Smokin

As has been said, the hiring decrease is purely due to aircraft availability not demand. A problem on the supply side will drive ticket prices up and the airlines are going to max fly everything they have to capitalize on those high ticket prices. That will likely take more pilots per aircraft than was the previous norm. Plus, the mandatory retirements alone will force hiring unless the airlines want to shrink considerably. The big three are going to average losing around 500-800 pilots per year to mandatory retirement each year for the next 6-9 years. I recall hearing the furlough math during COVID that most furloughs have been around 13% of the total pilot pool and that if the furlough is less than 18 months, the airline is better off just paying people to stay home. Even if Delta wants to shrink by 13% (which is highly unlikely), all they have to do is wait a bit and retirements will take care of that in a much less disruptive way. I don't think any of this will happen. Hiring will slow with occasional pauses, but I don't see it stopping for a long time and I highly doubt a furlough. We've had an entirely unprecedented hiring wave, it had to end sometime. I think United's current hiring is back to their historical norms and my money is on it picking rapidly back up once the aircraft start arriving again. As long as demand is high, the airlines want to meet that demand.

Where's the puking response? It is amazing that so many people are eager to become vegetarians, constantly tell you about it as if that make superior or they project that you care, and then they go to extreme efforts to still eat "meat". If I give up eating vegetables because they're far more likely to give you food poisoning than meat, you won't find me making pretend broccoli out of my deer burger.

I am also concerned about the potential ways that the libs will try to push this doctrine, but one saving item for this is that there is a court hearing in order to issue a violence restraining order. The part I'm worried about is how the libs will try to set up kangaroo court hearings for "violence" as a restraining order is a temporary measure so the evidence threshold is pretty low. A liberal city or state could set up a special court system to handle these requests and pack those courts with anti-gun judges and use that for their gun confiscation efforts.

In a much more likely scenario that starts WWIII, China used axes and spears against a Philippine ship, wounding one sailor. Significant escalation from previous water cannons and such. Would be very easy to imagine the US being called on to honor the mutual defense treaty with the Philippines if a sailor is killed. If stuff like this continues then its only a matter of time until someone dies and then tough decisions to be made. https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/only-pirates-do-this-china-wields-axes-and-knives-in-south-china-sea-fight-c2467248?mod=hp_lead_pos9

As well as someone that signs up for a 10 year pilot commitment and then wants out 3 years later. You can apply the same 'chick at a frat party' to that scenario.

No, but I'm still trying to find parts to turn my existing Form 1 guns into this. Looks like the perfect truck gun.

Wait, is this a thing? I've never heard of this. Is it a requirement or a recommendation if you have blood pressure or some other ekg issue?

That may be, but the USSR had roughly twice the population available that Russia has now. And Ukraine seems to be a far deadlier conflict. If I recall correctly, the Soviets claimed roughly 15K dead in Afghanistan, so likely 2-3 times that number. I've seen estimates of Russian casualties in Ukraine pushing a half mil. 500k casualties might be too high, but I don't think there's any doubt that they're over 100k dead, which makes the war 2-5 times deadlier depending on the estimates in 1/3 the time with half the population to draw from.

I have always thought we should be able to buy any firearm that is standard issue for every US infantry. So, under the current norms, that would be a 3 round burst, but not full auto. However, there is a considerable argument to be made that there should be absolutely no restriction as long as it is reasonable that the weapon could be used to defend our homes, cities, and states against a tyrannical government. That would mean artillery, tanks, and even fighters. That has historical precedent as our country was founded by a revolution that started when the British tried to take military grade weapons including artillery. The British did not march to Concorde to confiscate pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles.

Putin isn't afraid to have people die for him, but he is afraid of losing power. So far he has looked at this as a pride issue and won't back down because he might not look invincible. Problem is, he invaded a smaller country and hasn't won, so his people are already seeing that maybe he isn't as powerful as he thinks he is. That is absolutely true of the west. I don't think anyone thought that the war would last more than about six weeks, let alone multiple years. And many have looked at Russia as a never ending horde of people to throw into the front lines. Russia may have a population that is 4x that of Ukraine, but Russia started emptying prisons a long time ago and Ukraine just started. Also, Russia is sending troops to war while Ukraine is fighting at home. I would think that you'd have a much larger percentage of the population able and willing to fight on your home turf. Then add in the casualty ratio and I'm not sure it's so certain that Russia will be able to hold out for years longer as some seem to think. It will be interesting to see what happens inside Russia as this continues to drag out. Even if Putin doesn't care, families do. And even if that doesn't make it to his level, the economic cost of the shrinking population (was already shrinking before) has to be nearly crippling.

I know that many people are about as interested in Constitutional law as they are about internal politics of Bolivia, but anyone that is a public servant and particularly those responsible for law enforcement should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and how local, state, and federal laws work under the Constitution. If those cops had taken a Constitutional law class (should be mandatory for law enforcement), they would have known that what they were being told to do is illegal. You are morally and legally obligated to not follow an illegal order. You shouldn't just do what you're told and wait for a judge to sort it out. I am not anti-police. I am very pro law enforcement. But when cops break they law, they become traitors to their responsibility to the public and that is far worse than a run of the mill criminal.

The Constitution preempts any and all state laws including business licenses. It doesn't matter what law a state passes allowing police to search businesses. Just like a state cannot pass a law saying National Guard troops can be lodged in someone's home without consent. A butcher shop is subject to state inspections, but those inspections are consented to. If an inspector shows up, wants to do an inspection, is refused, and then continues anyway and arrests the person for not complying, that is an unlawful search and wrongful arrest. The state can immediately revoke the butcher license, but they cannot continue a search (or "inspection") after being turned down without a warrant. In this case the police should have said 'fine, you won't let us in, we'll suspend your license'. As soon as they forced their way in anyway, they became the bad guys.

Seriously? I'm assuming that you're military and have actually read the Constitution that you've sworn to protect. Police don't conduct "inspections". They are clearly searching the store without a warrant, which is against the Constitution. They arrested a man for not complying with their illegal search, which is a wrongful arrest. Very likely they broke some things in the process, like the cop going over the counter by sitting on a glass case and other guys forcing the door open that is designed to keep people out. Every one of these cops should be fired and then arrested for breaking and entering. The modern tyrannical police state has broken the public faith and the only way to restore that faith is to hold themselves accountable for following the law they pretend to enforce.

I get what you're saying and in general agree, but closing the gap won't eliminate the debt. We have a deficit and debt problem. Killing the deficit would decrease the debt growth to only interest, which would be a significant victory in these absurd times. But I don't think a 5% surtax that is only applied to the debt would even cover the interest at this point. The interest alone was pushing 1 trillion last year. If we balanced the budget and found an extra trillion in the seat cushions, that would only stop the debt from growing, wouldn't pay off a penny. We'd still owe $267K per taxpayer.

This. We cannot tax our way out of this mess. Our current debt is approaching $267,000 per taxpayer. Or about 30% more than last year's GDP. You'd have to have a 100% federal tax rate on absolutely everything, not just those who currently pay taxes, for an entire year and we still would be in debt. To say it another way, the entire US population would have to give all their income for an entire year to the Feds. And state, county, and local governments would have to also work for free for the year. And that would still only pay off 69% of our debt.

The best college football teams have a good percentage of the starters with a rap sheet. If a team isn't having to bail a few players out each season, they likely aren't winning either. Not an endorsement, just a fact.

As I understand it, they were supposed to be executing a search warrant, not arrest warrant. And the presumption of innocence is not just the court, it is the entire criminal justice system and those working for it, not me. He was suspected of a non-violent offense. Maybe his actions generated violence down the line, but no one has accused him of a violent act prior to his door being kicked in. That is a vitally important part. If he were suspected of a violent crime, then the ATF actions would be entirely logical. But he wasn't, and they weren't. It appears to me based on the evidence I've seen that this was either some of the grossest police negligence and stupidity to execute a search warrant in the manner they did or it was intentional. I cannot believe that even an ATF new hire that hasn't finished the academy, or whatever pretense of training they send these guys to, would consider the method they used to be reasonable. So, the only logical conclusion is they intentionally did they actions they did in order to incite the logical response of the homeowner in order to generate a violent event. Maybe there are other options, I just can't think of any based on the evidence available. I totally understand that is a serious accusation, but it is the only logical one. You say he was the bad guy, and he likely was. Again, now we'll never know because all we have are ATF allegations. Many people have had terrible allegations made against them by government agencies that later were shown to be false. But I haven't heard anyone accuse him of kicking in the door of someone in the dark and killing them. He's not the only bad guy in this scenario.

I don't think anyone on here is saying he was a saint or even a good person. But we don't ignore government over reach because the victim of that over reach was a criminal. What we are saying is the government for all practical purposes murdered a US citizen. A US citizen who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He cannot be proven guilty now because he was murdered by the government. There have been many instances of these no knock warrants being served to the wrong address. The government would have also then murdered a random citizen because the ATF, local police, FBI, etc want to pretend they're SEAL Team 6 attacking the Bin Laden house when stopping him as he walked out of his office at work would have been equally effective and had near 0% risk.

Yes he allegedly shot at cops. Cops that apparently didn't announce themselves, cut the power, covered his camera, and smashed in his door. All of which are the same thing a gang might do. Are you really going to say that if you hear a crash at your front door and walk out of your bedroom in the dark to see the outline of multiple armed individuals dressed in dark clothes walking in the front door that they just smashed in, your first thought is "I bet this is a group of peace officers executing a lawfully attained search warrant". BS. Based on the available info, he fired warning shots at a group of people that just broke into his house. He showed more restraint that morning than the ATF did. If the current evidence is even close to correct, it was absolutely not suicide by cop, it was an execution by cop. Every single individual that was even remotely involved in the decision to execute the "raid" in this manner this should go to prison. It would be difficult to figure out a way to execute a search warrant that would be more likely to result in death. The ATF allegedly has evidence that he commuted many gun law violations. Trafficking sounds like a stretch, more like he was acting as a firearms dealer without a license. A big deal? Yes. Worthy of dozens of armed agents murdering him in the dark? Absolutely not. And we'll never know because they killed the one dude that really knew what he had done and apparently intentionally prevented any video evidence of the act. By the way, the same ATF just published an administrative rule that grossly expanded the definition of acting as a firearms dealer. Not Congress, not a law, but a bureaucrat published a rule which opens up tens if not hundreds of thousands of Americans to the same horror as this.

Was NATO's refusal to sign that ultimatum in 2021 also the provocation of the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014? How about Georgia in 2008? To say that NATO refusing to sign an absurd ultimatum constitutes a provocation is absurd. Putin is an egomaniac tyrant in charge of a large county. Small countries nearby rulers like that have always been at risk since the dawn of time. Putin knew NATO wouldn't sign it. It was obviously sent as a pretext when he had already decided to invade. He would have invaded regardless of any treaty because he could and he wanted to. That's all the reason he needs.

While I don't like the suspension of elections in any scenario, the situation Ukraine is currently in is likely the most justifiable. Carrying out a campaign, having debates, and conducting an honest and open election in the middle of a war for their very survival on their own land would likely be a significant distraction from the battle and unlikely to meet the purpose of an election. How would votes from occupied territory count? The chances of those votes being cast with a Russian political soldier looking over their shoulder would be almost certain and risk a Russian puppet being "voted" into office. I don't like the suspension, but I understand it as reasonable. Biggest problem is the get well plan. An all out victory is unlikely while Putin is alive, so when will Ukraine hold an election next? Real Russian political opponents end up dead or in prison. I don't pretend that Ukraine is a model of a democracy, but Russia very well may be a model of what a democracy is not. To say that Ukraine postponed the elections and therefore this war is not about freedom and democracy anymore is a bit too jaded at this point in my opinion.

As opposed to Russia.... oh, wait, also a dictatorship.

Deadline for military Epic Pass is Monday (at least at the cheaper price).

The last vaccine rollout went so smoothly with a highly effective vaccine and zero reported problems, so let's just run that play again...

I think this is why he is so hated. He shows everyone what our political system has created. But rather than buckle down and fix the system that lets guys like this get into office from both parties, people would rather pretend that the system is OK, that he is just a single aberration and that if we can get rid of him then everything is going to back to being fine. We have gotten here by an absurd mix of a shockingly extreme level of willful ignorance, stupidity, selfishness, and a host of other problems in America. We need to get back to a system that creates national leaders like Doug Burgum, but he has zero chance because I'm betting 95% of America has never heard of him. He is the personification of the American dream; a self-made billionaire that has turned around and became a public servant rather than enjoy his money on a yacht. While I've never met the guy, I'd like to think that it is out of a genuine desire to make America a better place. That is the kind of people we need in Washington.