Lord Ratner

Most of the "Marxists" knew nothing about Marx, they just wanted to belong to the intellectual class, which has *always* been infatuated with Marx for the same reason Marx wrote what he did. If only people did what I think is best, we'd live in a Utopia. So no, the dear general is likely not a Marxist. He's either what is historically called a "useful idiot," or a habitual yes-man. As a general, the latter is most probable. But when you are espousing and promoting the theories of proud Marxists, you shouldn't be shocked if you get lumped in with them.

Bro... Given his entire adult life? Have you seen what the AF is like once you make colonel? Being busy is not a sacrifice, especially with the attendant rewards of being a general officer. I know plenty of corporate executives who work every bit as much as the O-6+ class, and more. They miss family events, work on vacation, and also very little sleep. Like the generals, they do it for the pay, power, and prestige. And they aren't bad people for it. They also aren't martyrs. There are good ones and bad ones. But an undying passion for the flag gets you through boot camp, not War College.

He's a tool, like all of them, and he makes bullshit arguments like the best politicians in the world. Why isn't Marx or Lenin on the reading list? First inconsistency. Second, if he's comparing the reading of Marx and Lenin to Kendi (for understanding alternate views), is he acknowledging that all three are morally bankrupt? I assure you he would not claim that about Kendi lest his career be put in jeopardy. Third, if you read Marx and Lenin to learn about communism, wouldn't you read Duke or Jared Taylor to learn about white supremacy? Where are those recommendations? Once again liberal voters are being taken for a ride. CRT, just like anti-racism, has existing literature. You can read it. It's crazy at best, *overtly* racist at worst. But the people who wrote the books and the hacks who promote them lie on TV about the very content they created. It's wild. If you haven't read "How to be an Antiracist" or "White Fragility," maybe don't be so quick to defend them.

Exactly. We have the first amendment because the first thing authoritarians do with discourse they don't like is deem it "misinformation." Yet even now as the same players who fought *hard* to silence anyone who voiced the lab-leak theory admit there is something valid there, they are curiously silent on the idea that silencing voices you believe to be incorrect was a bad idea. I can't wait for the same awkward shuffling and changing of subject over global warming. An entire industry of "experts" addicted to government grants told us the world would be literally doomed if we didn't follow their edicts within a few years, and for decades their models and predictions failed while the theory adapted to the very data that disproved it. You should trust experts for an explanation of what something *is* But there is no such thing as an expert on what you (we) should *do*

You have to define Hoax. The final numbers show COVID-19 as somewhere around 3x as fatal as the flu. And if you're not a senior citizen, pretty much the same threat as the flu. But once upon a time, against the evidence, 3.6% fatality rate was floated. Then there was the transition from reporting fatalities pre-race-riots to new cases post-race-riots. Or the sudden lack of concern for outside congregation when the protests kicked off in June, but don't you dare go to the beach, even though we already knew that outdoor spread was not a threat. Or the masks on masks off debacles. Wear a bandana over your mouth or you hate grandma, even though opening windows would be way more effective. How many times did a random 20-something year old die of COVID make national news, but with no presentation of the statistical likelihood of dying from COVID at that age (virtually zero)? Or what about the whole "you're vaccinated but still need to social distance" nonsense. So yeah, hoax has many applications. I don't recall many serious voices on either side calling the virus fake.

Your fallacy here is that Trump was the original suppositor of the lab leak theory. He was not. If your measure for believing something is your political opposition to someone who repeats it, your filter is broken. Grown ups in media, politics, and science should be able to think about something even though someone they despise said it. And I'm tired of people (you, sure, but lots and lots of people) saying that the problem with Trump is that he lied all the time. No. The problem is that he was a bitter narcissist. He treated people around him poorly. He was ill informed on things he should have known. Trump did not lie more than the rest of the politicians. To say so is to demonstrate an almost unfathomable ignorance or bias... Or both. You probably can't even come up with a Trump lie that was unique to him as a president. Lying is not their job, it's just how they get it.

I dunno man, the prune juice crowd might be holding the total down... 🤣😂

Wait, Biden gets credit for the vaccine rollout that he literally walked into? Remember when he set a goal of 1 million shits per day that had already been met? Trump did a lot of things wrong, but the vaccine rollout was not one of them.

I love ERB. Some of the most clever lyrics in rap outside of Bo Burnham.

Them specifically? No. People at Delta who know them? Yes. Like I said, it was only a few guys qualified on a new plane with a totally FUBAR training process. So every month they started by having their entire schedules bought back by the company for training. At Delta you can double dip, so if you have your schedule bought, then pick up a bunch of green slip trips (200%) to replace it, that's 300% of a normal schedule. At the highest pay rate. At AA there's always a debate over getting contractual provisions that some feel the company would never use. For example, I'd love to see a 300% emergency premium option. The company (especially AA) would *hate* using that. But cancel a full flight instead? No way. It's better to have things in the contract that are highly unlikely to be needed. They are cheap to negotiate for, and chances are you won't see them used. But if they are...

It's funny, in a way. After decades of progressive action to de-shame sexuality, we are now right back to the pre-1960's mindset of hiding any and all evidence of a functional libido. So sex and sexuality, the only thing we have in common with 99.9999% of the other humans out there, is once again taboo. Strange. Be careful when seeking to change the world. You might just succeed.

It's true, but it was an issue with the A350 training capacity that allowed a few (I think 3?) Captains to make a killing. Once they finally fixed the glitch, their incomes returned to "normal."

Crazy isn't what it used to be. I had a serious conversation 2 days ago with my dad about aliens influencing the building of the pyramids. I've flown with captains who believe the Epstein demonic bloodletting conspiracy. It turns out that in the age of information is not difficult or unusual to believe something absurd, even if you are otherwise intelligent and coherent.

The reason: to further their careers and enrich their families. I'm no socialist, far from it, but the AOCs of the world are not entirely wrong. Something is broken. They think it's rich people. I'm more inclined to believe it's politicians. But either way, "we the people" are being Punk'd.

Actually, it protects you from consequences from the government.

What happened?

Yes, exactly. You talked about lacking the moral courage in having an honest discussion. I quoted what you said and gave another example of the phenomenon, since comparison is valuable when discussing such things. It also demonstrates that the phenomenon is not limited to the abortion debate, or the political left. Good talk.

What? Condemning them it's easy. Admitting that your stance on firearms *enables* a higher death count in violent events, yet you support it anyways, is not.

I think he was responding to this And this is the best summation of the debate. When you know you're arguing for something uncomfortable, it's easier to just pretend it's not a real consideration. Pro-gun folks (which I am) do this with mass murder all the time. "But knives kill people too!!" Yeah, dingus, but not as easily. The Vegas Shooter, Quest nightclub, Ft Hood, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc etc... None of those would have had nearly the same fatality rate with a knife. Guns should still be legal. Freedom is paid for in blood, and it's always less that the blood price of tyranny.

Overwhelmingly the people I've met who have adopted have been pro-life. Most have been deeply religious.

Well it's not. Narrow body example. I fly highly inefficient trips. 2-4 hours of flying for 10:30 pay, two days. So to get a full month, I do 8 of those for 84 hours. 16 days of work, 16-32 flight hours, 8 nights away from home. A highly efficient trip might pay 13:00 for a 2-day or 19:00 for a three day. So two of the first and three of the second equals 83 hours. 13 days of work, 78-83 flight hours, 8 nights away from home. A third efficiency option are 8:00 turns (single day, two legs). Fly 11 of those, 88 flight hours for 88 hours of pay, home every night. Goes very senior. I'm getting a much better pay/flight-hour, but pilots two and three get more days off. And a lot of guys I fly with who do just that will say "I don't mind flying the hours, I want more time off." More power to them. 8-hour turns are my hell. What we want is not what they want. Thank God, because I wouldn't get what I want if the 12,000 pilots senior to me wanted it too.

So you have a counter survey of biologists or scientists to cite?

Can't do that without a lot of information about you. As an example, most consider AA to have the worst contract. And even if we had profit sharing like Delta, our profits were far below theirs. But. I'm the type who enjoys loopholes and technicalities, so our contract (and the associated chaotic operations) are fabulous for me. I don't want the maximum income, I want the maximum pay/hours-worked. Depending on if you count deadheads (when you ride with the passengers) as working, in the last twelve months I've made 2.7 hours for every hour I flew (3.5 if you don't count deadheads). That's on a non-reserve schedule, so I chose my days off and never have to take a trip I don't want. Each contract will offer different opportunities. Are you the guy who just wants to get a schedule and fly it? Make the most money possible? Spend the most nights at home? Fly widebody international? Be closer to family? It's hard to even know what you would want to do when you haven't been in the industry yet, which is why most will tell you to just pick the airline that has a domicile where you want to live. If you'll live anywhere, then look at the seniority projections, but realize those are about as reliable as the weather.

Obviously the definition of life is not the appropriate framing for the conversation, especially within the context of a single celled organism on mars. I'm sure you would also concede that a spider, a mosquito, a cow, and aging family pet, or a mouse would be considered "life." We do not debate these intentional life-endings with nearly the same furor. Ironically, if you were to correlate political ideologies, the people who are against the murder of non-human-animal "life' are equally for the protection of abortion. But that's because the environmental movement is more anti-human than it is pro-earth. Tangent. Each side of the abortion debate is trying to frame it using precisely chosen words to bolster their argument. Every single person knows exactly what the debate is about. Killing a fetus. It doesn't matter what we would do on Mars with a single cell. It also doesn't matter that a fetus can't function on its own. Debate the issue, not the semantics. And in case it seems like I'm waffling, I'm personally against all abortions that aren't for rape or health concerns for the mother or child. However I concede, as an atheist, that my views are based on a personal analysis of humanity and not some magical graybeard in the sky telling me what to do. In such instances where the population is clearly split, the tie goes to the citizen. So I would make abortion legal up the the point of viability (currently hovering around 22 weeks, so let's call it 25 for now). After viability only serious risk to the mother or child would be ground for an abortion. A middle ground solution to a deeply divided issue. But like so many conversations in American politics today, we now spend more time talking about the semantics of the issues than the issue itself.

Take the pay cut. Live like many Americans have to for their whole lives, and in a couple years you're golden. It's worth it. You are choosing between doing something that makes you miserable and living a median lifestyle. You may be surprised how easy it is to be very happy making very little. And in a few years, you'll be making a ton.