Smokin

I'm not sure what is scarier, the fact that her primary (only?) qualification is the person she sleeps with or the fact that you might be right.

Have you read the case? They made a misdemeanor a felony because it was to 'cover up another crime'. One of many problems with that is the other crime wasn't actually a crime. The defense wanted to call the Federal Election Committee Chairman that was sitting during the "crime" but the judge disallowed so much of the testimony that the defense gave up trying to even call him as a witness. He would have testified that the alleged crime was not actually a crime and thus the maximum charge would have been the original misdemeanor, which even that charge is questionable. WSJ had a great article about it a day or so later. There is zero chance this case is not overturned on appeal. I'm not a Trump fan, but this case was absolutely politically motivated and more worth of a banana republic than the United States. It is a black mark on our history of justice in America. In my opinion, it makes Watergate look like a teenage prank.

Thoughts on NB at ~15% vs WB at ~80%? I'm primarily concerned about QOL, but obviously the pay raise with WB is a nice perk. I'm considering sitting WB reserve (roughly 2.5hrs from base) as there are virtually no WB flights that leave before noon or after 8pm. Biggest benefits I see as a NB FO is the ability to basically dictate my schedule. Biggest benefits to WB is more productive trips which equates to more time home or a relatively predictable reserve schedule, which would increase the attractiveness of sitting reserve at home.

Good to hear that this might be a mountain made from a mole hill.

Dude, I don't mean to be rude, but this is an elementary understanding of him and the war. Any claim that the Germans, the US Army, and the overwhelming consensus of historians are all wrong should be backed up by a few more facts. He did not have overwhelming material superiority for much of the Africa campaign, early in the campaign he was outnumbered and outgunned as often happens in an amphibious invasion. He did not have complete air control, eventual superiority yes, but supremacy was not achieved until late in the war. The Germans did have a fuel problem, but the fuel problem is vastly overstated in the initial parts of the African campaign. The real fuel problems started when we were able to bomb refineries, which didn't happen for a while. The physical assault motivation claim is absurd. Slapping one dude in a fit of rage can hardly be considered "his sole idea for motivating". I also said "in many regards". He had some crazy bad character flaws; he was vain to a absurd level, he saw war as his chance to gain glory, etc. Not to excuse those character flaws, but often the greater the man, the greater the flaws. Everything can get magnified when you have someone that is almost larger than life. As O Face said, the enemy's appreciation of a military leader is a great indication and the Germans feared him more than any other man. That alone should tell us what we need to know about his abilities. As for his role in WWI, making any comparisons between that and Afghanistan is absurd. WWI: 53,000 US combat fatalities in about 18 months, Afghanistan, less than 2,000 in roughly 20 years. Leaders in the world wars were promoted based on their actual capabilities on the battlefield far more than we have seen in the last 20 years. That's how we ended up with a basically all-star team by the end of WWII that out led and out thought the enemy and now we're talking about open ranks inspections while we are at serious risk of losing the next world war. I'm not some Patton fanboy, but his results speak for themselves. I'd rather be led by a dude that slaps a guy for not fighting than led by a dude that thinks some lint on your uniform is indicative of your military ability.

Sorry, should have been more specific, meant the story Danger41 talked about. I agree with that guy that will not be named at risk of his coming back to this board that the new 'standards' focus is dumb. It's like a E-9 from the height of the Died suddenly put on a bunch of stars. Que their favorite Patton quote of 'if you can't get them to wear their uniform right, then how can you get them to fight right' or something like that. Patton was a brilliant leader in many regards, but either this quote was made up (highly likely) or he had Biden moment. Patton was a serious history buff and clearly knew that uniforms were a relatively new invention in warfare, so clearly not something that was truly necessary to combat. Plus I doubt he would have ever passed a uniform inspection himself. Ivory handled pistols, a sash, swagger stick, and custom non-authorized pants were clearly not in reg. Just look at the Civil War and how the Rebels consistently had abysmal uniforms, far worse than the Union, yet man for man outfought the Union at pretty much every battle. Rebels were often shoe-less, in tattered pants and a jacket, maybe a hat maybe not, a beard that hasn't seen a razor in months, and hair to match, yet those same guys stood out in the open 40 yards from the enemy for multiple volleys perfectly following orders. Obviously there is no relation between fighting ability and uniform perfection, so why the newfound focus on uniforms? We must be doing so awesome in preparing for war with China that we can now focus on things that have zero impact on our ability to defend our nation.

Haven't read that story because, well, I just don't care. But if that recap is even close, he sounds like the kind of guy that won't delegate anything because he's worried the guy he would delegate to isn't as capable and would screw it up. So, in the process, he screws it up himself and the junior guys eventually take over as commander having not had any real responsibility. And guess what they do? Screw it up. But in the meantime we've risked talking about him 3 times...

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.