ViperMan

Certainly there are platforms that benefit from a construct like this, and if that is the reason for the renewed discussion you could say I'm all for it. Limiting it to platforms that are in high demand with inherently low flight time available makes a lot of good sense. That said, I have a feeling that this subject is coming up because of the UPT/FTU pipeline problem, which was wholly self-induced. And if that is the reason, all I can do is shake my head.

That part makes sense, and I'm glad other people are recognizing and trying to solve the problem. This one is particularly frustrating though because it's so obvious what the solution is, and also so painfully obvious what the cause was. No doubt the whole circuit will get promoted. One half for "solving" a production problem. The other half for "solving" an experience problem. Everyone wins I guess. It's called UPT.

To pile on, everyone always gets screwed. The people who get screwed the most are the property owners. The people who get screwed the (distant) 3rd most are the poors who get to benefit from "affordable housing." The people who get screwed the 2nd most - close to the 1st most - are the people who never get mentioned: the people who would otherwise be able to afford said apartment at market rate, but unfortunately inhabit the 'in between' - the wide span of those individuals being too rich to qualify for "affordable housing" but to poor to afford luxury apartments; i.e. the entire middle class. This is all to say that there is no such thing as "affordable housing" - but such is the core nature of Leftists' favorite social programs - none of them describe what the thing really is. In reality, there is only "taxpayer-subsidized-housing-for-a-select-few-lucky-enough-to-be-among-the-chosen-few-to-receive-it-housing." If there was truly "affordable housing," you and me would be able to purchase it at that rate, but as we all know, we can't.

I'm honestly not trying to be overly critical here. It's just baffling that something like this is under consideration.

This is from the cheap seats, but everything being discussed in this thread strikes me as the whole point of pilot training. What am I missing? What is the USAF missing? Is this a serious proposal? We cut pilot training in half, but then add a program like this shortly thereafter? WTFO?

God damn that's delicious.

This. https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch40.htm "Communist society passes through two phases of development: the lower phase known as Socialism, and the higher phase known as Communism." That's from the writings of the Economics Institute of the USSR. As Brabus said, it's merely a pit stop on the way to a communist society. Even Marx and Engels didn't really distinguish between Socialism and Communism in their writings. To them, it was all part of the same project. I'm not even convinced anymore that the Left thinks it's a good, workable economic system. I think that's a mask they use to hide envy and a misanthropic desire to destroy things that they can't have or otherwise haven't achieved. It's a hope, desire, and bet on future Schadenfreude.

The problem isn't limited to simply the scale of what is being spent. The problem is also what the money is being spent on. Marshall plan? Expensive? Check. Money well spent? Double check. Rando GS-8 sending out emails to gather data that some other government agency already gathers? Expensive? Nope. Money well spent? Double nope. The point is we should have cut the BS many years ago. Now though? The deficit is running so far out of control we don't have the luxury of making precise choices. Slash and burn as much as possible. In my view at least half (more) of what the government does it has no business doing, so you won't see any tears from me.

I hear you, but the time to use a scalpel was about 25-30 years ago. Now, our government his hard-broke, and there ain't no gaining of compromise with the other side to agree to cut spending. Exhibit #1 = our current government shutdown over public healthcare accounting. So blasting caps and chainsaws it is. I don't like it - and I know you don't - but it's the inevitability of having grown complacent at the trough for far too long. So feel free to direct your ire towards past decisions. I hope you take a proper lesson from them going forward. The deficit spending has to end, or getting people back who are "actually needed" (as you say) is going to seem a quaint problem when we achieve total system collapse because the rest of the world tells us to fuck off with our BS debt issuance grift. So right now, this is what a hard choice looks like. The path you suggest is allowing the tidal wave to continue building. Hard no from me on that.

I'm here for all the firings. The government is bloated and ineffectual anyway. May as well stop paying for it. It's ugly, but finally someone is holding the line vs the insane out-of-control dem spending that has been unaccountable (literally) for years.

I think Hamas realized that Israel was willing to go the full distance, and Trump probably told them (Hamas) he's not going to stop a full expulsion. Meaning they would displace each and every Palestinian from Gaza and just take all the land. I mean they're 69% of the way there anyway. Basically a full GTFO. Now, Hamas gets to hang on and maybe can have one more chance to accept a peaceful coexistence.

No. But is that really how you read my words? Or do you think I was providing important context in reference to the general milieu which was the political mayhem occurring from 2020 through 2021? They (the Democrats) sanctioned mayhem that Negatory turns a blind eye to every time he posts a one-sided accusation. Or attempts what-about-ism. Or when he invokes Jan 6th as an idol, pointing and proclaiming: "See! look here! It's the same! The Rs and the Ds both do it!" Do you think I was carrying water for the few who broke the law on Jan 6th? Or do you think I was putting it in juxtaposition with what was the actual violence that was allowed to take place Do you acknowledge or deny that there was a qualitative difference with which republicans and democrats reacted to violence and anarchy that was initiated by their own sides? Or do you think that was all in our heads? Am I imagining that? I seem to remember Pence refusing Trump's orders. I seem to remember no large scale right-wing violence or rioting. Maybe I'm in my Twitter bubble. I welcome you to pop it. But, you have to provide evidence.

I'm not sure what reporting you're looking at, but the shooter apparently was credibly engaged in a homosexual relationship with a same-sex individual who was "transitioning." Seems to me that latent homosexuality and the fact that he wasn't feeling accepted by a social movement that is growing in popularity - or rather rejected by a louder, and increasingly verbal group of right-wing people - is a likely motivating factor for this person taking his feelings and redirecting them outward in an act of extreme violence. Maybe they weren't in a relationship and the shooter was merely acting out of a perception that his friend needed his honor defended. It doesn't really matter. The fact is that people can have whatever upbringing you want, and can turn out poorly - the opposite is true as well. They can be raised by right-wing priests and turn out blue-haired nymphomaniacs. Or they can be raised by left-wing granola bars, and wind up Jehovah's witnesses. You and everyone else understands this. The sad part for all of us is that for a long time - a very long time - this country was getting along and moving in a great direction. Black culture was seemingly becoming less violent. Gays were winning (and have won) increased acceptance throughout all but the most backwater parts of our society. A generation of kids grew up playing together and not really caring about skin color or cultural differences, and so on and so on. Then, for whatever reason, that all seemed to change. I'm not sure why, but things were different. Not "I perceived that things were different," but actually different. Now, we are becoming less "liberal" and far less tolerant. I lament we are becoming less liberal (in the true sense of the word), but I think that becoming far less tolerant is probably good and necessary. I think it is largely due to forces on the Left that demanded ridiculous, insane, and frankly, deranged capitulations. See "men have periods / can become pregnant," "men should be allowed to compete in women's sports," "black people are hunted by cops," "COVID didn't leak from a lab," etc. Those are my priors and I think evidence supports all of them in varying degree. Jan 6th isn't happening dude. Sorry, it just isn't. It's not the Pearl Harbor or September 11th you wish it was. 25 years from now we're not going to be holding "Remember" ceremonies throughout our society. A few token dems might, but they'll be the only ones. In 69 years, we're not going to mark the "passing of the last survivor of the Jan 6th attack on the Capitol," except for maybe some future talking-head on MSNBC. What it was in objective reality was a massive gathering of right-wing individuals (that got wildly out of hand), but which was organized in RESPONSE to actual, government-sanctioned anarchy that was ushered in and actively encouraged by prominent left-wing leadership throughout multiple layers of our government. This includes presidential and vice-presidential candidates. It includes governors. It includes mayors. It includes senators. It includes congressmen and women. With our own eyes, we all saw the chaos begin to unfold starting in the Summer of 2020, and continue through to the election and inauguration of Joe Biden. It was the unstated TACTIC of the Democratic party, implemented in order to undermine Donald Trump. I'm not justifying Jan 6th, but let's also not pretend that it arose randomly and thus points at some underlying reality that the US is a KKK-style right-wing hellscape. That's all in your head dude. It happened because of COVID lock-downs and people getting bored. The dems saw an opportunity to re-focus this boredom into channels that applied pressure on fault lines within their many of their most favored political constituencies. They saw a political opportunity and capitalized on it. A cynical play for sure. You can see them trying the same playbook again, but it's not having quite the same success this time around. Probably because we're not all locked-down with nothing better to do...

I'll explain it. It's different because people on the right were calling for people to be doxxed for things that literally every sane person in the world agrees with - i.e. murdering people based on their beliefs is something that should not be tolerated. So yeah, let's dox those people in order to shame them and root out what is a sick and anti-social sect of people who for whatever reason seem to be gaining power in our country. On the other hand, people on the left were using doxxing as a means to impose a measure of social pressure and control on groups of people they would fear would speak out against their latest social fad / cause: all whites are racists, but Blacks cannot be racist; transgenderism is natural, etc, etc. In other words they're using doxxing to avoid having a conversation about what are controversial topics. In short, the right is using doxxing to preserve society and social norms. The left is using it to undermine society. See the difference? I will say fairly, that using doxxing to target bystanders (i.e. someone's family) is gross no matter what the circumstances. Sins of the father and all... And I'm not sure what your opinion is on nuclear weapons, but we wouldn't respond in-kind to NK with a bio or chem attack because we don't have those types of weapons anymore. But if NK used bio / chem in an appreciable way (not a couple shells here or there) that was going to turn the tide of battle in their favor, you better believe we'd pull out the nukes.

I'm mostly on board with you. I don't think the death penalty should be public though, as it lowers us and I think would delegitimize our justice system by making a spectacle out of it. That's not necessary. Philosophically I have no issue with the death penalty. I also don't think it needs to be a deterrent to be a just punishment. Holding "deterrence" as a requisite for applying the death penalty is adopting the Left's frame. The death penalty is about revenge. It's an eye for an eye. It's about extracting the maximum amount of justice on behalf of the person who can no longer exact it for themselves. It hasn't got anything to do with deterring crime IMO. If deterrence is a side effect for those who are so base as to need to be deterred from heinous acts, then fine, but that's a bonus. Practically, there are many instances where the justice system has fallen short, however. Making it the case that the application of the death penalty is historically fraught.