busdriver

There are two John Mayers. The one that makes a ton of money making teenage girls all mushy inside. And then there is the one that makes blues, and no one pays attention to that one. The second one is actually very good. The first one is kindy creepy and past his expiration date. Only Taylor Swift is capable of staying an angsty teenager well into the thirties.

The lawsuit is amusing. On ADA grounds it is claiming that "knowingly engaging in prostitution with HIV" as an aggravating factor (essentially bumping up to a sexual assault) is discriminatory against a person living with HIV. While side stepping that this particular disability is contagious. Regardless, an equivalence to sexual assault (what the Tennessee law does) is akin to attempted murder criminally.

My point is this isn't a political policy/economic wonk led ideological push. Bernie Sanders did not gain popularity because he really won people over on the logic of socialism. He gained popularity based on emotional sentiment of the people, "fuck those rich assholes." Let me re-phrase: The current descent into looney toons land is not because politicians are leading us there. The body of the people has divided into tribes, politicians want to get elected and playing to tribal sentiment and feeding the hate machine is a time tested method. For perspective: my view of our current insanity is heavily influenced by reading "The Revolt of the Public"

I would guess this is all they are really trying to grab up. Small numbers, but free chicken. Probably a handful of folks' pet project.

That dude is a very enthusiastic aviation nerd, but ignorant. He's fundamentally a technologist/journalist in the same vein as the folks who write for a website like ars technica. Gell-Mann amnesia and all.....

Yes, politicians say lots of stuff, they're playing to the crowd. It's what they do. But square all the BS with Bernie's position change. That is a hell of a change for someone who claims the socialism (very ideological) mantle. My point is that American politics is driven by tribalism at the moment. Anything that Red team says must be opposed by Blue team. Anything bad for Blue team is inherently good for Red team. Etc. No, wanting a secure border with orderly, legal immigration with numbers based on the needs of the country is not xenophobic. But xenophobia is a very common human tendency* and if you can't see Trump playing to that in his stump speeches from the 2016 era, I don't know what to say you. Yes he was mis-quoted by retard journalists to make it sound worse, but it was unnecessary. *If you've read Jonathan Haidt's work, openness vs not may be one of the underlying foundational political personality traits.

This is tribal and reactionary, not ideological. Trump played to xenophobic tendencies, so his opponents went whole hog letting in as many outsiders as possible. It wasn't that long ago that Bernie Sanders said open borders was a Koch brothers conspiracy.

What a low bar you have. Rotorheads....

I wasn't clear then. I agree. I think the short term is quite dangerous, a starving predators being aggressive sort of thing.

CH, I would offer this perspective: I think the entire China collapse hypothesis is probably better scoped as: China as a rising/risen global power is done. So I don't think it is dependent on a popular uprising, just a withering. Not saying the CCP will become North Korea, but that's a halfway decent example of withering while maintaining control. I tend to agree with you that Xi is more dangerous as he gets backed into a corner/feels control slipping though. The next decade is going to be interesting.

In what corner of the world do you sit that you think conservatives abandoned the south will rise again stupidity in the last 5 years? Go fuck yourself in the corner with a hot curling iron.

The one on the left looks to be fake. I'd guess AI. Big ole man hands on the old lady if it's real.

I've been thinking the current climate must be what it was like watching the F-105 get fielded as TAC went whole hog into everything nuclear.

Then you haven't been paying attention. In this very thread, no less.

Not really an intersectional thing. The Black Hebrew Israelites started well over 100 years ago. Just good old sectarianism.

The bonus is and always has been about exactly this. It is question to people who plan to stay in till 20; "what is your free agency worth?" It has never been about keeping people in, the AF can't afford those dollar figures. AFPC processes are built around numbers, if they can get people to give up their free agency, AFPC can then count on a minimum amount of bodies to plan for the future. The only actual change in this latest release is that folks have to decide to stay a year (or 2) before previous generations. Good advice has already been given, if you've already made up your mind to stay to 20 then by all means sign the bonus. But only extend out to 20. There is life after the military and once you hit 20, you really want leverage and choices again.

There's no reason to get all weird with your conspiracy. Declining demographics in the developed world are more than enough to explain a desire to "proactively import migrants."

Creepy thought: Ukrainian winter wheat planting period starts in July.

This is correct. Also: After reading through the actual indictment, Trump is very stupid.

Not Dems/GOP. This is really a Trump thing. Partly of his own doing I will grant. Like I said, if there were any sort of actual fairness in the world, all of them would be held to the same standard as the naïve and stupid Navy kid that took pictures of a submarine for keepsakes. But that isn't reality. In the real world precedent matters, without it people lose trust. A big chunk of the country thinks the FBI/DOJ is Hoover level corrupt. Trump is playing against that. I honestly vacillate back and forth on how much forethought I'm willing to assume he has in all this.

I'm positive CH knows this, but DIsco did you watch Comey's testimony to congress? HRC somehow convinced investigators that she may not have understood portion markings. Let that sink in. An original classification authority, read into TS/SAP/SAR that had worked in government for decades including being the first lady (package deal). It's an absurdity. Reference #9&10, from Politico, Link. Simple truth: the rules are different for the elected/appointed. For fuck's sake, Sandy Berger got probation and a fine for straight up steeling classified documents. I am 100% positive that Trump is some kind of weird narcissistic classified document hoarder. And if there was any actual fairness, all of the schmucks would have been judged by the same standard that Kristian Saucier was held to. But that isn't reality. But the double standard is obvious.

You two are making my brain hurt arguing about news sources. Here's a link to fbi.gov and Comey's press statament. https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Just to clarify this for the younger folks, you obviously know this and have made up your mind. ------------------ Those numbers are all eligible O-5s in the zone, not just those who "tried to move up." You really need to see the % numbers for with and without SDE/DP/AAD/CC to get a good picture. As an example: back in 2016, the common O-5 board results ended up around 75ish percent promotion. But if you factored in P/DP, the results ended up almost 100% promotion with a DP. So if you went to the board with a P, it was roughly 50/50 in the zone. Which is what makes IDE and, depending on where in the sin wave we are, a masters important. The "lack of" is a negative highlight. Anything that makes for an easy time to find that cutline will end up being used. It's just how it goes. SDE, AAD, graduated sq/cc. If you have those things on your O-6 board and a DP, you're getting promoted (high probability).

Do you want to be an O-6? I'm not being sarcastic, but you really need to look in the mirror first, then at your family and honestly answer that question. There are pros and cons to pinning on that rank. What do you value and want?

The "left" has been catastrophizing for years. Before that round, the "right" was the moral majority, and catastrophizing all over the 80's. We're certainly not remotely close to the political violence of the 60's/70's, so I agree that the hyperbole is over wrought. But this pattern does rhyme. Incidentally: Anyone else think the terms "right" and "left" have lost all meaning? They're just team names at this point.......old man cloud yelling about lawn.....