Leaderboard

For all the folks complaining that Trump has been muzzled, ya know, there’s a way for him to get his message out: When’s the last time this podium was used? Seemed to work fine for every president preceding Trump. Sorry, but I always thought Twitter was an inappropriate place for presidential messaging anyway. Let’s see the man show his face and explain himself.

You’re a ing troll. But because your stupid shit might rub off...surface transmission is nearly zero. People are using all that cleaning stuff because they haven’t actually read anything about this virus. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Internet badass. The only reason I made the spelling distinction is because of the other app spelled Parlor. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Why does everyone still engage this troll? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

No but I'm not nor ever have been full bore unregulated capitalism ala Libertarians. I'm realistic, we change our laws, policies and structures as time and conditions require. I'm for Realistic Capitalism, the free market and free enterprise is the most successful and efficient means of economic activity for the vast majority of the population of any group of people but people are inherently flawed and fallen, therefore a set of rules that are fixed but adjustable must be imposed, interpreted and enforced to deliver the maximum amount of benefit to the maximum amount of people while not discouraging the industrious and ambitious. This system will also be run so as to not exceed the moral bounds of our culture / society, again adjusted with time and conditions as opinions, preferences and attitudes change. Now back to typing my manifesto...

Well, to be honest, not "all about." I generally think that regulation for social welfare is acceptable but it should be done VERY carefully and VERY limited.

Us old retired guys don't do the "tacticool" look very well.

Yes. It’s an older account of his but it is the same shit. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Race riot seems worse to me as people physically harming each other based on skin color but I understand the outrage. I'm a Southerner, don't own a Confederate battle flag nor have displayed one and I didn't like it being in the US Capitol but keep it all in perspective. All of those guys could have been put down by the Capitol Police but weren't not because they were mainly white but because likely they had evacuated all the Reps and their staffs, they didn't want to kill a bunch of civilians even though they were acting like a-holes and I'm not sure if someone was thinking this strategically as this event was happening but they don't want to give them martyrs like the Nazis got prior to seizing power in the Beer Haul Putsch. The Nazis used this as lore and to animate and rally their supporters, venerating the 16 killed there. Don't give them more reasons to hate you. Treat the cause of the disease not the symptom(s). There have been no firing lines or volleys fired into BLM/Antifa riots even as they have relentlessly have attacked and attempted arson on government buildings and private property, another police force took the same tack and even though it is embarrassing and frustrating, what makes us look more like and in fact become more like a failing state than large scale live fire engagements on civilian protests that get out of hand? The BLM/Antifa shit has calmed down a good bit and at its high point I was as pissed as I could be and when those good for nothing vandals showed up to tear down a statue I wanted the police to roll in there and kick ass indiscriminately, that was wrong and I'm glad no US police force did that. The 68 Democratic Convention riots, the Kent State incident, the Pettus Bridge / Bloody Sunday, etc... those are long in the past but still echo when we beat down people who sometimes were doing wrong sometimes not (particularly Pettus Bridge), its frustrating but lethal force should be rare even when quelling riots in what we still call and I hope is the Free World. Take heart, no other flag flies there right now and that is what matters.

Nice strawman. But fine with me. Coast Guard is the only service that defends the homeland as it's primary mission. The rest of us are defending our freeloading "allies" and corporate access to overseas markets. See, two can do this strawman thing.

It baffles me in the day of literally carrying a device in your pocket capable of connecting you with people across the globe people still find a way to violate the first rule. Don’t crap where you eat! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think people have mistaken "Let's not get into yet another war like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya with Syria" for a defense of Assad. She's said repeatedly he's a bad person and we need to bring diplomatic pressure to bear. Her stance is, and always has been, we have no national interest in changing the regime in Syria just because Assad is a bad person.

Agreed. She's trying to position herself for a fox news gig. She went from actively working against gay marriage, to speaking for Bernie Sanders at the DNC, to suddenly spending every outlet she gets to talk about her newly found conservative positions and rail against Democrats. Add to this her being outright strangely defensive of Assad and I can't figure her out. Plus there is the whole growing up in the cult thing (an offshoot of Hare Krishna called the Science of Identity Foundation) and being married to a guy who's still heavily involved. Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

Also respect (and appreciate) your replies, and I think makes for good discussion that really needs to happen in Congress. But you're right, we have been dancing around some points. True net neutrality (and not what the Trump administration pushed) is essential: ISPs need to be considered common infrastructure just like phone companies or electric companies, because if they are not, they can definitely cut off individuals with no recourse. But conservatives have been fighting that tooth and nail, because it would make ISPs less profitable, much more regulated, and bring more government oversight. Money is another issue like you raise up. Sure, cash is king, but we've moved to a largely digital currency, and rely on commercial vendors to facilitate the electronic movement of money. Should electronic money transfers be nationalized? Or should there be a government service to guarantee access to electronic payments in a cashless environment so companies can't cut off people from buying/selling goods and services? It's a good question, and needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, the GOP would likely fight it since it hurts the banking industry (lost revenue from transfer fees) "Good ol' American entrepreneurial spirit" was a bit tongue in cheek. What some conservatives are learning is that the free market can be very brutal if your interests don't align with what businesses or market interests are. Who stops monopolies from forming? Typically, the government, but conservatives have been pushing to deregulate and allow the free market to reign in the name of smaller government, without considering there's a price to pay for allowing the market to set what is acceptable. I'm not throwing spears at conservatives save for one- sometimes people (both conservative and liberal) don't critically think about their values and the potential ramifications of putting those values into practice, especially when it relies on others behaving how we want them to behave. Some values are just parroted from their parties stance with an oversimplification explanation that ignores real issues with the stance. And you're right, the debate on what a platform's responsibility is not settled, and you and I have different opinions on that responsibility. My viewpoint may be a bit skewed because I gave up on most social media (not BaseOps, obviously), so maybe I'm biased in believing a person can live a happy life without checking the Facebook or twitter feed, and keep in contact with friends and family through other means. But we need to continue taking a hard look at this problem, debating potential options, and eventually putting it into law (and not just executive order or executive agency policy).

No, he’s already agreed to disagree here. What you’ve said doesn’t fit his narrative, so the easy answer is, “conservatives are being silenced only, and what they’re saying isn’t that bad anyway. Also, you can’t really blame Trump or Cruz or Hawley because they didn’t literally say, ‘storm the Capitol’!” That’s more of the GOP apologist system that is going to prevent the GOP from ever really winning anything anymore if they don’t change. There are a lot of Republicans waking up to the fact that they’ve been hoodwinked for the last 4 years, and people like Cruz and Hawley will never have the voice they could have if they don’t own the fact that Trump was bad for the GOP. They still refuse to admit that Trump was an experiment gone wrong. None of his political wins can compensate for the damage he’s done to our country both at home and abroad.

"Think of it like AETC." I see what you did there.

No you’re actually missing the point entirely. When it became apparent that the leftist tech/social media giants were unabashedly censoring the speech of prominent right voices, the next move was clear. Do what everyone said (which has been said on this very thread several times): create your own platform. The platform luckily already existed and people naturally flocked to it (hence the recent surge in downloads you just shrugged off.) If you believe Parler was killed because it’s a threat to national security than you might want to expand your critical thinking skills. Parler was killed in an effort to maintain control of the narrative. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Social media hasn't been given a legal carve out anymore than a business that owns a theater/stage has, or any private gathering. A private theater running an open mic night can cut the mic off on a speaker who's opinions they feel are inappropriate without repercussions from the government. Or they could choose not to. It's their mic and venue, and they can choose who to let up on their stage. Same goes in my backyard, if someone is acting up and I don't like it, I can tell them to get off my property without fear of the government telling me I have to let that individual state their opinion in my yard. Same idea applies to social media. Even to this forum, which falls under the social media umbrella; our mods shouldn't have to justify to the government why a post was removed or why SpecOpsFighterPilot was banned. Social media platforms can moderate, but they aren't legally required to. Not to say they won't, but they'll do enough to stay out of civil or criminal courts, which a lot of their current efforts are focused on (blocking and reporting to the government things such as child porn, murders, etc), and I'm sure they do a lot of work with law enforcement behind the scenes. But requiring them to moderate everything leads to a very ugly world: someone would have to be the arbiter of truth and appropriateness, or the business case goes away due to the workload required and the company closes. So who owns the truth and arbitrates what is acceptable? A private company not held to public responsibility? Does the government step in and give the private companies the rules users must abide by in their speech on the platforms? If a platform has to justify blocking a user to the government, then the government is in the position of now restricting that individual's free speech, by agreeing that the block is legitimate. That is not a place we want this country to go, and violates the underlying principles of the first amendment you are arguing we need to protect. It's something some on the left have wanted, and now I'm surprised many "small government" conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon for more government control in regulating what we can and cannot say. If the government is granted that ability, it won't be long until it starts to block criticism of the government. You don't have "rights" on a private platform-your use of that service is dependent on both parties (you and the company providing the service) agreement to use that service, and that agreement can be terminated by either party at their leisure. This is the same as a store asking (or forcing) you to leave their place of business for causing a disturbance. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. If there's nowhere else to go, well, apply some of that good ol' American entrepreneurial spirit and start your own platform business. If the people want want you're selling, you'll also have the added benefit of getting rich. The American dream :) This is what the free market brings: competition. If there's a need it the on the market, or you don't like what's on the open market, build a business to fill that need, and if your product or service is better, then people will come to your business. And this is what should happen in social media: let the market decide. Users will go to the platform they like, and if they don't like it, they will leave. If you don't like what twitter is doing, quit using twitter and go somewhere else. Vote with your feet. There is no such thing as a neutral platform; they will skew with the users and moderators. And that's stuff that changes over time. But for most, the common social media outlets are good enough for most who use them to get their full of updates on friends and family, and cute pictures of cats and dogs.

Not to mentioned straight up legal racism in our country, which contributed to those race riots. But progressives of those eras pushed for reform. That's not to say every progressive agenda item is right or justified, but sometimes maintaining a comfortable status quo for a select segment of the population isn't the right answer for the nation, even if you are a conservative. That doesn't mean to just accept what the left has to say, but to challenge it and refine where the country should go on a particular issue through an examination of what we value and why.

Our country has a long and distinguished history of race riots. No big deal. Know what we don’t have a history of? Fuckin’ confederate flags in the fuckin’ US Capitol, that’s what.

Will respectfully disagree with you, if they cared so much about preventing users organizing violent activities, preventing organizing and the promotion of violent / false information they would have cracked down very hard sts during last summer's riots/lootings/assults on gov buildings, police departments, etc... but those brave SJWs were fighting systemic racism by looting the Walgreens, burning down a Wendy's, crashing thru private gates on to private property threatening home owners who were the wrong skin color so that's ok. As to restricting 1st amendment rights and platforms that have been given a special legal carve out with the expectation they will not moderate content that is not obscene or encourages/direct violence but that they find offensive, I think they owe the users the benefit of the doubt and should have to document to the government and user why they blocked this or that post and or user was de-platformed. They say they are a neutral platform but they act like a publisher selectively, my and others' two cents. They are acting like I'm their enemy because I espouse a different viewpoint so why is it unreasonable to view them the way they view me? To quote Spies Like Us: "Naive wishing for peace is the surest possible way to encourage an aggressor". I would extend that sentiment to the current political fight and argue that is you don't fight back with them with similar weapons and vigor you only encourage further conflict as they will interpret that not as character but as weakness. I'm not cynical nor sentimental, things change and we have to change with the times. I'm for change not because I hate my country, the people in it who think differently than me or any other reason, I'm for change because we need it. It is obvious that we have grown apart and keeping us under a system that requires an enormous amount of national consensus to function as designed that we can no longer generate is insane. The republic as it exists currently may not be the best form of the American country, you only move forward and never go back to what was and we may need to move to a new political arrangement on the North American continent. Still a united political entity but something different with a vastly more autonomous political units. As they say the Constitution is not a suicide pact, it is perverted by some now to dominate and take advantage of others in ways that disregard their fundamental sovereignty over local affairs, their personal choices and has changed into over reach that abuses them while claiming they are morally reprehensible for who they are and who their ancestors were. The Republic as it was intended to be, majority rule with minority rights along with fundamental unalienable rights, it is not delivering that anymore. It's not likely to happen but a Constitutional Convention is necessary. Ref my above statement but I would offer that the Left of late is more guilty of this than the Right. When you frame your enemies as morally reprehensible or deplorable, with both sides holding irreconcilable positions this is inevitable. Everyone's guilty, everyone's innocent. You just have to fight for yours and your side and the other side does the same.

Collin Powell explains why he can't be GOP anymore For all those pseudo Patriots, here's a real one. If you've never seen him speak live, you've missed out. I'm not a fan of his wife at all because she forbade him from seeking public office. I understand it, but we needed him, and she wouldn't let him.

Is this the dude who kept getting banned & changing his user name to come back?

Primarily yes, but being in a room with several people eating means they aren't wearing masks, increasing transmission risks. Though it's not the primary transmission route, CDC recommends washing your hands and not touching your face to lower the transmission risk. My going away last summer skipped the food, as did many of my peers' going aways and retirements. Unfortunate to lose the last lunch push with my squadron. But Covid sucks, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

The basic problem is the government has too much power and control. If we could dial it back to what it was intended to be, then it wouldn't matter who was in the White House or in Congress. With so much direct involvement in the lives of every American, the stakes are too high to let the other side (whichever side that happens to be) be in control.

This is perfect.

Correct me if I’m mistaken but it sounds to me like you are arguing that conservative America should complete its isolation from the rest of our society by sealing themselves into an alternate world that ensures they never have to consider opposing views again. Is that right? Sounds like the most extreme argument for “alternate reality” yet. GLWT.

Your FC I will require a trip to Wright-Patt, which your FCIA did not. You'll have to accomplish that. Regarding what specific additional tests will be required is likely going to be up to the docs processing your physical.

I swear to god we had damn-near solved queep during the early weeks/months of COVID, and now we have purposely allowed it back into our organizations. After finding out what was truly mission essential and what as not, I'm just floored at the number of people that gleefully welcome back all the self-licking ice cream cones, asskissing briefings & awards, and plainly non-essential tasks back in to our everyday lives.

Still doesn't mean it wasn't a good decision for the country. Seriously, you can hate Trump for a lot of things. Please do not hate him for getting us out of all the quagmires Bush and Obama entangled us into. It was the one thing I strongly supported about his Presidency.

AETC is toxic, but you seem to have stumbled into a whole new level of jackassery.

Twitter isn't an ISP... Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T blocking or prioritizing packets of data based on where they come from or are going to would violate the net neutrality concept. Net neutrality prevents the ISP from cutting deals to favor certain businesses or ideals/opinions. And this is necessary because they are common carriers for information: ISPs are *infrastructure*. Apple and Google both are well within their rights to remove any app they believe violates their terms of service (or for any reason): it's their walled garden, and the blocking of an app on an app store has no bearing on the transmission of data. This is just the free market. People can still get unapproved or blocked apps, but have to do it via a third party (side loading). This is not a violation of net neutrality principles. Sure, it's harder to get a blocked app because you don't have the benefit of using the default app store, but the app developer can still publish and distribute their app through other means, and net neutrality allows the same priority of the data packets regardless of the source, whether it's Apple's app store server or a private, third party server. Twitter, Facebook, app stores, websites, etc aren't common carriers or infrastructure. Being blocked on Twitter does not limit your free speech. You can switch to another service, or build/host your own website/discussion forum to get your message out in the internet. And with net neutrality, packets of data moving to/from your website have the same priority as packets of data from Twitter, and prevents the ISP from blocking out your small service in favor of business interests (like faster connections to business partners). Net neutrality has zero to do with content or opinions, or ensuring "balanced" viewpoints are represented online, and everything to do with ensuring infrastructure is shared equally and no one gets priority access to the infrastructure. Separately, section 230 protects online *platforms* (such as twitter or Facebook) from being considered a *publisher*. This distinction prevents twitter/Facebook/discussion boards/etc from having to moderate all content before it is published on their platform. Essentially, without section 230, it breaks how we conduct discussions on the internet. Imagine if the mods on BaseOps had to approve ("publish") every post, because the forum owner was legally liable for any content that appeared on the forum instead of the individual poster. Removing section 230 would completely stifle any discussion, slows down the internet, and would break the fundamental model of social media. But that's not to say that moderation or enforcement of rules can't happen, just that someone can't sue the platform based on a opinion posted by an individual on that platform. It's just like phone companies (infrastructure) not being liable for the text messages you send, but for internet communication. Section 230 is good, it protects internet businesses from frivolous lawsuits because they have deeper pockets than an individual. For example, it prevents Democrats from suing Twitter for allowing Trump to tweet anything they disagree with. Got an issue with what is said on the platform by an individual? Take it up with the individual.

No other post on this thread better highlights what is wrong with politics today. This type of response and thought process is exactly why our nation will continue to drift farther and farther apart. People would rather be intellectually dishonest than give an ounce of credit where credit is due.

It’s still a thousand times better than AD, despite the bullshit alcohol policies that exist in some places. And you’re crazy if you think there aren’t creative solutions out there...

Sure but the conglomeration is sure indicative that tech has grown into key monopolies and I would say it's time for the Fed to come in and break them up. When you can literally prevent businesses from competing with other businesses you contract with, and there is no meaningful alternative, you are too big and the FTC hammer needs to come down.

Didn't take long... 🤣🤣🤣

Rule of Thumb: If you cannot drink the tap water in a country, don’t fly their nation’s airlines.

When discussing liberal media bias, most people are getting at this: The following data is sourced from OpenSecrets which gathers data based on political donations made by employees of said industries. Anytime a political donation of more than $100 is made the person must include their employer along with other information on the donation. OpenSecrets is a non-partisan group that gathers and evaluates data based on where people come from who donate. The most concerning thing about the above chart is that the quad on the far left, deals business in information. It includes Hollywood, social media, search engines, educational institutions, etc... You are never going to convince conservatives that these people present unbiased information because they are the same people that are donating billions of dollars each year to the democratic caucuses.

I have a sneaking suspicion "variant" is a way to keep the public mortified by the virus.

Seriously, WTF? 😲😲😲

I was construing it's got a problem with a large amount of toxic people, militias fomenting insurrection and neo-nazis. But social media misfits are ok. And we're not fucking, so I'll spell whatever I want however I want.