busdriver

I saw that, I'm inclined to think we'll know they're really hurting when they drop the age again.

Are they still at 25 year old to get drafted?

And China. The pipelined oil goes the other way.

I'd call pictures of a Democrat shooting an AR as a PR stunt a win. Even if they're brain dead for shooting metallic targets that close.

My first thought about it was capability demo.

This presentation is really good. Anyone who's spent enough time in the government/defense industry will see a lot of familiar stuff.

I'm not known for being concise.

There's an interview with a town official towards the end. Peter principle in action.

Fair point. But there were folks ready to go. That just leads to point two of mine. This isn't the first time bureaucrats have put their focus into "establishing and maintaining" control, instead of rolling with the punches and making shit happen. Seems to be more and more common place these days, but that happened at Katrina as well. It's just that the lower levels beat the bureaucrats to the scene.

Rescue crews were enroute Saturday morning. Katrina was a series of near mid-airs. It was worth the risk, but it's pretty easy to see where a bureaucrat would learn the wrong lesson, and middle managing peons would then take it too far. In any event, this guy has some gouge from guardsmen on the ground about where some of the rumor is likely coming from.

Unmask AADs, crack down on 36-2903, no friday shirts or patches, guess we're about due for no civilian clothes at the gym, reflective belts and Rescue back to AFSOC. As the world turns, this too shall pass, and all that....

These people believe in magic.

Couple things for the non rotary folks: Lights with no secondaries are not treated the same as lights with secondaries. Land immediately over water means you're ditching intentionally. Transmission chip detectors have a fuzz burn function that tries to burn up the chip. When that's active, it usually illuminates the chip light (it's completing the circuit). I'm told this is not abnormal on an Osprey. On a 60 it's pretty common on a new transmission, but not once broken in. Repeated fuzz burn is not normal.

You're thinkin about me an awful lot. Tell your mom hi.

Dude, you're railing against straw men. I made no absolutist policy arguments. But the above is the whole point. Have fun. I'm done.

Don't make the mistake in thinking libertarianism is a single coherent political ideology. It isn't. I mean there are people who claim that mantel while being anarcho-commies. I'm not even sure how that makes sense, but whatever. In any event, I am not arguing for anything in particular here at all. I'm simply saying a violation of individual liberty is exactly that. Other people's desires means nothing in that context. If you want to make the argument that good outcomes determine the morality of acts, have fun. I very much disagree, lots of death and suffering throughout history is down the consequentialist path.

Agreed on by whom? If the person to do the fighting doesn't agree, then.... Again see chick at frat party analogy. This line of argument is pure consequentialist utilitarianism. And yes, taxation is clearly theft. However, I nor anyone else has a workable alternative, so we live with an imperfect solution. And a nation facing a perceived existential threat may do some shitty things to survive. Shit happens. But, that doesn't make either un-alloyed good, moral acts.

Limiting this to the US: you are draft eligible the day you turn 18. That's a hell of deadline. Being born and then not leaving is hardly consent. Apply that logic to the the chick at the frat party. You can argue that it's necessary to ensure survival of a nation, sometimes shitty actions can be required, fair enough. But arguing that makes it moral is nothing more than consequentialism. If that's your thing, so be it. We're not actually disagreeing on the ideology part by the way. All ideologies are only useful as temporary lens to look at problems. Being dogmatic about things never leads anywhere productive.

don't confuse bug L with little l. The group of people who think of themselves in something like libertarian are not a movement. It's more like a collection of wierdos, wonks, and philosophers. Many of them very much disagree with one another. And hence why the party itself will never amount to anything. It's not hard dude. You can't enter someone into a contractual agreement without their consent. Conscription is literally that, with unlimited liability. You can have a nut with pedantry around the definition of slavery if you like though.

I wouldn't put that much credit on the Russians here. I have no doubt they're doing their information warfare thing, but Mearsheimer is a very big name in political science and he's vocal. I don't think that video coming back up requires any nefarious action.

Not trying to dogpile you. This point keeps coming up, not just by you. This seems to be following along with Mearsheimer's analysis of how "we" got to this point. What this line of thinking omits is a strong defense of the counter factual. Said another way, I think the idea that if NATO had not continued to grow post cold war, that Russa would not have done any of the stuff they've done in past 20 years is silly. Putin considers the collapse of the Soviet Union the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century. Fundamentally, this line of thought is a serious case of main character syndrome. All of that analysis contains the implicit assumption that all foreign affairs are essentially reactions to western (USA) action. No one else has agency. Which is completely at odds with one of his own key realism points; namely that all states will seek regional hegemony in order to secure their survival. Russia has always been an expansionist empire. They don't have defensible borders.

The headline of that article is dumb, and not what was ruled. What the 9th circuit is actually saying is a blanket approval of all vaccine mandates is a misapplication of the Jacobson ruling. Jacobson is predicated on a legitimate government interest in preventing the spread of a disease. If a vaccine does not do that, then Jacobson doesn't apply. So the biochemical method has nothing to do with it, nor does the "newness" of mRNA vaccines.

Presumption of innocence does not mean anyone is brain washed into thinking the dirt bag Crip is actually a saint. It means the burden of proof is on the state. The standard in court (beyond reasonable doubt) is high because the risk to liberty is high. Police officers act on a much lower standard (probable cause), because the presumption is a much lower risk to liberty. When making arrests the police are not acting on a presumption of guilt, they are acting on probable cause to believe that a crime occurred. If a crime occurred, then there is another party whose rights/liberty were violated, whether that party is an actual accuser or the public at large. Yes, the actual cops think the dude they're grabbing is a complete shit-head. But that is completely different than their authority/place within the common law tradition. It may seem like semantics, but this is very important within the context of how the law is supposed to work.

You're mixing legal concepts with moral ones, and your logic is backwards. You're using a presumption of guilt in your moral balancing act. Then claiming otherwise. Of your examples, the second is a prime example. You are assuming the criminality of a suspect prior to due process. That example is clearly immoral as written. The state has an obligation to choose the least risky option apprehend suspects. (Yes, a balancing act between risk to the larger public, the actual officer and the suspect.) Aside: No-knock warrants are predicated on the concept of being the safest option for all involved, based on a reasonable assumption that the suspect will fight. If done correctly it's over before anyone has any idea that something is happening. In other words, the state is actually balancing risk and finding the best solution for everyone, including the suspect. This is important since the "criminal" isn't one until due process is complete. Anecdotally, it seems that there is a problem with the way SWAT teams are used in the current "policing culture" (not sure how to word that). Libertarians like to yell about "militarization of police" and point to DRMO of equipment to cops. Which I think misses the mark. I suspect it's actually rooted in balance of risk, and over focus on "officer safety." The latter was an important change from the 1970s, but I suspect like all advocacy and activist cultures, it became self serving.

Lighten up Francis. You entirely missed uhhello's point.