busdriver

14 years or so? I thought it was one and done, but they re-stuck me before my '18 deployment.

I got a booster for it a bit back.

agree with your point 100%. I'm not sure what the actual personality trait is that we're batting around, but I don't think entitled rule-breaker really covers it. That seems more trust fund baby, teen angsty to me. Aristocratic narcissist maybe? Although charismatic bad-boy is probably useful. But I digress/ramble. In an age when the social media popularity contest is how people succeed or fail in politics, social media star personalities will be the norm. Is everyone ready for President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho?

Truth We had one crash them into each other, drop one and then step on it.

So other than the stupidity of it, no qualms about killing a hypothetical sentient species? Intelligence in animals is not the same thing sentience. Although it's possible that some animals have some kind of proto sentience, on the way to evolving it. I will grant the definition isn't nice and pat. I never said life doesn't start at conception, I said that it's irrelevant. Nuance is life. In the desire for a pat answer, you've just said that killing a sentient creature (alien, my hypothetical super dolphin, whatever) has no more moral weight than killing a dog or cat.

Why in the hell are so many pro-choice folks so bad at making a rational argument? Point of human life is irrelevant. Living things die all the time, why does the presence of human DNA make one particular life more important than another? All animals have heartbeats, unique DNA is a characteristic of all non-hermaphrodidic life. I contend that the ability to make choices based on conscious thought to exercise agency is what differentiates the human species from the rest of the living things on earth. From that basis, individual rights from a state of nature flow. While a Zygote will eventually develop into that, it does not have those characteristics yet. I would argue that a new born has enough of it to qualify. Where that specific transition happens, I don't know. Fetal viability in the original Roe argument is actually a compromise with some logical basis, even if I think it's a ham handed one that misses the point. A better theoretical logical cut off point would be development of consciousness, however I suspect that there is no single light bulb comes on moment. For the religious folks, I'm also fine with euthanasia, and doctor assisted suicide. You and I will never see eye to eye on this, I get it.

Consciousness, agency, choice. If we someday find out that Dolphins are actually conscious in the human sense of the word, your view that they are not made in God's image would make it fine to kill them? Likewise if an intelligent alien species showed up at our doorstep, not in God's image? One doesn't need a belief in God to rationally come to the conclusion that moral relativism is dumb, or that your logical end-point isn't logical.

Functionally, NATO served the purpose of keeping the European nations from fighting one another. The US underwriting their defense allowed them to focus on trade. The post WW2 economic boom was what happens when people don't fight and instead trade. The US benefits from NATO existing, but not directly from being a member. Being a member may be a pre-requisite for it to functionally exist, but that's a different point.

I think those are the types of people she doesn't think should be anointed.

For some reason, her implication that having a blue check mark should mean more than just being who you say you are bothers me more. Her idea is stupid and childish. She wants hall monitors. But, reserving verification to "legitimate" people or whatever her stupid emotional idea was is creepy. Some people's ideas/thoughts should mean more based on who they are... an aristocratic ideal.

You have to be actively trying to not understand the stated pro-life positions in this thread.

The Roe opinion lays out the history, and goes back into English common law tradition. Generally the line was previously drawn at "quickening" (baby movement starts) as a delineation between murder and something of a lesser offense. American more severe laws came into being en masse in the second half of the 19th century. Basically the laws in place pre-Roe were not that old in the grand scheme of things is the argument made by that court. Alito's doesn't agree with that obviously, and there was plenty of weird stuff in Roe, but just not mentioning the previous logic is a problem in my view.

All of the life altering consequences of having a child, or disproportionate effects do not in any way stack up to countering the right to life. The Roe decision even lays that out. I think carve outs for rape, health of the mother, etc are actually fairly easy arguments to make based largely in self defense law. However, the simple question, that no one can agree on is when does that cellular structure become a person? I think the Alito argument about not having an historical tradition of accepting abortion is bunk (ref Roe examples) but his point that no one can agree on question one, so the correct place for the discourse is within the electorate has some merit. It's gonna be ugly though.

oof. That sucks. Off the top of my head, seems like you can: -try to convince his staff that he isn't the authority, and they're actually required to forward the packages with his non-concurrence. At least on active duty, proving your case in AFI, based on process that something has to happen usually wins those types of arguments. -go to the IG -go get a guard job instead The first two might fail regardless. If he's actually as vindictive as his staff fears, he may have the ability to tube the hire regardless of waiver.

So his office is not an approval step, just coordination?

It's probably worth bringing up here, even if I think I've mentioned it elsewhere. Jonathan Haidt (and his colleagues at U of VA) wrote a series of papers starting in 2004 (one of them) that explore the psychological underpinnings of liberal and conservative thought processes. Follow on work added libertarian studies (one example). He also wrote a handful of really good books. Also a TED talk (link) The gist of Haidt's work/story is that he is/was a liberal that didn't think the prevailing Liberal idea that something was wrong with Conservatives rang true. So he looked into it from a psychology perspective, building on his PhD research. His basic starting premise is that people have an intuition (emotion) base of decision making rather than rational. The rational part evolved later, and barring outside inputs (from peers as an example) our rationality mainly functions to rationalize our intuition. Which he calls the elephant and the rider. So mapping what concerns drive liberals/conservatives/libertarians onto that model, it makes a lot of sense why political factions just don't understand one another. It also makes it pretty clear why each "sect" has massive blind spots in various directions. For the short Liberal vs Conservative look at page 8 of the first link I dropped. Figure 1 in the second link is probably the best libertarian comparison to add to the mix.

I'm confused. You got denied retirement? But I know a guy who's working Palace Chase to the guard after 21 years AD (signed bonus to something past that). I also know a guy who straight up retired from AD, then got some waivers signed to join the reserve, then more waivers to return to flight status. When on orders, his pension got pro-rated (reduced) for that time. But that was years ago. So yeah, should be possible I would think. I'm not in a position to definitively tell you, but maybe that's encouragement to keep digging.

Gross. Scrambled or omelet..... or wait until you can batter and fry them.

Agree, with you and the opinion article. Fundamentally, if the public is successful with swaying a SCOTUS ruling, it reduces the legitimacy of the court itself.

Did you read the draft? This is pretty clearly covered. Long historical tradition of inter-state travel/commerce.

This is basically all of modern politics. Right, Left. Chicken, Beef.

Then re-read the second half of my post. Edit: I'll be more clear. I think the answer from the religious right would be: "first things first"

This is a common error made by just about everyone. Assuming that everyone thinks and values things the same as they do. In this case, you're projecting how you would think and behave if you believed that a new person started at conception. It's also really common in this specific case to not look around at all, and miss that sometimes people do mean what they say. So you get this opinion piece from Time of San Diego lamenting that fathers should have to pay from conception if abortion is illegal (this is one example, I've seen plenty). It is of course filled with snark, implying that the concept is inconceivable. The ironic aspect is Utah now requires fathers to foot 50% of the pregnancy medical bills, Arkansas is pushing something similar, North Dakota has a R led push to require child support retroactive back to conception. An Oklahoma dem pushed a bill to do the same as a sort of thing as a snark move, and then pulled it back. I assume partly due to the fact that its passage would implicitly set a precedent of person from conception. Maybe they actually do believe what they say. And if you offer up your "suggestions" they'd probably agree with them.

Justifiable homicide has a long precedent of legality. Reasonable belief of death or grievous bodily harm. I think an outright ban on all abortion would be an easy slam dunk legal victory to overturn. CH is correct though. This is going to get very ugly.

What if the NKVD found hidden papers that proved a political candidate was an actual serial killer? Should the public be somehow required to abide by the fruit of the poison tree concept? How about an actual historical example: Pentagon Papers. What you are describing has never existed, and is anathema to an actual functioning fourth estate. Foreign fuckery in American politics has been a thing since at least the 1796 election. Russia has been at it in earnest for a hundred years.