Leaderboard

This is an interesting fear, since the GOP has had trifecta control of the Texas state government since 2003 🤷‍♂️ Can't say I blame the Democrats for any laws passed in Texas anytime recently... @Lord Ratner I think you've argued in good faith here, cheers. I am not a lawyer, but here are a my thoughts on some of the topics you've posted about previously, in no specific order (too many to quote). Feel free to respond if you'd like, or just skip the #WallOfText and have a great day: It seems like while you don't like abortion, you're basically pro-choice, along the lines of what Roe allowed, as modified by Casey. Early-term abortion is perhaps regrettable yet is allowed, but not late-term abortion, life of the mother medical exemptions notwithstanding. The exact definition of where the line falls has changed over time but is now IVO 15-21 weeks. Do you agree with that characterization? In fact, this is where I fall. I'm "pro-choice" if you ask me in a survey but I've only personally been a part of two pregnancies and we have two children, so we've "chosen life" both times, easy call. I am opposed to abortions after the point of fetal viability unless there's some threat to the life of the mother. The vast majority of abortions that take place in the US (approx. 95%) happen before 15 weeks, and 98% happen before 21 weeks. That is the status quo under Roe et al today and it feels like a fair line to say ok, that's the tipping point between a woman's freedom of choice and the fetus' freedom to have a life, both of which I can see the argument for. Therefore why are we overturning an important right (in my view) and landmark precedent for the 2-5% of cases that are unsavory to my personal morals? Maybe you support the likely decision on Dobbs simply because you believe Roe was badly decided to begin with rather than because you are rabidly anti-abortion in all cases, and that's fair. But don't be deceived, several state laws already on the books ban abortion entirely, from 0.001 weeks onward, and have no exemptions for rape, incest or the life/safety of the mother. Idaho and Texas come to mind there. Many others have full restrictions except for life of the mother situations, i.e. no timetable, no rape/incest exemptions. These laws will take effect immediately if Roe is overturned. I get what you're saying in that states should have the right to legislate as they see fit, but the courts have always found limits to that - state and federal lawmakers aren't free to enact things that are not permissible under either their state or the federal constitutions, it's been that way from day one of our current system of government. Ok so you can't enact things that are unconstitutional, and presently under Roe total abortion bans are unconstitutional, so moving a thing from one category to another is a big deal! Which I can see why maybe you've been mad all along if you think Roe was wrongly decided, and now the forthcoming Dobbs decision would just undue that past wrong. I disagree. Granting a constitutionally protected right like Roe did is a major precedent that should not be overturned lightly, which is basically what Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB promised Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (and the Democrats) in their SCOTUS appointment hearings. Sic "Roe is settled law" and etc. I don't remember exactly what Alito and Thomas said on the subject. Roberts at least seems to be signaling that he is anti-abortion but doesn't want to destroy the Roe precedent, and especially no in the way that Alito does, which IMHO threatens other rights as well. If Roe is overturned for the reasons that Alito sketched out in the leaked draft opinion, I'm also very concerned it will open an enormous can of worms that will spill out into many other issues that everyday people will notice and care about. If the 14th Amendment is essentially gutted, which is where I think we're headed, i.e. the Due Process Clause (and perhaps the Equal Protection Clause also?) no longer include unenumerated rights and really it only protects rights with a (sic) "long historical tradition" as Alito puts it, that would allow states to legislate away gay marriage, sodomy, and perhaps even reinstitute segregation in schools. I can think of some very recent times when banning gay marriage and sodomy were A+ cool and not so long ago when segregated schools were also perfectly fine in the eyes of both the law and the public. None of those rights are specifically enumerated in the federal constitution nor do they enjoy a "long historical tradition" in my view, and therefore are vulnerable under Alito's logic. I for one don't want states to be able to get rid of the right to marry who I want, stick it in whatever hole I want, or send my kids to an inclusive and equal school with peers of all races/religions/etc., just because they don't like it, and I know basically all Democrats and even a sizable share of Republicans who share that view, especially ones < age 55. I will bet you a bottle of fantastic Tennessee whiskey that there will be a state that looks at Alito's logic, passes a ban on gay marriage, and that such a ban would be upheld by the current makeup of SCOTUS because well now the 14th Amendment just ain't what it used to be. Let's give it 10 years, you can Manchester me on that one if you want. Alito tries to says that's not on the table because abortion is a special case where there are X-factors blah blah blah, I don't believe it. Some state will argue passionately and honestly that they believe it's a huge moral imperative to preserve traditional marriage, and I think a state-level ban on gay marriage would pass muster if brought before SCOTUS again, overturning Obergefell. Despite what the polling says today, as recently as GWB's second term the GOP wanted to enact a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage! There are certainly crazy-ass state legislators who would be chomping at the bit to ban it in their state if they had the power to do so. Final parting shot: I know you have not argued this, but others have argued vehemently that "life begins at fertilization, and all human rights for the unborn fetus begin there." Essentially any act that intentionally destroys a fertilized egg is a heinous crime. Got it, that is a coherent worldview, even if I don't share it. Do we ban IVF treatments then? That process definitely involves destroying fertilized eggs, all in the name of actually getting the most viable one(s) implanted and successfully turned into a baby, often times for couples desperate to "choose life." If folks want to subscribe to the worldview that fertilized egg = full human with all the rights of you and I, IVF has to be banned unfortunately and they need to be honest about that. FWIW this is the view of the Catholic Church (full disclosure that I am Catholic), and ok fair enough. But a lot of fairly hard-line pro-life protestant christians I know are fine with IVF and I'm struggling to understand their rationalization there. Maybe it boils down to, "Look, I'm against things I don't like and think are bad and am fine with things I do like and think are good and I want the law to reflect that," with no underlying, coherent logical or legal throughline, and ok, that's probably the case honestly. Enough for now, good talk. 🇺🇸

Standard scarecrow tactics. There are fringe elements on the right that want to ban birth control but they are a minority within a minority - yet the left tries to frame this view as mainstream when it’s far from it. Catholic organizations that employ folk won’t offer birth control but they are a private organization and birth control isn’t that expensive for one to buy on their own. Most conservatives I know want the life of the unborn to be protected but believe birth control is a good thing. The fundamental debate is where life begins. An argument can be made for conception, but even most conservatives do not believe abortion should be banned immediately after conception. I always liked the first trimester rule. After the first trimester, the fetus starts to resemble a baby. I also think it is a decent compromise to a very polarized topic. Unfortunately, both sides love said polarization so they can galvanize their base.

Prepare to sweat like never before. 'Bama be hot that time of year.

On a lighter note

Skins cells are not a fertilized egg ergo they are NOT A BABY which is the logic the Pro-life folks have hunkered down on. I don't get it you want it both ways and when YOUR logic is called out based on your own statements I am somehow triggered? My statement was very narrow and related strictly to IUDs and the flawed logic of those who want it both ways. It is very simple, are you or are you not arguing that a fertilized egg is life? If you believe life starts at conception then how can you argue that an IUD which stops a fertilized egg from implanting is any different than abortion? To argue percentages or intent is simply fluff to make you feel better about your choice to use an IUD which is rich given that you don't want there to be a choice. The logic failure is on your side and beyond me...you are PURPOSELY killing a fertilized egg. How do you not comprehend that? See below, did you even read the thread? His first response...again did you even read the thread before you pitched in?

There is a lot of intentional, and frankly ignorant, binary comparisons being made where they are not appropriate. If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, is that okay? If you leave a trail of $20 bills from the sidewalk into your house, then shoot the person who walks in picking them up, is that okay? In both cases you're shooting an intruder. Of course the pro-life crowd can do the exact same thing. If it's okay to kill a fetus, why isn't it okay to kill a 2-year-old? It's your kid, what's the difference? Either side can come up with an endless list of comparisons that are provocative on their surface but clearly absurd. That's all fine and well in a good faith philosophical exploration, but that's not what's happening here. There are two very different concepts being argued, the court-imposed "right" to abortion that is being overturned vs the morality of abortion, and the pro-choice side is frantically avoiding the former. I haven't yet seen a single constitutional or logically consistent argument for supporting Roe/Casey. The pro-choice crowd seems quite aware that they performed and end-run around our entire governmental system with those rulings. It's easy to look the other way when the violation favors your position. But it's bad for the country to do things that way. The pro-choice crowd is also going to have to realize at some point that they are simply not the majority of the human species. Take a quick look at the European laws and you'll see that the American system of abortion until this ruling has been wildly permissive and arguably barbaric in comparison Most people simply don't agree with third trimester abortions, and even the second term is questionable to many. I think the biggest fear of the ruling class is that this issue is actually going to die down with the overturning of Roe. Lots of money, and lots of votes in that fight. But the states are going to come to solutions that satisfy the majority of their citizens, meaning the majority of Americans are finally going to be relatively satisfied with whatever The New Normal becomes. Of course, the pro-choice crowd would do well to consider what the now-firmly-conservative supreme court would do if given the same power to create rights out of thin air that the 1973 SCOTUS felt entitled to...

You're not normally an idiot. What's going on?

Even when I flew back commercial on UA 787 Business in Feb from FRA to ORD, I was included in a shenanigan. Passenger came out of the lav and passed out. Don’t know why I was paying attention (no service due to turbulence over the Atlantic) but I was able to catch him before his head was going to hit the floor after snapping my belt off. Yelled medical and lights came on with FA’s swarming in the aisle. Stood him up for a minute and he said he was OK. One step later he drops like a brick and I threw him in my seat this time. I sat in his seat for 2 hours after a Doc on board took care of him. His seat mate next to me was wondering when something might happen as he pounded a ton of champagne earlier. FA’s said they knew him which was curious. When asked they mentioned he was one of theirs! Turns out he was a UA 787 Capt on his way home… can’t make this stuff up. Guess the pax guys know how to party but no liver to hang.🤪 I don’t drink anymore, but when I do it’s for free - especially on Emirates/Qatar as they have the best choices.

Pretty well sums it up how Lord Ratner categorized it for the majority: 1. Who offered you a job 2. Where can you live without commuting 3. What flying job fits your personality? When you need a job you just go where you must and transition later to that destination career as you see fit, but there has never been a greater time to gain access to your airline of choice than now. Commuting is the biggest hassle for most and nothing beats living in domicile no matter what outfit, except for holding a base which is actually where you want to live or the surrounding area allows you to capture extra trips/pay within 90 min - 2hrs in many cases = Holy Grail of LIFESTYLE and Opportunity. Enjoying the “job” carries significant weight depending on your personality, but every normal hassle melts away when you do and it’s always easier as I sit here in Australia enjoying the beach and whatnot. Rainy seasonish but amazing. *Labeling those who say boxes don’t b….! as “misanthropic” is first off all encompassing of the freight community. For a bunch of freight dawg unsocial misfits I would say we’re doing pretty well out there! 😆🤪

Absolutely untrue. And I think as your other comments indicate it is you that doesn't understand how an IUD works or that their are different types. The "fact" is that an IUD can destroy a fertilized egg which has been articulated as the red line of life by the pro-life crowd here. Although you attempt to discount the fact that an IUD can kill a fertilized egg with your scientific observation "every woman I know", I prefer to follow the science. For the record both the FDA and the industry acknowledge IUDs have a 99% effectiveness rate. That's a great rate, but it also means that of the 4.4 million U.S. women who use IUDs, approximately 44,000 (I fully acknowledge it is likely less but the FDA lists the rate as "approximately one in 100"), of them end up pregnant while using an IUD. The women in your observation are likely using a hormone laced IUD that does indeed prevent cycles and ovulation BUT it is not foolproof and when that mechanism fails the backup mechanism kills the fertilized eggs by preventing implantation. The copper infused IUDs function by deterring fertilization but they also rely on the back up mechanism which kills the fertilized egg. By default there is a failure rate and eggs are fertilized becoming life using the definition others have provided. I am certainly not against the use of contraception or IUDs, I am simply saying that much of the moral outrage about abortion expressed on this forum is centered around killing a fertilized egg. Given that is your red line for life and the small but existing failure rate of IUDs does make it a fact that IUDs do indeed destroy fertilized eggs. To me that seems hypocritical and far to convenient. If you stand on principles and morals then at least be honest. Come on man, now you are reaching, as you yourself admit "which they mostly don't" which means sometimes they DO! The rest of your argument is beyond flawed and punctuated with Godwin's Law...come on man, you are better than that. I 100% believe abortion is VERY nuanced subject. On the other side of your example is the fervent pro-choice crowd that thinks abortion is ok up until the moment of birth...absolutely disgusting. Again, come on man...having a differing opinion is dividing our country? Dear god that is what the framers wanted. Discussion, debate, work to find common ground. Are we divided, absolutely but in the old days some of the real disagreements led to duels. I hardly think my pithy repartee equates to a lead ball fired at 10 paces. Also, I never said "If you don't agree with me you're a hypocrite." I was very precise and deliberate. If you use the fertilization red line and you use an IUD then by default, not my opinion, by scientific fact as outlined by the FDA and research, you are a hypocrite. Either stand by your principles or stop expressing fake outrage when it is inconvenient to your form of birth control. Not the first time I've been called an idiot and I am sure I have earned the title repeatedly. Hell it took me multiple attempts to get through WIC...AND I picked the Air Force over med school despite getting in and being offered a full ride (WTF was I thinking?)

A kill's a kill.

Your fact is that an IUD destroys a fertilized egg, which is you learned, only happens if the primary mechanism of the IUD fails. Every woman I know stopped having periods on they IUD, so your scenario is not common enough to be an unqualified fact. And given the way you phrased it I'm pretty sure you had no idea how an IUD works in 2022. But, let's take your "fact" without any context. IUDs destroy fertilized eggs (which they mostly don't). That's supposed to be the same as abortion. But that's like saying a husband beating his wife to death is the same as a grunt shooting an insurgent. Murder is murder, right? I hope those drone operators realize they are no better than the Nazis who were herding gypsies and Jews into the gas showers. It would also be similar to saying an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is the same as a partial birth abortion. Sure... Technically. There are some people of course who do believe those things. But they don't represent the entirety of the pro life crowd, or even the fervent pro-life crowd, because people live in a nuanced world. And it certainly isn't the case that the anti-abortion folks here have all expressed an absolute objection to all abortions for any reasons, rape and incest, for example. But your post, ironically posted after you expressed fears about the potentially divisive nature of the ruling, is exactly the mentality that is dividing the country. If you don't agree with me you're a hypocrite. A wise man once told me there's a better way of communicating with people... But he was an idiot, so... 🤷🏻‍♂️

Or, hear me out, people don't see it your way. See that's why I called you and idiot. Not because the point is invalid, but because you somehow think it's much stronger than it is, to the point you ridiculed those who disagree. Yup. Yes, as I've said many times, this was never an issue for the courts to decide. Bad law. I'm fine with that, if it is the will of the people as expressed through their representation. I disagree, but that's a feature of democracy, not a bug. Correct. And no such protections exist for abortion in the constitution. Disagree all you like, but make an actual argument for how Roe was good case law. It's not about undoing a past wrong, though that will happen too. It's about the entire concept of a judiciary. They must never create laws, even if you like them. It undermines everything. Roe was not the first absurd ruling, nor the first to be undone. If you are unfamiliar with SCOTUS proceedings, or law in general, I can see how you would think that. But they made no such promise. Plessy was "settled law" as well. These are not stupid people, and they said what they said very intentionally. I strongly recommend you listen too the linked "Honestly" podcast. Hugely informative. Read the ruling. It explicitly protects against that fear, for good reason. Also, gay marriage is an equality issue, not a privacy issue, as abortion was framed. No way. You won't get Gorsuch (who added trans you the civil rights act) or Kavanaugh (who was a Kennedy disciple) to go for that. Buy I'll happily take the bet. I want tequila though 😂🤣 Yeah no clue. Doesn't pass my sniff test. But that too should be subject to the will of the people. No reason States couldn't have different laws for that.

Be fair, I totally called him an idiot.

I've seen so many people here make the claim that the right is attempting to outlaw all abortion - in this thread, I've yet to see anyone make that argument, though there have been plenty of straw men who have had the absolute shit beat out of them. In fact, most folks who come from the right seem to be saying that there are limited circumstances under which they agree abortion should be legal, so I really don't see the hyper focus on this extreme case (i.e. IUDs = abortion = 8-mos-pregnant abortion) as anything but an attempt to muddy the water, create overlap where there is none, and avoid the conversation. Perhaps it would be best (for the country) if the conversation would distinguish between "medical" abortions and "elective" abortions. Most of us here (I think) tend to agree on what would be considered "medical" abortions. Really, circumstances make them both categorically and morally different - in the same way killing someone in combat is morally different from murder - and this is the point that I think gets lost in all the back and forth. On the left, abortion is sometimes a difficult "choice" - which it certainly is in cases of rape, incest, last night's one night stand, etc. On the right, a normal pregnancy at 8 months, which somehow becomes inconvenient, is most certainly not a choice. Is either of those positions a misrepresentation? There is a qualitative difference between a single celled human and one which has taken on a human form, heart beat, nervous system, has begun dreaming, etc. All fair people recognize this, even if they can't provide a mathematical proof. Obviously life is a continuum, and it is difficult (probably impossible) to draw clean lines anywhere. The democrats currently in office support elective abortion, in all cases, up to birth. It is their platform. That's a moral problem in our country, and also happens to be wholly unrelated to the state of "tax payer funded paid maternity leave" for mothers. That's where the thrust of the opposition lies - not on disallowing plan B, but on stopping the governor of VA along with other radical organizations who have co-opted previously laudable movements from enacting radical policy positions in order to assert status or maintain grasp of expired political power.

Nice way to not answer the questions while saying I have a bad argument. Good chat.

CH. skin cells contain DNA that could be used i the creation of life via cloning. Does your argument mean I shouldn’t itch my arm? That’s about how logical your argument is. Take a step back and realize LR hasn’t called you names or got all emotional, etc. he simply called out your statements using logic and reason and how your statements aren’t making sense. And if you don’t feel the need to do so then might I suggest just stepping away for a bit and either letting it go or assessing what it is that is causing you to react emotionally and without reason? Throughly enjoy your interactions in other instances. Just seems like someone stole your login info this time around.

Update: Prior enlisted crew chief hired from within in fighter unit: AFOQT/TBAS: September 2020 Interview: 12 July 2021 (Selected as alternate) Notified of Primary: 15 Dec 2021 Notified of FC1 date: 24 Jan 2022 FC1: 7 Feb 2022 FC1 stamped approved: 18 Feb 2022 NGB Submission: 22 March 2022 NGB Approval: 26 April Notified of OTS dates: 10 May OTS: 2 Aug- 30 Sep Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

That’s fantastic his mother made that CHOICE. If she felt having the baby despite her situation was the best option then I don’t think anyone believes there is anything wrong with that. But the important thing is there is choice based on each persons own individual values. Values that you may not share or agree with. A female teammate on my track team in college faced this same decision. 19 years old, not on birth control because it can impact athletic performance. Gets a little carried away one night with her college boyfriend (my roommate), as 19 year olds with raging hormones are prone to do, misses her next period, and oh shit she’s actually pregnant. She’s a pre-med major, outstanding athlete, on full scholarship and comes from a family that can’t pay for her college all on their own. She makes the excruciating painful decision to terminate the pregnancy very early as she simply was not in a position life to care for a child. Heck even carrying the child to birth and then putting it up for adoption would have had life altering consequences. Now I’m sure some will look at this situation as a selfish decision, or be quick to condemn her with the line of “if you have sex, these are the risks you take”; and in my experience these people are frankly hypocrites who are in no position to judge another’s scenario or decisions. I have seen what some of my pro-life “friends” on Facebook have been posting, a few of which I know quite well who they were when they were 19, and they are in absolutely no position to judge another. They just simply got lucky and didn’t have to make the same tough call. Personally I don’t see how anyone could look a young woman in the eye facing that scenario and tell her with a straight face, “Sorry, but you must have this baby and permanently alter your life simply because you made a mistake that any 19 year old in the history of human kind could make”. Should there be limits on abortion? Absolutely. Enough time for a woman to know she is pregnant but before a fetus would be viable outside the womb seems pretty reasonable to me. I will let the doctors and scientists figure out where that falls. The biggest issue I have with the pro-life crowd in general (not accusing anyone here specifically) is the assumption that anyone that supports a choice to have an abortion is somehow against someone who decides that path is not right for them. If someone believes abortion is not the path for them then that is fantastic and I support that choice wholeheartedly. Each person on earth is going to have different values and different life situations at various times in their life, and I certainly am in no position to judge what is right for someone else, even if it’s not something I would have done. I think we tend to forget that as a society.

https://www.sciencealert.com/transplanting-poo-from-a-younger-mouse-could-help-stave-off-the-effects-of-aging They know about the spice..... The slice melange....

You guys are drawing distinctions at a different location, then complaining that people draw distinctions somewhere else. Is it or is it not okay to murder a 1-year-old? How about 6 months? How about 2 days after birth? Why? Is it merely the encapsulation of the body inside another body? The transfer of nutrients and blood through the umbilical cord? The one month old is still completely reliant on its mother for survival as it is post-viability, so why do we draw the line at birth? Because life isn't black and white, and you have to draw lines somewhere. I'm not religious, so I can't speak for Catholics who are against birth control or condoms, or anybody else with different views. But I believe there is a fairly obvious difference between an IUD, which is a passive measure that must be undertaken before conception, and abortion, which is an active measure taken after the life is created. Is it perfect? Obviously not. I would much rather a bulletproof method of contraceptives that can be given once via handshake, has 100% effectiveness, prevents the discharge of an egg from the ovary until a reversing drug is taken, and makes my dick bigger during sex. The primary difference here is I am not acting as though your position is unreasonable or illogical, though your characterization of the opposition is. I simply disagree and have a differing view of the various factors, and the point of this whole thread the Roe ruling rather than the morality, which is clearly one of the most constitutionally unfounded Supreme Court rulings in American history. I do not consider your position absurd, nor do I view you as immoral for holding it, though I do believe the sanctity of life is a moral issue. That's why I disagree with (most) abortion, which is separate from disagreeing with the train-wreck-rulings that are Roe and Casey. But it is getting tiring hearing a bunch of people act like a biological function, in fact the primary biological function, is somehow a massive imposition on the species. Billions of women living in much harsher times have endured the rigors of childbirth just fine, while the medical risks have been enormously reduced and the non-abortion options to avoid pregnancy have multiplied in both methods and access. It's never, ever been easier to be a woman (or man) of any class. The hysteria over the supposed suffering to be endured by women as a result of the banning of abortion is simply overblown. If a state bans IUDs I will oppose it, for fuck's sake I'm not even in favor of banning first trimester abortions, but I will not subvert our entire system of governance for this issue. Contested social issues are decided by votes, not judges. IUDs and abortions are not immune from such considerations. If it's a matter of human rights, add it to the constitution; there's a process for that too. We the people, not we the people who agree with my position and not the other ones.

1. Because context matters. Unless you're making a religious argument, which overwhelmingly the pro-choice crowd is not, then you have to base morality off some sort of societal context. Since the rest of the world has a much lower tolerance for third term trimesters (much, much lower), you have to make a counter-argument for how such abortions are a moral "right." 2. This is another false equivalence. It also wildly overstates the costs of birth in the US. If you're poor and pregnant, you can have the child, surrender it, and live a normal life. Everything you listed, like abortion, is an issue to be decided by the voters, not the court. The premise that abortion can only be illegal if you make a bunch of other stuff that I want legal is not how it works. You may not like it, but it is perfectly rational for someone to believe that you are not allowed to kill a fetus, and also not allowed to rely on the government to provide for your every need. 3. According to polling, correct. But I'm not sure what you mean by "what's being debated." Once again, are we talking about the supreme Court ruling, or are we talking about the morality of abortion? Overturning Roe does not make abortion illegal. Full stop. Read. The. Ruling. 4. This is a rather ironic statement, considering the Roe and Casey rulings were foisted upon the American people at a time when 49 or 50 states had some sort of restrictions on abortion more restrictive than the viability precedent set by Roe. No one voted on it, and no one legislated it. That is by definition the actions of a ruling class. https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vUlNWMjM0NzE0Mjg4MQ/episode/OTAwYWNlNjItNjI3MC0xMWVjLWFmNzctNTdhMTc3ODNmMmJj?ep=14 Once again, Bari Weiss saves the Day. This is a Democrat interviewing a Democrat about why Alito's ruling is correct and constitutional.

Beetlejuice back at it!!!! Love it

I enjoy watching liberals argue how the economy isn’t actually bad. Everything is more expensive. Costs have gone up, purchasing power is down. It’s obvious. But keep trying this Jedi mind trick, it might work!

And is this guy for real?!? 🤣🤣🤣

What did you say? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Wouldn't than mean we should censor Jen Psaki who from the White House Podium has shared these truth bombs: "Hunter Biden Story is Russian Disinfo" "Putin Price Hike on gas" "Inflation is transitory" "It is irresponsible to say Americans are stranded in Afghanistan, they are not" "Psaki denies transporting illegal immigrants at 0230 AM is the middle of the night, calls it early flight"

Something has to be done to combat disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive information made by unreliable sources like Russian and Chinese troll farms. There are too many dumb people in this world who live in their disinformation echo chamber. There are limited exceptions to the First Amendment, and fraud is one of them. While all disinformation couldn't fall under the fraud exception to the First Amendment, there is a subset of disinformation that could. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3860211 for a better argument than I can give since I am not a lawyer. Your response is extremely emotional, especially with saying something like "the Constitution is Dead." Take a step back and put on an analytical lens. Not everything Biden does is an extremist "end of the Constitution action," and the same held true for Trump during his Presidency.

I’ve been a long time lurker of these forums. I’ve always wanted to post to provide some different points of view from the white conservative Christian background/worldview that dominates these forums and the USAF pilot community as a whole. However, it seems like it’s an exercise in futility and a massive waste of time. Nobody is going to change their mind on any topic no matter how convincing of an argument one puts forth. Emotional reactions like “it’s the beginning of the end for free speech in America” with zero substance galvanize the majority on this forum with any dissent summarily stamped out. These type of reactions are prevalent in all forms of social media, preventing constructive discourse and garnering reactions like “I can’t believe there are people who support the government deciding what is disinformation or not like in the book 1984 with the Ministry of Truth.” The fact of the matter is that disinformation is a serious problem in all of society and something needs to be done to combat it, especially from external sources who are looking to cause harm in America. If you can verify the source as a Russian or Chinese internet troll, then the information should cease to exist. This is an extremely limited portion of the disinformation that is out there. Free speech stays free speech within America, but countering misuse of our First Amendment Rights by external governments looking to generate chaos in the US is a national priority. I definitely share the concerns shown in this forum about government overreach, but I think a balance can be found with the proper authorities in place and a strong legal review of any actions taken by the organization. I think it’s better than doing nothing and letting malign actors slowly rip the fabric of US society apart.

The Hunter Biden Laptop Russian Disinformation subject is so politically charged that getting to the truth of that situation is as futile as arguing on the internet. I do think it's extremely unfortunate for America that Russian hackers can leak politically sensitive information in a bid to sway US elections. Information that is illegally acquired by an external actor and then presented to the American public to serve purposes that are not in the interest of the United States is disinformation. Now, if the source is an American journalist or organization that legally had access to Hunter Biden's laptop information and leaked it to the press, then that is a different story. If that is the case here (it's basically impossible to find non-partisan information on the Hunter Biden laptop subject), then the information within that laptop is fair game. I don't worship President Biden like some people worship "God-Emperor" Trump, but both of them have done things that I agree with and things that I disagree with. I still find value in at least presenting dissenting viewpoints on a forum like this. We all will be working with, working for, and leading members who may have differing worldviews than the majority conservative Christians within the USAF operations world. Practicing some tolerance and understanding of why a person thinks the way they do can go a long way in connecting with people who hold different beliefs and values, and part of that starts with at least being exposed to different viewpoints. Trying to change people's minds is almost always a waste of time, but getting them to at least consider a different opinion for one millisecond has value. I've been getting downvoted like crazy, but I expect that in an echo chamber of a profession mostly made up of people with similar worldviews.

Bro, you need to take a chill pill. You’re the one making personal attacks based on 3 tongue-in-cheek but partly true comments made on an Internet forum. The E-7 is a stopgap, already obsolete piece of crap that shouldn’t be anywhere around a near-peer adversary, and it’s just another example of a failed acquisition process just like the KC-46. Put that on top of, from what I’ve heard, an E-3 community full of toxic ABM leaders (see Tinker OG recently removed from command) that grew up in a fractured system and you have a recipe for disaster. I’m not being a bully or troll, but a realist. Edit: I also like how if somebody says something you disagree with or take personally, they are immediately a “troll”, or “bully”, or “Karen”, or “idiot”. Nobody can make a joke, say something slightly controversial, or poke fun at something without a white knight flying in ready to accuse them of being a troll.

My issue here is that conservatives preach responsible family planning to avoid unwanted pregnancies while simultaneously trying to ban many of the tools that enable responsible family planning.