Leaderboard

Wish I could get my wife to say this…

Agree. We also need to mask all strats and records from a prior promotion board on a subsequent promotion board. Basically, once you promote, you get a clean slate. People don't get to ride a good record early in their career up through Wing command. Similarly, having a rough start doesn't automatically preclude you from making an amazing turnaround later.

But that kind of debate hasn't been allowed to happen because a 7-2 majority made abortion the law of the land 50 years ago. Think about that -- this issue that countless people have anguished over and debated since time immemorial (there are records of arguments on abortion at least as far back as the Roman empire) was "settled" in 1973 by 7 people on behalf of a nation of over 300,000,000. If it's truly about striking a balance and making the best law for the benefit of society, the issue should be left up either to the state legislatures and/or Congress so that they can enact the will of their representatives via the legislative process.

Pretty sure it’s illegal in all 50 states to harm someone with a firearm (or any other weapon) unless you’re defending your life, etc. By the way…weren’t you in a favor of a ban limiting the ammunition capacity of magazines? I find it rich how you and your fellow progressives believe in “rights”, but are all about limiting the rights of others when it’s not about abortion. This goes for conservatives as well…they’ll say they’re for “rights”, but have no problems banning/limiting the use of drugs, gambling, prostitution, who you can marry, etc.

See above. The right to abortion is an unenumerated right based largely on the 14th Amendment, and as a constitutional right, it therefore does not require a law stating it’s legality specifically. That’s the legal theory, you are of course free to disagree or not like that. There are quite a few other rights that fall under that same category, and if/when this opinion becomes official people are understandably worried about the security of those rights going forward.

You mean like the "unborn Americans"? I'd say they are being "pitted against" already.

Negative ghostrider. The Supreme Court has continually affirmed unenumerated rights through its interpretation of the 14th and 9th amendments. You have a ton of rights in this country that are not codified in specific laws. That’s why this ruling is concerning. And yes, I understand that justice Alito intends this only to apply to abortion but that’s not how legal precedent works and the logic behind this ruling will absolutely be used when states and other entities desire to limit rights for one reason or another. Alito argues that abortion is specifically a threat to human life. Well, many would say the same of gun violence. See how this case could be used as a precedent to re-interpret the second amendment? Alito may be earnest in his intention to limit this ruling to abortion, but what happens when he is gone? This ruling will have far reaching and long lasting consequences.

If you want abortion to be the law of the land, then pass a law that says so. Either at the state or the federal level I don’t care. Row v. Wade is an illegitimate decision because it’s in conflict with how our government is organized to function, analogous with Congress deciding court cases or POTUS creating new laws. Not how our system works. In this context, abortion itself is irrelevant. ETA: draft opinion specifically self-limits to the issue of abortion.

This is a good explainer on Alito’s potential Pandora’s box opening re: unenumerated rights and the 14th Amendment. He may imply he’s not personally open to re-litigating rights like interracial marriage, gay marriage, sodomy, contraception, etc., but by re-litigating and overturning the 14th Amendment’s protection of abortion rights, there’s no real reason a future court couldn’t use his opinion as precedent for doing so. So he’s not just striking down Casey and Roe, but IMHO greatly weakening the 14th Amendment’s other protections as well. “Distinguishing Abortion From Other Unenumerated Rights in the 14th Amendment The Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment grants more unenumerated rights than just the right to an abortion. Alito attempts to distinguish these rights from abortion, holding that Roe and Casey are fundamentally different in that "[a]bortion destroys . . . potential life" and "none of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey "involve the critical moral question posed by abortion." These rights include: The right to interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia), The right to obtain contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut) The right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts (Lawrence v. Texas) The right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges). In distinguishing these unenumerated rights from Roe and Casey, Alito implies these rights could remain untouched by the forthcoming majority opinion in Dobbs. However, Alito's draft version of Dobbs inarguably opens the door to further challenges of the rights granted by the 14th Amendment. From this first draft it appears Justice Alito may not be as receptive to these challenges as he is with abortion, but forecasting any potential future cases is completely speculative at this point.”

Exactly. The rabbit hole is open. Part of the court’s rationale is that there is no specific right to abortion in the constitution. Well, there is no specific right to birth control either. No one should be the least bit surprised when conservative states start banning things like IUDs. And it doesn’t necessarily stop there. There are any number of rights that we currently enjoy that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Where does it say you have a right to interstate travel for instance? This ruling and the logic behind it has much further reaching implications than just abortion & has the potential to put many of the rights we enjoy at risk.

Abortion is currently the law of the land, and you're confused as to why laws protecting human beings don't apply to the unborn...who are currently allowed to be aborted??? You see the problem with that argument, right? 🤔 The example makes no sense. Pooter is equating a natural death with an intentional one. They are categorically different. If your argument is that *if* Roe is overturned, *then* those things will need to happen for consistencies sake, then that is a different argument, but I've yet to hear that articulated. Ok, you're arguing in good faith, but you felt the need to draft a false equivalency between abortion and miscarriage??? Yeah, I'm confused. If that's your point, I just don't understand the need to do that. But whatever. Either way, it's a weak argument. Not all deaths are investigated as homicide. Even the majority of deaths are not investigated as homicide. And don't you think that if your concern became a real problem, our legislators could simply enact a law that says the presumption is that miscarriages are resultant from natural causes? It's just not the big issue you're making it out to be. Finally, yes, you're right about the state-by-state murder issue. The "state's issue" trope is inconsistent. Abortion will need to be regulated at the federal level.

I'm having a hard time determining if you're arguing in good faith. Are you serious? Are you honestly confused about the qualitative differences between an abortion and a miscarriage? One is a natural event that will occur from time to time no matter what humanity does. The other requires an intentional intervention by an individual. How are you confused about this or how/why are you equating these two categorically different things? Why they're not focused on it is the same reason anti-death penalty folks are not trying to stop all death. "Oh, you're anti-death penalty? Then why aren't you out there trying to develop technology that will extend life indefinitely. How 'bout some consistency bruh."

Yep, I'm tracking the conversation, thanks. The point is that there are other court cases that govern rights regarding birth control et al, so the argument that all these other derivative rights from the 14th amendment (i.e. non-enumerated rights) will instantly disappear because Roe v Wade is overturned is a void argument. It's pearl clutching.

So why was their new law limiting abortions to a heartbeat is detected challenged if it was in accordance with Roe? The Dems started going much further left on abortion and in turn, the GOP started going much further to the right (or mixture of both). Politically it wasn’t too smart for the left to challenge these laws if they were concerned they could lose at the Supreme Court. Don’t worry man, you and others can donate as much money as you want to organizations which will help women in Texas go to a different state to get their abortion. And unlike if I go buy an AR-15 in Texas and move to Massachusetts and bring my property with me (I will be prosecuted), I’m not aware of any state that plans on prosecuting a woman who had an abortion out of state…though I guess crazier stuff has been suggested, so we’ll see. And I’m pretty sure if I’m caught bringing in a magazine holding more than 10 rounds in a few states that I can be prosecuted…you know, because they’re banned. Additionally, you asked the other day what politicians/states were against any government restrictions on abortions…well, I just read that the Dem nominee for Senate in Ohio is recently on record for saying he doesn’t support any government restrictions. Ohio is definitely more of a “middle of the road” state in the US, especially compared to California, Maryland, Massachusetts, etc. So will Ryan beat Vance, since Ryan is for zero restrictions and Vance is for banning abortions?

If abortion is protected by the 14th amendment why did it take 100 years to realize it? When Roe was decided, every state in the union had laws restricting abortion.

There's a long standing supreme court precedent that abortion is legal...

seems legit: just because you find something that supports your side, doesn't mean it's settled

Here’s a question for you, then. Should IUDs be illegal? Because part of their purpose is to intentionally stop fertilized eggs - zygotes - from implanting on the uterine wall. Some forms of oral birth control do the same. Should we charge any sexually active woman who intentionally creates a less than ideal uterine environment with a crime? Because lots of people on birth control create zygotes that simply can’t implant. Honestly, why not charge men as well? If you’re a sexually active male and you do something to endanger the zygote’s chance of viability or implantation after conception - perhaps you damage your sperm and therefore the zygote by exposing your body to industrial chemicals, heavy metals, x-rays, or you just straight up let your balls get too hot (look it up) - why is that not a crime?

Not anymore! Static OPR close-outs are going to make things interesting, for the better I hope. It was absolutely ridiculous the number of ways commanders could carve up strats (#1 CGO, #1 Capt, #1 in YG etc) and board members saw right through it, doing the individual captains/majors no favors. This will force commanders to find their balls and actually give honest feedback.

Unfortunately 11Rs are their own worse enemy in the AF. Been in the community for a while and the "bus driver" culture runs very strong. Was ridiculed by an evaluator as a young copilot for reading our 3-1 once. I'm not saying this is Demonrats case, but by and large the pilot community in many 11R aircraft attempts to remain as little engaged to the mission as possible, but then laments when positions like squadron and predominantly go to ABMs or EWOs.

I'm still on my silver and gold kick. The mint just did a new silver coin (.9999 silver) honoring and memorializing the "Negro Leagues". They aren't bullion grade so the premium over spot is huge, but they are pretty good looking coins. I'm kind of a baseball nut so ended up getting some. Pretty sweet looking coins. https://catalog.usmint.gov/negro-leagues-baseball-commemorative-coin/

Science has long established when human life begins. Here is a 1999 article that examines and reviews much of the science (that predates it) outlining the human growth process. The zygote stage is simply a stage in a human's life cycle. Quote from one part of the paper at bottom, in case you're not wanting to read it all. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html Bottom line is, we can decide as a culture when we want to give that human the basic right of life, but any point we choose after fertilization, is arbitrary. "Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.) This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen: "... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)

I kind of thought that was assumed. It certainly appears that Roe will be overturned very soon. There are many states that will immediately ban abortion when that happens. The argument made is only a hypothetical for a few more weeks.

I'm absolutely arguing in good faith. Im asking if we have considered the full ramifications of considering a 1 week zygote a full human life. Of course I agree miscarriages are usually natural and a part of life, and that they aren't intentional like abortions are. But if you say it's legally a full blown human, you don't just get to miscarry, say "oh well," and try again next time. A human being just lost their life so we need to figure out what happened and if there was negligence involved. Just like what would happen if you or I died. That's the problem with putting assertions like "life begins at conception" into law. It takes you to weird places really quickly. It's a nice thing to say to claim moral high ground and use to control people, but there is a fuck ton of baggage that comes along with that belief that hasn't been addressed at all. It also doesn't hold water when conservatives say "why are liberals so mad, repealing roe just gives the decision back to the states?" If you legit believe any abortion is murder, you shouldn't be okay with potentially legalized murder on a state by state basis.

I think some of you are missing the forest through the trees. The question being posed here is: If we are going to argue that a fetus is a human, then why don't all laws/norms then apply to that human? The example given makes sense. If an infant dies in his or her parent's care, it will generally be investigated as to whether the parents were neglectful. If a miscarriage takes place, and we define the fetus as human, why don't we apply the same rules? Shouldn't the mother, at the very least, be forced to to take a blood alcohol test? If she is positive, should she be then charged with murder?

Honestly not sure. And that's a great debate to have. I'm simply asking for some logical consistency. If a zygote is a fully fledged human, then abortion is clearly murder and a miscarriage is at the very least a horrible tragedy and at most manslaughter or murder as well. There are also very easy bipartisan ways to improve pre-natal care to make concrete improvements in miscarriage rates. Stopping both abortions and miscarriages should be important if you truly believe they are a full human life. But If the only child deaths you're concerned about are the ones that let you tell the dirty liberal sexual deviants what to do, maybe you're not actually concerned about child deaths. Another note on logical consistency: the people who say gun bans dont stop criminals from getting guns.. advocating for abortion bans 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

This is a common error made by just about everyone. Assuming that everyone thinks and values things the same as they do. In this case, you're projecting how you would think and behave if you believed that a new person started at conception. It's also really common in this specific case to not look around at all, and miss that sometimes people do mean what they say. So you get this opinion piece from Time of San Diego lamenting that fathers should have to pay from conception if abortion is illegal (this is one example, I've seen plenty). It is of course filled with snark, implying that the concept is inconceivable. The ironic aspect is Utah now requires fathers to foot 50% of the pregnancy medical bills, Arkansas is pushing something similar, North Dakota has a R led push to require child support retroactive back to conception. An Oklahoma dem pushed a bill to do the same as a sort of thing as a snark move, and then pulled it back. I assume partly due to the fact that its passage would implicitly set a precedent of person from conception. Maybe they actually do believe what they say. And if you offer up your "suggestions" they'd probably agree with them.

I think what @Demonrat is trying to say is that legally defining a human being as existing at conception has some very big legal implications that even the most staunch pro lifers haven't fully thought out. For example: it begs the question, why aren't pro lifers also laser focused on miscarriages (which are nearly as prevalent as abortions?) By your own logic that's a fully fledged human being that lost their life, and a miscarriage should warrant an autopsy at least and possible criminal investigation if there was suspected negligence. If we could be saving potentially millions of lives per year, you'd expect them to be dumping money into pre-natal research, paid maternity leave, and free pre-natal healthcare for everyone. But none of that is happening. Instead they're more concerned with what Lena Dunham is up to.. and that makes the whole gambit seem very fake, and more like a bid for control to own the libs than a genuine concern for human life. TL;DR if it's a human life at conception, act like it in all aspects.. not just the politically convenient ones.

I'm not sure what your point here is, but the Bundy standoff in 2014 is one of the best examples of why the second amendment matters in modern history (the second being Waco). In the Bundy standoffs, BLM nonsense and executive rulemaking were challenged with the threat of violence. Had there been no guns everyone knows the Bundy's would have been rounded up in one day and the issue would have never made the spotlight. Instead. the constitutional right to have weapons offset the power of the government and introduced a limiting principal to the random rulemaking power of the BLM: are we willing to hurt people to enforce this rule. The government should always have to perform this calculus before making a rule or law. This was a case of the 2nd Amendment limiting the government without bloodshed. In the case of Waco, government overreach and zeal resulted in a horrifying loss of life. But the aftermath changed the way the government operates. This was a case of the 2nd Amendment limiting the government with bloodshed. In both cases, only the 2nd Amendment allowed for important limitations on government intervention. As far as Bundy, in 2016 he was arrested and charged, which curiously ended with this little nugget: So I'm not sure you're making the point you wish to make about Bundy. Jan 6th, however, was a mess. Inspired (though not legally incited) by Trump. If you're wondering why Republicans are so reluctant to care about it, you'd have to appreciate the years of double-standard-outrage the left has imposed on the right. A year earlier the left was literally cheering on rioters.

I'm actually skeptical. A lot of the people who give a shit about this issue live in states that are absolutely not going to change abortion access. There's also a 0% chance that abortion takes a meaningful position on the list of Americans concerns when the economy is doing poorly. Again, they didn't make abortion illegal, though some states certainly will, and the people in those states are already used to living in an abortion-hostile environment. While it may have been politically risky, it was absolutely the right thing to do legally. If you haven't taken the time to read the draft ruling, it's only about 40 to 50 pages of actual text, and Scalia did an excellent job laying out the sheer lunacy of both the Roe and Casey rulings. We need a greater return to states rights. The ideological differences in this country are growing, and you don't solve ideological differences by forcing one side to do what the other wants. That goes for both the left and the right.

Got to push back on you here. When the FED tried raising the interest rates back in 2017-2018, Trump lost his mind and was publicly excoriating Powell everyday as the stock market slid. I don't think there's a chance in hell that he would suddenly find God on sound fiscal policy, which was always a weakness for him. It is certainly possible that the inflation factor would change Trump's calculus, but we certainly have no evidence to suggest that. I also think Trump would have pushed for more stimulus, though not as much as the democrats. One of the biggest drivers of inflation in this economy was the direct payments to consumers from the government, and that part of stimulus I think Trump would have wholeheartedly endorsed. Agree on energy policy, agree on covid policy.

People get too wrapped up about the pax/box issue. In 10+ years of airline flying, my "dealing with the pax," has amounted to a single divert for a heart attack (got more pay for that day) and kicking off one (1) drunk dude at the gate while still pushing on time. Even with that, homie don't do "dealing with pax." We have people who are specially trained to do that, so I have the FO call them out to "deal with the pax." Meanwhile, I'll be in the cockpit flipping through baseops.net, wondering how many minds have been changed on the abortion thread. What really matters is how long it takes you to get from your home, to work and back. This single item will have the biggest impact of your QOL in an airline career. As an example, I'm typing away while drinking my morning coffee at 0500 (I've become my old man who can't sleep past 0500). Here in about an hour, I'll drive 55 minutes (about 60 miles) to the airport. I'll fly a 2-leg turn that is 2.2 hours of block. I'll block in before noon and be back in my car, headed home about 15 minutes later (Westin Valet will have my car waiting at the curb). If I don't stop at a squadron mates house for a beer, I should be home by 1300. I often bid reserve because I can sit short call from my house...hell I've flown my plane around on short call before (just stay ~500 feet to keep a cell signal). My days on long call are often spent flying my plane/hanging out at the hangar, tooling around the house, visiting family or drinking coffee/beer with current/former squadron mates who live within a mile or two of my house. Being able to do all of this, if infinitely more valuable than "not dealing with pax." So I'd recommend going to wherever allows you to do this the most.

No, I'm sure it actually was...

Reports of a Ukrainian strike a few days ago that hit a command post and killed approximately 200 Russians including a few more General Officers. Also reported that same strike missed Russian General Aleksandr Dvornikov by less than 30 minutes. He is the new commander of the Ukrainian invasion and in Putin's close circle. Russian loses are severe and have been mounting, to the point the Russians are reportedly doing a second mobilization. Ukrainian intelligence uncovers covert mobilisation of the unemployed and "Cossacks" underway in Russia. Total numbers are still unknown but estimated at over 10,000 soldiers killed. With fairly high confidence it has been reported Russia has lost at least 700 main battle tanks, a significant number.

Strongly negative. Letting those Portland protests go on for so long was an embarrassment. Go get a job you dirty hippies!

I saw the physical whiteboard with hundreds of pucks at the CAOC complete with every color of the rainbow and then different styled lines because the poor tanker patch would run out of colors and have to make more creative solutions when they had >40 lines a day. I remember them trying to make a computer program to schedule tankers and, at least by my last deployment in 2017, it was nowhere near working.

Exactly. And all of those babies and foster kids would be much better off if they’d been roto-rootered out before they were born. We need to save them from what could become a possibly uncomfortable life by making ensuring they can’t have one at all.

Pros/cons to everything. I’ll say it depends more on personal preference but isn’t universally bad. Personally I’ve never had a bad experience with passengers, and the interactions keep things less mundane. People watching can be fun, especially the Friday night flights to Vegas and Monday morning flights out of there. Cheesy too, but I actually appreciate when kids do things like wave from the terminal or want to check out the cockpit…reminds me of how I decided I wanted to fly in the first place. Only thing that undoubtedly sucks is having to pay attention to when the seatbelt sign is on or off and (at least in the Guppy) how the weather is in the back…

"Assault on the Constitution and the American ideas of freedom and liberty?" Since when did forcing conservative Christian values on the populace as a whole in a nation with freedom of religion count as "the American ideas of freedom of liberty?" If anything, forcing religious ethical and moral opinions on the entire nation is an assault on the Constitution and the American ideas of freedom and liberty. Christians then take the Bible and basically any passage and warp it with twisted logic to support their claims that the Bible sees life as starting in the womb. You can basically interpret anything in the Bible exactly the way you want to support whatever argument you are making. This leads to a lifestyle where Christian women go get an abortion, then turn around and scream about others who do the same. You see it all the time, and it's quite pathetic. I always laugh when I see somebody say "we murdered X amount of babies." I truly think nobody really believes that having an abortion is equivalent to killing a 1-month old baby. Show a video of a woman having an abortion, and then show a video of somebody murdering a 1-month old baby. Which is going to garner a stronger reaction across the vast majority of people? You don't truly believe that aborting a fetus is equivalent to murdering a baby who is out of the womb. If you really believe that a person is made at conception, then put your money where your mouth is. Start supporting research that helps stop miscarraige, because there are nearly 1 million of those every year where "people" end up dying. If you regard abortion as murder, then you would support first degree murder sentences for 1 in 4 American women who end up getting abortions by the age of 45. I hope that's not your wife, your daughter, your grand daughter, or anybody you hold close. I hope I can start taking out life insurance policies on my newly conceived "person." If you kill a pregnant woman, it better be a double homicide. If you skip out on a woman while she is pregnant? Better start to pay child support while their "person" is in their first trimester. The list goes on and on with the implications of calling a fetus a "person" at conception. If you want all that, then more power to you I guess. That's not the type of society I want to live in.

This ruling will be...well an abortion. To overturn a ruling that is Stare Decisis merely for political reasons is absurd. Stand by to re-adjudicate every milestone decision each time one party take control and gets more justices on the court. Prepare for an onslaught from the left to pack the court and go after every conservative ruling. Really? So many battleground states that will sway by very small majorities and you are telling them to just get out because of a very draconian ruling based on religion. News flash, they won't move, abortions WILL continue even when a state says not in my backyard. I feel sad for a lot of women who will go underground and resort to abortion in the shadows, some will pay with their lives...but hey as long as the bible bangers are happy. This will also be the demise of the GOP who was poised to sweep the mid-terms, you just lost a LOT of independents. All of the recent appointees refused to answer pointed questions about Roe V Wade but they each sat there and mentioned Stare Decisis and its importance, then they turned around and voted to overturn, disgusting. Now the court has gone the way of the political parties. Truly sad.

This guy...sigh... Just run along to K Street, Adam. Since CNN+ folded after less than a month and Psaki nailed (no sts) the MSNBC gig, the odds of you being the pet "Republican who bashes the GOP" TV gig is probably not gonna happen now. Liz Cheney is more photogenic and a better demographic than a crying white guy anyway. Just go away.

Hey gents, thanks for keeping this one alive. I retired, got a contract job, got blackballed, filed a FWA complaint and am now 100% doing they cybers on the outside. Somehow lost the password to here and didn't really have time to get it going again (writing a book, starting a business, beekeeping, etc.). Nice to be back and I do have some thoughts on what was posted. I'll write those out and give an update on the commercial side and what the bros are still saying in. PS - edibles are great.

It's an emotional argument meant to describe the absurdity behind calling a fertilized egg a person using a whole-of-society point-of-view beyond religion and science. It accounts for laws and norms that help prevent radical Y'all Qaeda/Q-anon/Handmaid's Tale/Authoritarian/Communist/Far-Left Antifa beliefs that aren't compatible with a modern day America rooted in what's in the Constitution. If a zygote, fetus, or whatever inside the womb is a person, then shouldn't they be afforded ALL of the rights a human being gets according to the law? Why are we picking and choosing what rights a human being fetus gets and doesn't get? For your arguments to work, it either has to be all or nothing. It makes NO logical sense to say "a zygote is a human being," but then not afford it EVERY right a human being has. Just like Bible Thumpers cherry pick the Bible to fit their arguments, pro-life individuals want to cherry pick the rights of what what they call a human being. "Yeah, that fetus is a human being according to science and religion, but it doesn't get afforded all the rights associated with being a human because it's a fetus. How about we call a fetus 3/5ths of a human?" That argument makes zero sense. Either the fetus is a human being and has full protection of the law, or the fetus is not a human being and has no protection of the law. In the second case, the mother is 100% in control of her body and is the entity that has the protection of the law.