.
The proper way morality figures into this is as a check on our interests and actions. We first have to ask ourselves if it is in our interest to kill Russians. Check? If so, then you have to ask if it is moral to do so in this case. Presumably the answer to question #1 is always yes. The answer to question #2 is contingent. The role the "moral question" plays in any given conflict is to serve as a check and balance on keeping us from going to war with everyone who has different interests from us.
Look at it this way. Is it in Russia's interest to take over Ukraine (let's take their word for it)? Yes. Question 1, check. Question 2? Is it moral for Russia to take over Ukraine? Nope. Hence, they have no justification for war. If you want to go on a moral crusade and fight every immoral thing in the world, go ahead, but you're going to be pretty busy.
-
23 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
A fundamental basis for our nation is that we do not inherit the sins of our fathers. Ultimately, there is no United States of America, there are only the people who make it up and the decisions that they make. I don't give two flying fucks if other people made the wrong decision in the past. My job, my duty as a moral being, is to make the right decision in the scenarios I am faced with. And when I fail, as I have before, I do not get to use that failure as some sort of justification for future inaction.
-
1
-
-
On 1/24/2023 at 7:57 PM, DSG said:
I tend to sympathize with your realist take on things, but calling a chauvinistic kleptocracy and vector of hostile (to Russia) foreign influence "innocent" is quite a reach. There's certainly a strategic and economic case for supporting Ukraine, but the moral one, I find unimpressive. The U.S. is happy to support ethnic separatism when it suits it (Kosovo) -- presently, its Ukrainian client is violating the tenants of self-determination by forcing the Russophone southeast back under its writ. And needless to say, America has stepped on far more than its share of weak states. You can bet that if (say) Texas were to secede and invite Chinese and Russian troops onto its soil, the reaction of Washington would be apocalyptic. I find the moral outrage to be empty and self-serving, frankly.
This post has to be satire. You find the *moral* case lacking??? I don't think there has been a clearer moral case since 9/11 or WWII to intervene in a conflict.
It's fine if you want to be a nihilist/relativist. But if you choose to go there, you don't get to judge it on those grounds from either side.
-
On 1/24/2023 at 7:10 PM, The TRON said:
Except they don’t have the logistical capability to employ them. The Abrams and Leopard both come with huge logistics bills, one of which for the Abrams is a huge thirst for a fuel that isn't diesel like every other tank the Ukrainians have. Much more we are risking and more than likely giving the Russians a few of our tanks that the Ukranians will inevitably abandon when they break down. Hell the Brits giving 14 Challenger IIs creates a huge logistics bill for what amounts to 4 platoons worth of tanks. It sounds great from the talking heads to just give the Ukrainians all this kit, but it has to be sustainable. We’re making the Ukranian army into a logistics mess with so many different systems only the Germans in World War 2 could dream this up. On top of all that the West isn't even gearing up to produce what is already being given up...
I don't think this post is going to age well.
Based on how the war is going so far (for Ukraine), do you seriously think no one in our government has thought of this???
-
1
-
-
Fact: Being "Pro-Choice" makes you not a Catholic.
This is a simple matter of definitions.
-
On 1/15/2023 at 7:51 AM, Negatory said:
We now know that we’re looking at a significantly lower mortality variant with significantly higher spread - the first variant spread slower but had a mortality rate about 10 times higher pre-vaccine. Didn’t know when that was coming.
On 1/15/2023 at 7:51 AM, Negatory said:We understand mortality risks much more completely now (fat and old). We did not know any of these things with significant certainty for a long time.
On 1/15/2023 at 7:51 AM, Negatory said:You’ll also note that many folks on here changed our minds on many policies as more data emerged. As folks got vaccinated and mortality decreased and transmission reduction efforts clearly failed, many folks like me changed our opinions.
No. No. No. No. No. And no. We knew all those things and more. And moreover, the historical record in this very thread is still available for those who care to go back and read it. People here knew the mortality rates were getting blown out of all proportion. How did they know? It wasn't because they were conspiracy nuts. It was because they looked at and compared diverse data sets, examined how certain groups were behaving and listened to what they were saying, and taking in the totality of all that, made a more accurate deduction.
Plenty of others were willing to just take the properly-credentialed authorities' opinions and run with them, sans critical thinking.
I'm glad you've revised your view "now" that "more" data is in - and respect that you have the balls to publicly admit at least that much. If you dare look back further, however, you'll notice that the data to make that same determination was present then, as well. History is not confirming for you that other people "guessed" right. We more thoroughly analyzed the data available and made a more correct assessment.
-
1
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, FLEA said:
What I don't appreciate though is the immediate defeatism that we shouldn't investigate something that could be highly beneficial and advancing for our society because of a few barriers. What happened to "America'ing the fuck up" and dumping huge sums of money into research and engineering to develop innovative and new solutions that are advancing on a civilization and industrial wide level.
1. Our culture of "safety" and "equity" will stop a lot of progress.
2. Unless a politician can get rich off of it, it ain't got a chance.
The people in charge are the ones who lived in the glory of what their parents built. They don't understand America or the world in their most fundamental sense. Hence, we're complacent and have allowed ourselves to become preoccupied with feeling good vs doing good.
-
1
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, FLEA said:
I think your missing a lot of context here. If train prices were high in Europe you weren't buying correctly. I lived there up until this year and very rarely paid more than $50 to go anywhere.
Ryan air isn't cheaper because they nickle and dime you with baggage fees/etc.... There are no flight guarantees, the highest cancellation rate of any airline in Europe and the fact you will likely have to cancel your trip. Ryan air is great if you're a 20 something digital nomad with lots of travel flexibility. Less so if you have a family and are trying to get away for a long weekend.
And yes.... 2 hours early. Bro I don't know how often you're traveling by air but just 3 months ago Schippol was a literal dumpster fire with people lined up on the INTERSTATE, three miles from the airport, to get into security.
ORD is not quite as bad but wait times for TSA pre check we're 1.5 hours going to DC as recently as November.
IAD, I waited 45 minutes in TSA pre check to go to Houston.
This is with TSA pre check.... I'm sad for the schmucks who can't afford that or are not in the military.....
If I miss my flight and have to get rolexed 2-3 hours, I completely lost the speed advantage of air.
Let's also not forget the premium on rail travel because it simply is more comfortable than air travel. If a trip was only 20-30 minutes longer or 20% more expensive, I'd probably still take rail to avoid the headache of having to wait in lines, be yelled at by gate agents, be stuffed in a tuna can....
Like let's face it man, regional airline travel sucks in almost every scenario.
Maybe we are comparing apples and oranges (Europe vs USA). I agree that rail can be more comfortable and economical than air travel. The only point I was trying to make, is that right now, it's not.
I travel by air a LOT. I usually plan to show 75 minutes before my departure - it's usually way more than enough time. The only places I struggle to time perfectly are places like Vegas with their FUBAR rental car return circus and LAX where there could be wicked traffic at 11 PM on a Wednesday. One-offs like those places, yeah, you gotta give it a bit more to deal with the stupid.
-
4 hours ago, FLEA said:
You don't use a trains to go across the country. Trains in Europe and Asia put pressure on regional airlines. There is a sweet spot on flight legs of about 0-2.5 hours where it is more advantageous to take a train. So your IAD to JFK example for instance.... Sure that leg is only 40 minutes, but don't forget, the general public (which includes me) has to be at the airport 2 hours early, 2.5 hours if airport workers are on strike, 3 hours if TSA is on strike.... there's also STTO on the tail end, waiting on a gate because the airline poorly scheduled, transit in the air terminal and waiting on bags. Total time expenditure is ~ 3-4 hours, which ironically I can drive from IAD to JFK in about 4.5 hours.
Train prices are extortion rate prices here because they are not being pushed down by infrastructure overhaul and competition. A train from London to Paris for example, which is a similar distance as DC to JFK, can be done for $40.
I don't know why, I just feel like proving you and @nsplayr wrong. Here are bus tickets, train tickets, and air travel from DC to NYC on Jan 25th. Do your own research if you don't trust me. Train is the LEAST convenient in terms of time and $. $25 for a bus, $60-100 to fly, $60-360 for the train.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, FLEA said:
You don't use a trains to go across the country. Trains in Europe and Asia put pressure on regional airlines. There is a sweet spot on flight legs of about 0-2.5 hours where it is more advantageous to take a train. So your IAD to JFK example for instance.... Sure that leg is only 40 minutes, but don't forget, the general public (which includes me) has to be at the airport 2 hours early, 2.5 hours if airport workers are on strike, 3 hours if TSA is on strike.... there's also STTO on the tail end, waiting on a gate because the airline poorly scheduled, transit in the air terminal and waiting on bags. Total time expenditure is ~ 3-4 hours, which ironically I can drive from IAD to JFK in about 4.5 hours.
Train prices are extortion rate prices here because they are not being pushed down by infrastructure overhaul and competition. A train from London to Paris for example, which is a similar distance as DC to JFK, can be done for $40.
Ohhhhhhh ok. So what you were really saying is that in your *hypothetical* world, train travel would be more convenient than air travel. Missed that part.
So much here.
1. If you're arriving at the airport 2 to 2.5 hours early, you're wasting your life. No shit. Only my grandmother shows up that early. And even she is wasting her life when she gets there that early.
2. I went to Europe after having last visited 10 years prior, and lets just say, train ticket prices are now exorbitant. You might be able to catch a cheap fair between London and Paris, but if you want to *see* Europe, well, it aint the early 00s where your gonna grab $250 Eurail pass and see the continent. Sorry to break it to you - those days are long over.
3. Ryan Air is cheaper.
4. German Wings is cheaper (as long as their pilots don't run you into the Alps).
5. Sweet spots might exist in Europe, but in the US (places like LA), you might need to fly from Compton to Huntington Beach to achieve the 2.5 hour *pressure* relief you're talking about. Last I checked, there's not many Compton to Huntington Beach flights available to the general public. You're comparing apples and oranges. You got to take the 405. There is no other option.
Those are facts. I don't know what you're talking about. Yeah, there is room for rail and trains in this country. Why the F we have so many big rigs going coast to coast is beyond me. All that shit should be moving by rail. Get the fuck off my interstates. But yeah with your theme: trains should be a thing in this country. The point is, right now, they are not. They could be, they should be, but they are not.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, FLEA said:
I agree that the west is a bit too expansive to cover with extended high speed rail networks. However..... most of the US population lives in the geographic bounds of the east coast to the mid west. No reason networked high speed cant connect most of those cities and open up regional travel for the majority of Americans.
And I realize that its counter beneficial to our careers to promote alternatives to air transportation but as a consumer I'll be frank.... taking a train is 1000X better than flying any day of the week. Flying (as a passenger) has become a miserable hell of an experience I try to avoid in any way possible.
I *feel* you bro, but do you realize it's cheaper to fly from DC to NYC than it is to take the train??? A train ticket from DC to Manhattan can cost >$400. AYFKM?
The only *cheap* travel option along the eastern sea board (that I've found) are the various bus companies (Megabus, etc).
Also. No. Flying is 1000x times better than taking a train as far as convenience goes. Period. Were you serious with that? Spend 2.5 days to get across the country or do it without even taking a leak...yeah I'm going with option B.
-
1
-
2
-
-
38 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
Sure, that was the theory, and I don't particularly mind the logic, though I don't agree either. But as California is learning, this system is benefiting those who need little benefit, and costing the lower class. Is there a single person here with home solar that didn't receive subsidies? The government paid for (statistically) wealthier Americans to install solar on their homes, and now the costs of net metering (which are largely detrimental to the power companies) are pushing the costs onto those without solar.
This is an emblematic example of the free market distortions at play at almost every level. This shit is why people are souring on capitalism. But it isn't capitalism, it might be corporatism, or good old-fashioned government waste, but it sure as shit isn't the free market.
Solar system should be paid for in full by the homeowner. Whether or not they tie them to the grid should be their choice. When the power company would like to buy power from residential solar systems, they can offer a price, and you can choose to accept or refuse. But this nonsense of paying people to install the systems and then forcing the power company to pay them more than it costs them to produce power in the first place, is silly. It's fucking stupid actually.
And considering the input energy for producing solar panels are higher than the output of the solar panel over their 20-year lifespan (if you live at a latitude above Texas), not to mention the environmental damage caused by the mining practices of the countries that make these panels, or the waste generated when these panels hit their end of life, there should be pretty easy to recognize as another government. Boondoggle.
How many more fucking years are we going to pretend like solar is economically viable? It's been decades and yet still we need subsidies to get them installed?
I don't disagree with any of this and you make some important observations about these programs' implementation, but there is an important distinction you're not acknowledging: power companies are NOT a free market, and they are NOT capitalism.
If you want to start a supermarket, record label, software company, fast-food chain, brewery, or consultancy, or any other number of businesses, you're completely free to do so. You are not free to just start a competing power company and start running your own power lines, installing utility poles, tearing up roadways, utilizing public rights-of-way or easements on private property, etc. The government has a direct hand in ensuring the viability of power infrastructure. There is a categorical difference between these types of companies, so while power companies appear to be companies, they're really part company, part government.
In any case, insofar as ME (who personally has no solar) selling power "back to the grid" using public infrastructure (the same thing the power company does) I don't see any problem at that level of analysis. There is no reason why one entity should be allowed to conduct business using public property while I am not. A government that disallows that, or privileges other businesses over others (me) is engaging in a totally anti-capitalistic practice.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
There's a big difference between solar and net metering.
Net metering was always absurd. Why should the power company pay you for electricity? And pay you the same rate they charge? Can you imagine going to the grocery store and trying to sell your homegrown tomatoes to the produce manager, except you want him to pay you the same amount he plans to sell them for?
It was yet another government scheme to get more people to adopt solar. And of course it increased the price of power. And yes, since the wealthy are more able to afford the frivolity of solar power, they disproportionately benefit. I'm not a big fan of subsidizing the poor, but having the poor subsidize the wealthy? Only California could hatch a scheme so absurd. Too bad others followed.
You want to be off the grid with solar panels? Awesome. Go for it. But wanting the power company to subsidize your prepper fantasies was a gross distortion of free market capitalism, one of many these days.
Now a bunch of people are upset that they aren't making money off their solar panels. Many of them are allegedly conservative. Boo hoo. A handout is a handout, even if it's to someone with a big house and nice cars.
Power grids are public infrastructure, or are at least part of it - insofar as they utilize public rights-of-way, law, etc. Why, then, should you not be paid if you add power to the public grid? Businesses whose money-making models rest upon public infrastructure (power companies, internet, water, and so forth) are not businesses in the usual sense and hence can and should be regulated appropriately. In some sense, you're no different than the power company themselves. If you're adding voltage to the system, you deserve to be compensated for that.
The grocery store analogy is off because grocery stores do not require government intervention in order to conduct their business. Power companies do; they are not free market capitalism.
-
1
-
-
What CAF assignment? And what's your other option?
-
5 hours ago, nsplayr said:
Signed the legislation that brought all that critical chip manufacturing to the USA though…😎
The CHIPS and Science act is really a good law and I’m glad it got done. Thanks to the 14 Republican Senators who came on in for the big win as well as all 50 Dems obv.
Damn right it's good law...GREAT law. $$$ Law.
August 9th: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
September 1st: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/paul-pelosi-dodged-extra-20-loss-selling-nvidia-stock-july-august-us-restrictions
-
2
-
The First Amendment, Freedom of the press.
in Squadron Bar
Posted
@FourFans130 and @jice, I was being intentionally a little provocative. I agree the rest of the constitution matters, but I do think the 2nd amendment is categorically unique.
It speaks to the primacy of violence. Which at the end of the day, underpins every system man has created.