Smokin

Yes. Although if an intelligent alien species showed up at our doorstep, it would probably not be wise... The problem with the consciousness, agency, and choice argument is that I understand that all three of those are present to a surprising degree in many of the more intelligent life forms. Monkeys have recognized themselves in the mirror, which seems to me to be a self-consciousness. Octopus have shown problem solving capabilities that exceed some first graders. Similarly, under this argument, someone in a coma may no longer meet the definition of human life. This is kinda my point, that any argument that denies life is begun at conception has to have a definition that is extremely nuanced and with assumptions that will quickly change based on technological advancements. This is not a good way to decide possibly one of the most important foundations of the legal system; who is entitled to protection by the government?

If we were created, then humans have intrinsic value simply because we are human and were created in the image of God. The biologically indisputable fact that human life begins at conception confers the automatic intrinsic value of human life at the point of conception. Thus the pro-life side should not and cannot compromise. This both creates a problem and, at the same time, greatly simplifies the position of the pro-life camp. No compromise is morally permissible. The problem of life and value with the pro-choice folks is that they ultimately have very little, if any, ground to stand on with life and value, which is why they will always call the baby a "fetus". Fetus is simply Latin for 'young' or 'offspring' and the pro-choice group has picked that term because it has less emotion; it is an intentional obscuration by obfuscation. Ultimately, if our ancestors evolved from single cell organisms in a primordial soup, then the only value life has is the usefulness of that life from the beholder's perspective. Any other value is illogical with the theory of evolution and is simply stealing from the Christian worldview. If humans were not created, than what makes our lives any more valuable than any life? For that matter, what makes the normal human cells in my body more valuable than cancer cells? Only because they are more useful to me because they keep me alive. Such a viewpoint is incompatible with civilized society, but that is the logical end of the pro-choice argument. Similarly, the viability argument seems like nonsense. The left may argue that human life begins when the "offspring" is "viable", but it is absurd to base a definition of something so important to what we are based on something that can change. What is "viable"? Is a premature baby viable at 20 weeks because some have survived with modern medical care? In 20 years will the new standard become 20 days because of medical advances? Is a two year old not viable because he wouldn't last a week without parents actively caring for him? I used to be pro-choice because I looked at the issue with an excessively cold 'what is the best for society' viewpoint. From that viewpoint, unwanted babies are not best for society as a whole, so abortion should be legal up to the point of delivery. That viewpoint, by the way, is largely the viewpoint that got Planned Parenthood started and placed in primarily poor minority areas. Once I became a Christian and re-evaluated the issue with a Christian worldview, I realized I was looking at the issue from the wrong direction and flipped my position 180 almost overnight.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/turkey-terrorizes-nations-capital-maryland Only in a neutered place like DC... that turkey would end up on a dinner table where I live.

United will as well. One move to a base.

The solution to bad speech is good speech. It always has been and always will be. Not regulation, but more and better speech. A paper from an obscure associate law professor is hardly a convincing proof. There are exceptions to the First Amendment (for example, can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater (Justice Holmes - far more authoritative than one of 10,000+ associate professors)), but the Supreme Court has consistently held that any restrictions to the First Amendment is reviewed under Strict Scrutiny. Justice Souter said, Strict Scrutiny "leaves few survivors", as in it is exceptionally difficult to pass a law restricting content of speech. We as country have moved far away from what made us a country to begin with and then made us great (not a reference to Trump. Clearly we are/were an exceptional country and are rapidly moving away from our roots as a republic). How many Americans today would agree with the sentiment that "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? As others have pointed out, how can a government agency be the arbitrators of truth? 500 years ago this agency would have worked to shut down talk that the earth was round. 200 years ago the abolitionist movement would have been shut down for claiming that people should not be slaves. To claim that you have the corner on what is truth is the pinnacle of arrogance and the end of a republic. I am not exaggerating and not giving an emotional argument. If this board stands, our great experiment in a republic is done because you cannot have a republic where the government determines what can and cannot be said.

Too bad there wasn't someone from the guard there to tell him "I appreciate your recruiting efforts for the guard, but we don't need the help. We already have plenty of guys rushing us trying to escape toxic leaders like you." How have generals become so clueless that they can actually think like that and then be so dumb as to say it out loud in front of an audience of fighter pilots? Is he really a Manchurian Candidate intending to destroy "his Air Force"?

To put it simply, they were basically their own county and city government with regards to almost everything infrastructure related. They ran zoning, roads, maintenance, building inspections, code enforcement, etc. That basically allowed them to do what they wanted not only with the property they owned, but other their neighbor's property as well. This was enormously beneficial to the company. They did it all how they wanted and as efficiently as a for profit company does business. Now an inefficient government that is not just going to always do their bidding is going to take over all those functions like most other places in the country. That means they will end up paying more and not always getting what they want. That also means hotels, which Disney could have prevented before, can now buy and build on property next to the park and now compete more directly with Disney hotels. Disney will end up paying more in taxes, have more direct competition, and have far less say about what happens around them. All that will almost certainly hurt their bottom line. The other thing that blows my mind with this is how large companies keep supporting the left. The left is generally against big business, against free capitalism, for increased taxes, and for increased government regulation. For example, Bernie Sanders has tried to reverse Disney's purchase of other companies. When will companies learn to ignore their vocal activist shareholders and just do business?

Yes the county will take on the debt, but that debt will be paid off by the taxes levied on Disney property. The county will have to increase their personnel, again at the cost in taxes, which will mostly be paid by Disney. The left is trying to claim this is going to be a huge cost to the people that live in that county. I doubt it.

By the way, I'm at 13 months and counting, so hopefully the e-file speeds things up considerably. Or even better, just allow you to buy it without the paperwork.

Pretty sure it has already started. https://eforms.atf.gov/login;referrer=%2Fhome Looks like there are already links to start filing the forms online.

Nice try, but I have a masters degree in history, so I have opened a history book or two or hundreds or thousands. I agree and understand that calling yourself something does not mean that you enact that system. But, as others have pointed out, the Nazis were not pure socialists, but their economic system of governance was much more towards the socialist side than the capitalist side. Some have claimed that Hitler actually privatized large parts of the German economy, such as the railroads, but it should be noted that new majority stakeholder that benefited from that privatization was an early supporter of Hitler and was heavily involved in government activities. That is hardly a free market. Germany moved significantly away from a capitalist society under the Nazi rule and even "private" (Lufthansa, BMW, etc) companies were not free to do as they desired in a capitalist free market but were often directed what to do and how to do it by the Nazi government. That is strongly on the socialist side of the economic spectrum, thus it is reasonable that the Nazis when they called themselves socialists and were in fact socialists. Also, as others have pointed out, politics are often too complicated to put on a simple linear model. But if you were to make a simplified American political thought process on a linear spectrum, a larger and more invasive government is the left side, and a smaller and less invasive government would be on the right side. While greatly simplified, the Nazis would clearly fall on the far left in this model.

So apparently if you want to be in shape, you're a Hitler Youth? Also, how did the left succeed in pulling the switch-a-roo on making the Nazis right wing? Last I checked the official party title was the National Socialist German Workers Party. Only a the modern American liberal could come up with something so absurd as a Socialist Workers party being right wing.

CE requires a unit to have ownership of you. If you retire and no one gains you, either government or private sector, you age out of CE and your clearance lapses. However, there is a window of either 1 or 2 years for you to get gained by someone else. Probably not long enough to go to school and then get hired with a clearance, but plenty long if you are going to transition fairly directly to private sector or GS type stuff. It is not like the old 10 year clearance for regular secret where you could get a re-investigation a year prior to retirement and be good for most of a decade.

The fact that he warned the west doesn't make it the west's fault that he invaded a sovereign country without even a hint of a pretext. Your argument is basically the same as "she wore a mini-skirt, so she was asking to get raped". Not ok.

I really hope you're right, but I think the last 24 hours have shown that Putin is switching strategies and is no longer trying to minimize civilian deaths. He's shelling major cities with absolutely zero military value other than avoiding urban combat. But, even with that as an excuse, that's a poor one as history has shown that shelled cities are just as defend-able as intact ones. That does not mean that nukes are a logical next step, but the war going poorly for him does not mean the war will continue to go relatively well for Ukrainian citizens. On the contrary, the worse the war goes for Putin, the worse it is going to get. This is an ego driven war and a totalitarian leader with an ego in a losing war is a dangerous thing.

Had a taxi in there where we literally never talked to ground. The freq was so busy that every time I tried to key the mic, the controller started talking. Finally, the capt just taxied to the gate (landed on the inside runway, so didn't have to cross any runways). I kept waiting for the CPO to call, but I guess no one noticed.

If the current trend on the ground continues a couple more days, Ukraine should have a return of control to all of Ukraine as preconditions to peace talks. The sanctions from the EU (finally) and the weapons being shipped to Ukraine (finally) should only make Ukraine's position better and better as time goes. Maybe even the US could chip in something eventually when Biden gets back from vacation/cryo treatments. If Putin wants to dig in, he might find himself in serious trouble at home.

With the Ukrainians doing this well on their own, imagine what they could be doing with a little help. Putin clearly miscalculated. Think he intended to show that Russia was back and the USSR resurrection is inevitable. Instead, he is showing that Russia is having a hard time conquering more than 100 miles of a country less than 10% of their size. Rather than scaring the west with Putin's military juggernaut, this should embolden us to action.

Russia's just threatened Sweden and Finland. As much as I don't want this war to spread, one way to end Russia as we know it is for them to over-extend. The war is clearly not going as well as they thought it would and maybe they don't have quite the military we thought they did and might be on opportunity to send a real message. Admitting another country to NATO as response to Russia invading Ukraine would be a power move that would get Putin's attention. But that would take balls, so we won't do it.

They've threatened nukes just if another country intervenes IN UKRAINE. If we launched an attack against Russia itself, even if everyone saw it as just against their leadership, it would be World War III. Imagine Russia sending a cruise missile against the White House. We see him as a criminal, clearly enough people in Russia see him as their leader, otherwise he'd be hanging from a bridge.

For what it's worth, Russia has actually been invaded comparatively few times compared to most European countries in the last 400 years. While understanding their thought process is important, it is equally important to not to develop Stockholm syndrome and excuse their attack today because Napoleon invaded them back in the 1800s.

Did he discover the problem while skiing past the Swedish women's team, again? Brilliant. Better to finish there than in 24th place...

Overall, their product has gone downhill considerably over the last 6-9 years. Used to be great and way ahead of the competition. Now it is mediocre at best. All the disadvantages of a virtual bank with almost no advantages over the standard commercial big bank. I'd move everything now, but that's a pain. Once I retire, I'm probably done with them. I also noticed my dividend basically disappeared and everything started the downhill slide about the time they started putting ads on TV. Strange coincidence....

You're right, we are still the richest country by far. And while I don't think we should always be the only cop in the world, if we don't help defend a friend's house when we see someone about to break in, how long until our house is next? We are still richer than we think if we straightened out our priorities a bit. I think we are able, or at least could be able if we wanted to be money-wise. The real question is, are we willing?

Gulfstream is working on a similar concept, except the overall aspect ratio is variable due to basically a large pitot that extends/retracts almost the entire length of the airplane. Retracted for taxi/takeoff, extends in flight to create the quiet boom aspect ratio.