Lord Ratner
-
Posts
2,670 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
152
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by Lord Ratner
-
No rush. I know we're about 80%+ on the same page here.
-
I don't see how your view of systemic racism (which I disagree with as racism, but completely agree with IRT the societal trap that is keeping certain black communities stuck in a cycle of crime and violence) relates to the idea that police training is too quick to kill someone (regardless of skin color) who does not posses a firearm.
-
Are you implying that the shootings in referring to included aggressive behavior? Again, did you watch the video I posted? Is that "beyond retarded?" What about Philando Castille? How about the cop who shot someone because she walked into the wrong apartment? How about the 13 year old with autism? This one?: These aren't even impaired people. Our cops are too jumpy. That's not their fault, but it still needs to be fixed. These shootings do not represent the average cop, but they represent a problem none the less.
-
Source? Last I heard the DNI explicitly stated that nothing indicated the laptop was foreign disinformation. That's just one voice, but it's the most informed one. I think at this point we can disregard anything that comes from paid contributors (Dem and Rep) who once upon a time were in the bureaucracy. James Clapper alone has done more to discredit that demographic than any talking head in recent memory. Edit: For transparency, I believe the laptop is real. I do not believe Hunter Biden dropped it off at that repair shop.
-
I was with you until here, now I just think you're full of it. Maybe I was in a different Air Force, or maybe you're one of those Colonels who suddenly found the enlightenment of sobriety only after you had your fun and could keep a bottle of Scotch tucked away in the desk drawer while you counsel young pilots on a 0-0-1-3 drinking philosophy neither you nor your peers ever followed, but either way you're full of shit. Was the kid in that video threatening anyone? I get it, you're close to cops. Note that I haven't blamed cops for any of this. The entire enterprise needs to be demilitarized. Other countries have figured it out. If it means more cops (which it will), then good. Let's do it. We can take the money from SS, Medicare, anywhere really, I'm all for it. But there is a problem to solve. And it has nothing to do with the horseshit fantasy of "systemic racism." As usual, the politicians want something (law and order) without paying for it (training, adequate manning, expensive non-lethal equipment). The cops get to suffer for that, which means the citizens suffer too. Doesn't mean there isn't a problem to solve, and the outright denial from the right is causing the left to look for some reason for the denial of a clear problem. They have erroneously settled on hidden racism as the answer.
-
In general? Over all time maybe. Certainly compared to the Air Force. But the ground pounders were absolutely expected to get hurt. Doesn't mean you tried to, doesn't mean we wanted them to, but we all know it would happen. And they didn't get to unload on some Iraqi shop owner because he reached for something. That would protect them but damage the mission. Policing is the same. As I said, in a one on one engagement, the cop should shoot the guy with the knife. But are we going to pretend that the risk stays the same regardless of the number of cops going against one assailant? That's forced ignorance. If this guy had a knife, would these cops be in mortal danger?: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/us/police-shooting-video-arizona.html Sorry, but I don't believe in that vision of American policing. And if you think it's as simple as "just do what the cops say, you won't get shot," have you ever been drunk? Ever had a cop pointing a gun at your face? Hard to think clearly. Shouldn't be a death sentence. Sim's video is a great example of how, overwhelmingly, our cops do the right thing. And neither of those cops died. They should have tazed him from the start, and shot him once he charged. But let's not pretend like they're all like that. Reaching for something that might be a gun is not the same as having a gun. Not sure where you're coming from with the disability payments. I never made that argument, don't support it, so I'm not going to defend it.
-
We agree, but individualism is one of the key elements that made us (and thus the rest of the world) thrive. We do not believe in responsibility to the collective. That doesn't mean we don't cooperate, we just do it on our terms. Numb nuts on his 37 acres is just an isolationist. Glad he had the freedom to do it, but it doesn't push the society forward, and if everyone wanted that, we'd get nowhere.
-
I side with the cops, of course, as they are playing by the rules. But the rules are stupid. Two cops should be able to deal with a guy with a knife, unless it's a ninja. They might get hurt, but that's the job. Hell, this is actually a case where "shoot him in the leg" is a realistic COA. Or taze him. Or pepper spray. Or use a bolas. If he starts stabbing someone, then yeah, kill him. Michael Brown was a good shoot. And when it's an evenly matched fight, the cops should use their guns to make it uneven. But every time I see multiple cops drawing on one guy without a gun, it just seems wrong. Remember that kid in the hotel with nothing but basketball shorts and a T-shirt? Like six cops obliterated him because he was "reaching" for something. Absurd. When did the cops become such pussies? They aren't, of course, but the rules are sure making it look that way. The old men who got knocked over during the protests were disgusting too. Really couldn't think of a way to handle that? Throw him over your shoulder, drag him to the truck, but just knock him on his ass? Police departments with old MRAPs. Camouflage. It's just wrong. American policing does. not. have a racism problem. But it does have a brutality problem. Conservatives need to acknowledge that. But that's not going to happen while liberals misrepresent every infraction as racist. And so the dance continues.
-
Individualism, yes. It's why we are different from so many other civilizations. Isolation, no.
-
Fuck that, if they don't put it out, it doesn't exist. So far the only interesting part of the story is the dude who is publicly claiming that Joe Biden was aware and a part of Hunter's money-making schemes. That should be pursued. The sexting and other shit is just noise. There's no shortage of screwed up politicians' kids. However I personally think it stretches the imagination to claim that Joe didn't know his kid was using his name and position for personal gain. If there was ever an argument that Joe wasn't fully a swamp creature, and I don't think there was, it should be laid to rest.
-
I'm curious about that as well. I could use some feedback on this: I laughed a lot more at "Trump's" lines than "Biden's," but I want to believe it's because they are funnier and based on exaggerations of Biden's flaws, whereas the lines against Trump are more preachy and issue oriented, i.e. meant to have a political message as an undertone. I thought the Hillary vs Trump one was much better.
-
1st female Air Force combat vet in run for congress
Lord Ratner replied to F-15E WSO's topic in Squadron Bar
When I was at USAFA one of his POW mates told me that they don't talk to McCain, but he wouldn't say more than that. He was a terrible politician. Very similar to Biden IMO, cared more about being a deal maker than about the contents or quality of the deal. -
Yeah that's exactly my point. He mentioned social vs biological monogamy, but I'm not sure what the distinction is. There are no species that are 100% monogamous. Mostly I was commenting on the idea that human monogamy isn't natural, which doesn't make much sense as it was presented.
-
Yeah that's social monogamy, though, right? I'm not sure what biological monogamy means. Even within those species there are instances of non-monogamy, so it isn't "biological."
-
There are no instances of "biological monogamy" that I'm aware of. Except perhaps a species where the male dies during mating? I don't think that's what we're talking about. The rest of your first paragraph isn't addressing the natural part of the claim. Just because something is rare does not mean it doesn't exist, or in this case isn't natural. I would argue that humans are pretty rare when compared to other species. You're also distinguishing between social and evolutionary benefit, which is not a particularly clear distinction. Sure we can point to being bipedal as an "evolutionary" benefit and forming tribes as a "social" benefit, but both are traits that manifested by chance and were screened against a harsh world to see which succeeded and procreated successfully. Monogamy is one such example. Being social does not make it unnatural, unless dolphin pods or lion prides are also unnatural. And in our case, the evolutionary benefits of monogamy are huge, on account of our massive development period. The biggest impact is on the survival of the offspring, and since we don't have litters, that's key. Just look at the rates of unwed childbirth and single parent households over the past 100 years. As you said, the social reinforcement of monogamy amps up in the 1700's, and accelerated (though the most prosperous period in the history of the species) through the mid 1900's. It is now in decline, and the social costs are rather obvious. Just look at the correlation between success of the child and the parents relationship. Many of the problems attributed to race by racists are better correlated with family decline, which has everything to do with well intentioned programs with unforeseen effects, as well as the criminal justice system. Another conversation. There are tons of instances of various degrees of polygamist societies, but the most prosperous and reproductive have been monogamist, which is exactly how natural evolutionary pressure expresses itself.
-
1st female Air Force combat vet in run for congress
Lord Ratner replied to F-15E WSO's topic in Squadron Bar
Which is standard political fare, though I'd love to hear the reasons why. To me he seems like the first in the new generation of intellectual conservatives who actually has a shot at becoming the president. Obviously the eye patch and amazing military story are a huge part of that, but also he is taking a considered attempt at being more than just a talking head. His podcast is quite interesting, as is Ted Cruz's. He seems like one of the few clean politicians on either side right now, I hope he stays that way. I think he would win in a landslide. -
Monogamy is literally natural to humans, it's what we adapted to based on our environment. While comparisons to primates are sometimes useful, the differences between them and us are exactly why they aren't humans. Monogamy exists in other species; it is natural there as it is in humans. In fact the slow collapse of monogamy has introduced a tremendous amount of conflict to humanity, which we are overcoming with technology, but we've mostly just broken the natural incentive structure and created a bunch of single-parent households. The "freedom" from monogamy has not led to what you would expect. The polygamists are still a niche and highly unstable demographic. Instead we just have a whole lot of people who are unhappy with their lack of a monogamist partner.
-
I'd like to add something here. I wish you non-AA pilots could take a peek at the political threads on our union message board. Seriously, BaseOps is some of the best, most respectful, nuanced dialog I've seen online. If everyone was as curious and calm as the folks here, the US would be in a great spot. Trump wouldn't be president and Biden wouldn't be the (D) candidate. I hope the perspectives shared here are making it into real world conversations
-
Cussing out the waitress is treating people poorly. Kicking a dog is treating animals poorly. Brake checking cars on the highway for fun is treating people poorly. What's next, he's sexist for not having dinner alone with women who aren't his wife? Having a completely mainstream opinion on the nature of marriage (that I personally disagree with) is not the same. This is the *perfect* illustration of why so many conservatives are at odds with the left, and stuck voting for Trump. Run-of-the-mill liberals conflate things like a stance on gay marriage with treating gay people poorly. Being against illegal immigration is xenophobia. Being against abortion is anti-woman. Being against lockdowns is anti-science. The problem is that now the conservatives (voters, not politicians) are adopting the same strategy, all exacerbated by social media bubbles. Not good for anyone.
-
Perhaps you and Guardian are more alike than you think. I guess I don't get the Pence thing. I'm atheist, yet I'm not confused by Christians who stands opposed to homosexuality. I disagree, of course, and have been pro-gay-marriage since I was in school, but is it really confusing when people follow the doctrine of their religion, as they have been doing for a couple thousand years? Find me one example of Pence treating a homosexual poorly. Same goes for Romney. Two better men than 99% of the political class, yet maligned for a widely held and peaceful belief... You call it "hate" the same way many on the left misuse "racist" as an attack. The words matter. Policy and philosophy differences are not hate. You can be against illegal immigration without hating immigrants. You can be against the second amendment without hating gun owners. And you can be against gay marriage without hating on the gays. I can never tell if you are intentionally obtuse or not. On the one hand you immediate locate and call out logical fallacies or unsupported hyperbole in other people's posts. But then you fill your own posts with the same. It's confusing. But I'm easily confused 🤷♂️
-
Have I ever defended Trump as honest or consistent? I think I've been pretty consistent that he's awful. I look at results, because I haven't had faith in the humans that go to Washington for a long time. The presidential results are shockingly good compared to how shockingly bad the actual presidential human is. If I voted on personality I would go for Biden then be shocked (shocked I tell you) that he was making money from his drug addict soon selling their name to the worst countries on Earth. As for Pence, completely disagree. He's boring, but he's also the only one of the four who has any philosophical basis backing his positions, and he's also the only one who is actually a good person. Best case scenario is Trump wins, then steps down on Jan 2nd.
-
That's all will and good, but your standard is one sided. If anyone had put that level of concern into allegations about Trump, there'd be no Mueller report. Hell, the story surrounding Flynn and the FBI is 100x more substantiated, a true conspiracy, and what you would think the press would go bananas over, the government going after a citizen. How's the coverage of that investigation compared to the non-stop Mueller coverage? It's not that I care that they suck, it's that they suck unequally.
-
You're being intentionally ignorant, which is not like you. What part of the story is difficult to believe? And how is it less believable than the many Trump scandals you have not had the same standard on? Are we really going to pretend that a moron who has been in the senate for four decades being corrupt is a surprise? The surprise will be if it's not true.
-
I always found this argument amazing. My wife and I make restaurant-quality food 5/7 nights a week, and it's usually between $5-10 in ingredients per person. And we only buy meat from whole foods. What are people buying at grocery stores that's more expensive than restaurants? Filet mignon?
-
The problem I have is that they aren't doing much to push the world forward. If you look at where innovation comes from, it is vastly, vastly disproportionate. If you were to remove the United States from the equation, or cripple our output to look more like the European countries, the advancement of the planet as a whole would be handicapped. My political philosophy boils down to about 75% caring about what's going to make the world better in 50 years, and 25% making sure that the people who are here now are not suffering unnecessarily. I don't care how the German people are doing right now, my question is are there grandkids going to be better off because of the German way of life, or the American way of life? And yeah, the fact that no one on the left wants to acknowledge that all of these European countries are able to do what they're doing solely due to the largesse of American military spending is rather frustrating.
