bfargin

I just read the free chapter. Looks like it would be a fun read!

did you mean westbound? East is the short way home to the U.S. West coast, unless they were down under India somewhere and then it's closer to 50/50 on what direction to fly.

anything that the eavesdropper disagrees with

I guess I was mostly surprised that they put it right out there in words, for all to see. Didn't even have the decency to hide the truth while screwing somebody.

"This decision was based on public comments made by Lt. Col. Lohmeier in a recent podcast," a Space Force spokesperson said in an email. "Lt. Gen. Whiting has initiated a Command Directed Investigation on whether these comments constituted prohibited partisan political activity." I find this very problematic. So, lets fire the commander while we determine if his words are an issue/problem and violate any rules.

Now you're talking complete shit. there is universal agreement by medical and scientific communities that human life is present the moment of conception. The only discussion might be the term "person". You might not like that fact anymore than I like the idea that "person"hood can be debated, but its established fact.

https://tennesseestar.com/2021/04/30/bill-declaring-personhood-begins-at-conception-passes-tennessee-general-assembly/?fbclid=IwAR22VarNKCbp0EE4zJ3YAhOZYonsOO0AjufAD-Wkcx8kj31_17Oy6boFQa0 This recently happened here in TN. Here, according to criminal law, an unborn child is a "person", but this wasn't true in civil law. I'm not sure if the Governor signed it yet, but once he does, it will be true in civil law also.

Now that its out of the other thread I'll add my .02 again. We have a definition of human life according to science and there really is no debate there, but as Prozac pointed out "person" might be a little more nuanced. I think you have to be pro abortion to nitpick that, but that is just my opinion and I'm definitely not a linguistics expert. Edit to add: I do acknowledge that current US law for citizenship doesn't recognize a person for citizenship until they are born. So, with that standard, the "person" protection afforded by the constitution could be argued not to apply until the baby is born (even though as y'all know, I don't like that).

I'm not arguing against abortion because of my religious view. That was a statement highlighting that because science now confirms that a fetus is a human (fully understood and yes settled - once the egg is fertilized), they agree. The supreme court acknowledged, when they somehow pulled the roe v wade ruling out of their rear, that if science showed that a fetus was a human life (person), then a different ruling would have been made. "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Roe 410 US After my accident, was I an individual (person) for the two weeks I was on life support and totally dependent on others? Is the person on hospice care and can't feed themselves and sometime can't even communicate an individual? Reliance doesn't define if someone is an individual. If you abort you can't really have life, so it applies in that the government can't take a life without due process. So if somehow we could charge and convict those little fetuses with a crime worthy of the death penalty, then I guess it would be legal. Science has now confirmed the fetus is a human life with distinct dna - different from the mother and father. Religion already claimed it was a human life so I lumped them together. So no, they don't necessarily agree on abortion, but on the fact that a fetus is human life they agree. This is way off the topic of this thread so I'll stop discussing here. If we move it elsewhere i'm more than willing to discuss, but frankly I don't see any legitimate arguments to support state sanctioned infanticide. Discussions should be had on how to help expectant mothers who face difficult circumstances with a newborn (whether that is through government policy and assistance programs or private sector organizations that provide prenatal and postnatal services).

I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know what he meant. I left any "religious belief" out of everything I wrote, and last time I checked a "person" is an individual.

That's about the worst example you could use for an extreme view. The Constitution, science, logic, and religion all agree on abortion. It's not a right or left issue, its a human life and death issue. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution both speak to our individual right to life. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

Never said it wasn't capitalism, just said it wasn't unencumbered, free range as I quoted. Of course we live in a capitalistic society, it's just one where all of the government checks and balances have been corrupted and big money/corporate influence has overtaken any sense of a free market. When huge businesses get tax breaks and tax and other governmental privileges it's not free range capitalism at all, it's a marketplace bought and paid for with the government protecting the big players.

For all you test pilots. True home build hanging it out there more than I'd be willing to.

Seriously? We don't have anything near "unencumbered, free range capitalism" in the US. Kickbacks, payoffs, power influencing, etc but not even close to capitalism.

The video is out. How many times do DAs need to see the very likely "death penalty" result from fighting to get away from a police officer to just comply?

Sorry, you're right. It was SocialIDs music that sucks.

I like drunk Arg's taste way more than yours. I'd never heard of that douchebag, but that song blows so maybe that's why.

https://babylonbee.com/news/heroic-secret-service-agent-dives-in-front-of-biden-as-reporter-tries-to-ask-a-question?fbclid=IwAR3JH0kpCfv_sEHyHu6Z4mQ3dsuoFCHxFjucbZSKsi-ZLyHmmg9LwD2KYFo

I'm surprised anyone would back that piece of legislation. Here's hoping most Senators have their heads pulled out of the backsides, unlike the house members who supported it.

Exactly like the squadron bar, when you talk shit, someone's going to flip it back at you.

You seem to be dedicating a lot of time and energy for "not here to change everyone's minds"

it's easy to spot the blowhards on the left too.

I know I was put in "time out" back in the day for calling Obama Bin Laden a dumbass, but hopefully it's OK now to bash the current dumbass ... but wow, this guy really is a moron. https://www.air.tv/watch?v=Efv56sxhQlSYKmBshA-szQ

I'm not a tax expert but am a CPA so know a bit about depreciation. If it's used more than 50% for business you can usually doing a MACRS (modified accelerated cost recovery) and depreciate over 5, 6 or 7 years depending upon all of the ownership and use details. If it doesn't meet that standard (50% business use), you can still depreciate straight-line (ACR) over a longer period of time. Even whether the asset is operated under Part 135 or Part 91, has an impact on how you can depreciate.