Lord Ratner

Maybe the right answers to move everybody from Gaza to the west bank. At least then your problem is centralized in one location. That needs to be some sort of definitive action that stands as a long-term consequence to this attack. Whether that means 100,000 people need to die, or the Palestinians need to be in a materially worse position now than they were before the attack, just going in and surgically killing "terrorists" is not going to do it.

Such as?

At least half of the innocent civilians support Hamas. More than that support the destruction of Israel in exactly the manner that Hamas attempted this week. I don't think sparing the civilian population is as obvious as some are acting. Actively wipe out "innocents?" Probably not. But intentionally wipe out everything they need to survive in Gaza to force their expulsion into the rest of the Arab world? Probably. Ignore the collateral risk if you have a legitimate target to hit? Also probably. This is exactly the type of attack Israel can expect now that it succeeded, if they return to the status quo.

Okay, now this is a bit confusing. You don't consider rights and laws to be synonymous, but now it's also not a moral connection? What exactly is a right? If the animal does not have a right to avoid unnecessary suffering, what makes it immoral? Why they are or aren't is simple, because whatever the ruling legislative body is, decided to make it a law. I assume you meant what should or should not be a law, and in that case I think the general guiding principle is that things that have a negative effect on the society, which results in people uninvolved in the act having a reduced level of human flourishing, are things that we should make illegal. Murder is a pretty obvious one. Driving over the speed limit is less obvious, however the in arguable correlation with accident severity makes for an acceptable argument. Drug use is another great example, and one where the libertarians start crashing into the limitations of their own philosophy, mostly because libertarians have the luxury of not living around drug addicts. Do what you want with your own body starts to fall apart when the drug you are taking causes psychotic outbreaks that end with bystanders being hurt or killed. Punishing the drug user after the fact does little to help the person who was killed her their family. On secondary level, accepting that we have chosen to live in a society that provides services for those who are most in need, allowing people to take a drug that will overwhelmingly put them in a position of need is a threat to the solvency of that system. Thus drug laws. Prostitution is yet another area where those in favor of legalization have seldom had any direct experience with actual prostitution. There are some places like Amsterdam that have done what they can to clean up the industry, yet even they have struggled. And somewhere like America, the world of prostitution is one of the clearest examples of predators taking advantage of prey. Yet again, libertarians operate on assumptions that do not jive with reality. In this case, that all humans are capable of protecting themselves. This is simply not true, and many of the women who "voluntarily" sell their bodies are usually under the predatory influence of a sociopathic male. Again, it's a bit difficult to frame this within the context of rights and morals because you have not yet defined what you consider a right. If anything you just confused me more. Oh, and they are also usually hopelessly addicted to drugs, another inconvenient reality for the legalization movement. This is either moral relativism or you're intentionally dodging the question, which means you aren't at all interested in the philosophical discussion. When someone talks about stealing a car, do you feel it is reasonable to assume they are referring to someone who desperately needed the car for a moral use? If you tell me that you are honestly posing that as a rational response, I will believe you, but I will have to be much more meticulous in explaining arguments that normal people do not usually require clarifications on. As for the war hypothetical, was that also confusing? Did you not understand the concept of killing someone as an act of war in accordance with societally accepted rules of warfare? Again, I just need to know how pedantic you require me to be in order to have this philosophical discussion. Not going to lie, considering this: It really doesn't seem like you are engaging in good faith.

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, just say so. You aren't coming off as obvious as you think you are. So... is there a difference between killing a human in a war and killing them to steal their car? Why Is there a moral difference between killing a deer for food, and drowning a cat in a pond because you like the sounds they make as they die? Why?

If left to their own devices, it seems likely that either Israel will eventually be overwhelmed, or they will start annihilating the surrounding Arab states. I don't see how either option is good for the US, and it's certainly more important than Ukraine given the reliance on stable energy markets. Military intervention is probably not the best option, but what do you suggest?

I just we're just arguing semantics at this point. You are not allowed to beat your dog. Depending on how you do it, or the jury at the time, you will go to jail for doing it. If that doesn't mean that your dog has a "Right" then that's fine, but the effect is the same. Both your child and your dog have a right not to be beaten, or at the very least, there is a law preventing you from doing so. They certainly have different rights, but that is because in both instances the line is drawn somewhere between the two absolutes of total and no control, just at different points. It is also illegal in certain states to eat cats and dogs, so those particular animals, both of which you are capable of owning, seem to have "rights" of some sort as well.

Yeah, I kind of agree with lawman on this one, we have certainly unchained our fighting forces to destroy a specific enemy, but that enemy is not a nation. It's a military target It would be fascinating to see how it plays out if we did. Imagine targeting every power production facility in every major city of a developed enemy nation. Or targeting the waste water treatment plants, which there aren't many and they're not hardened. Then just wait to see what a metro area of millions looks like with no functional sewage system. I bet there are tons of horrifying options that are easily targeted.

Who's are they? The state? They do not have agency over their lives. I didn't call them property, but they just certainly are yours, while they are considered minors. In either case that's irrelevant to the point. Children further prove it. You can decide what they eat, but you can't decide to feed them too little. You can home school then, but you *must* educate them. Owning something has never given you absolute control over it in this country.

But that is literally what rules and laws are, drawing lines between two black and white positions. Why are people in the military allowed to murder, yet I cannot murder my neighbor for playing loud music? You are allowed to own property in a neighborhood, yet you are not allowed to cover it in toxic waste. But you are allowed to decide what type of grass you grow on it. But you aren't allowed to let the weeds grow too tall and become a breeding ground for mice. Your children are yours, and yet, like animals, you are not allowed to beat them. But you are allowed to punish them.

I agree with all that. I just think it's more likely that she was implying that all of the Trump supporters are mindless robotic cultists, rather than she actually thinks deprogramming is some sort of solution we should pursue. Just more of the basket of deplorables nonsense.

I have no love for Hillary Clinton, but listening to that quote in the actual interview with full context, it did not sound like she was actually suggesting it some sort of deprogramming regimen. She was expressing exasperation at a phenomenon that she does not understand, and does not know how to counter. That doesn't mean I believe in anything she's arguing, or even that I don't think they would use totalitarian means to get their way, but I'm also not doing to take what was clearly an off the cuff jesting remark as some sort of policy suggestion.

Wrong. They're too mad. In the hierarchy of concerns, classified document mishandling, treating women grossly (but not illegally), cheating on your marriages, lying about nearly everything in your past, or all the other things that Donald Trump does to distinguish himself as a human with little or no character, those things are all subordinate to being called a piece of shit, or a liar, or a rube, or being gaslit, or having your most foundational family values attacked, to be called a racist, or a sexist, you get the idea. American conservatives are furious. And furious people do not see nuance or reason. Until the thing that is making them furious is resolved, they are not going to get caught up in little details like what a miserable human being Donald Trump is. And since the exact same activists, politicians, famous people, and other progressive entities who rebranded the American conservative as some sort of hate spewing, idiotic, predatory, and privileged group are the ones now going after Donald Trump, there is a 0% chance that they are going to see the light. And you know what, the many shortcomings of Donald Trump are in fact very, very, very subordinate to the societal warfare that is being waged by the most privileged and unaccomplished in our country. I honestly don't know that I can vote for Donald Trump again, but there is no aspect where his re-election is worse for the country than what American progressives have done and are continuing to do. My primary concern is that his election will not make the problem any better, because Donald Trump also blinds liberal voters to what The Democratic party has become.

I think the number one threat to the Republican party right now, aside from the usual political machinations in Washington, is the inability of conservative voters to deal with the cognitive dissonance of appreciating the policy successes of Donald Trump contrasted with the fact that he is in fact a piece of shit as a human being.

"I have accepted personal responsibility for my actions by pleading no contest to the remaining reduced charges." I'm not sure not-denying is the same as "accepting responsibility" 😂🤣 She seems like a pain in the ass.

The Slow Mo Guys video on backdrafts is one of their best https://youtu.be/ZyCCWuO0mQo?si=sVyamMSgJPWEvnQm

He answered that question: So for the tanker, if we're talking basic stick and rudder and keeping radio calls, trimming, airport operations, airspace navigation, and other fundamentals honed, then the cheaper smaller plane is a better value. You also have to be competent in the specific landing and handling characteristics of the tanker, and in that case the lowest level and cheapest plane is the tanker. Or perhaps you could have a few tanker variants that don't have any of the refueling systems maintained and it's just a pattern monkey. But the premise is sound. And yeah, the simulator is adequate for a huge percentage of this, which is why the airliners do not train in the aircraft (non-revenue), ever. For fighters you are obviously going to have less capacity to use the simulator, but there's no reason why an F-22 pilot couldn't practice in a much cheaper jet aircraft. Got forbid we actually ran acquisitions in an integrated, forward thinking way, you would buy trainer aircraft that are vastly cheaper yet handle similarly to the MWS's. The flying I did in the T6 improved my KC135 flying far more than my KC135 flying improved my T6 flying.

Okay, yes, this person is clearly not working 911 part time to pay for their mensa membership. But. If you're the pilot that just ejected out of a fighter aircraft and you're sitting in some guy's house calling 911, don't you think you would maybe take a little bit more control over the conversation rather than answer stupid questions that only make the person on the other end more confused? This guy is 47 years old and in the military, so ostensibly has some sort of leadership experience under his belt. If you can't lead one moron into sending an ambulance without a 15 minute discussion about how ejections work, it might not be the 911 operator that's the problem.

"She looks like she wears underwear with dick holes in them" 😂🤣

You needed a catastrophic withdrawal from a 20-year-war to distrust a 4-star?

There are few things douchier than calling yourself a doctor when you aren't in the medical field.

You're there, and your work puts you in a much better position to know, but it's very hard to imagine the response you suggest. Especially considering the history. This is a real question: Are there still reputable groups that believe the pipelines were blown up by Russia? The public narrative seems to have settled on Ukraine-assisted-by-the-US/UK and then the story kinda faded. I'd expect the pro-Ukraine-support crowd (myself as one) to be talking about that more if there was still a credible argument that Russia did it. I remember you implied you saw or were told of very definitive evidence that it was Russia.

That sounds... diminished. Why doesn't the bomber Mafia run the AF anymore?

It was still a bad analogy. The girl at the party made decisions that ignore the reality of the situation she's in. She did not show up with a bucket of date-rape drugs and casually leave them scattered around the room, thinking it wouldn't ever affect her. There's a big difference between questionable *personal* decision making, and making the world worse for other people, then having that come back to bite you. The girl in the sexy dress never deserves to be raped. The politician who fucked up their city for everyone else absolutely deserves to be mugged.

Exact timing? Dunno. We are at a fork in the road between an asset-value-crash and reigniting inflation. I have no clue what the Fed picks, but I don't expect them to let the government go insolvent until they have no choice. That means a new tea-party wave of politicians replacing the entrenched incumbents and forcing the Fed to fix their mess. That too will take time. In the short term, they can't stop inflation and protect the government/stock market/investor class. These are now mutually exclusive interests. So if you want to invest in something, keep an eye on commodities. The government can't control the price of oil, copper, etc. But the safe answer right now is to shovel your money into short-term treasuries. No risk from rate-changes and a pretty good yield right now. Whatever you do, don't sit on cash right now. When the Fed starts cutting rates, move your money into something that will benefit from inflation. Fun Fact: Because the Fed has increased their balance sheet so spectacularly, the only way they are able to keep rates above ~0% is by directly paying the banks and money-market funds to not put their money into treasuries (which would push up the prices and lower the yields/rates). So as we speak, the Fed is paying the banks billions to sit on the reserves that the Fed forced them to take in the first place. If you don't think the system is rigged, your aren't paying attention. But I don't think this madness can go on for too long.