ViperMan

Do you sincerely think this war would still be raging if Russia could win? Like, for real? Dude, come on. No. This "war" is now about Putin's pride and him being able to save face. Russia ain't winning shit. Flip the script. 1991. It's taken us a year and a month and we're still not all the way to Baghdad. We've lost a 100,000 troops. Untold more have been maimed. Would you still think our victory was right around the corner if the shoe was on the other foot? It sounds like you would be quite the cheer leader. Victory is right around the corner! Get real. Putin has lost. I mean holy shit, it hasn't even devolved into a state of insurgency yet. Putin doesn't have a guaranteed victory. It is far more likely that this war ends in a stalemate ala the Korean War.

All I can say to the DOE is "duh." The rest will come around in due time. You'll see we become "more confident" in our assessment of the lab leak theory as tensions continue to rise with China. This, in and of itself, will indicate exactly why it was dismissed as conspiracy at the very beginning.

WTF did anyone expect? I mean this administration's primary selection criteria to choose people to run something is what color skin they have, what type of genitals they've got, or what type of hole they shove their 8ick in. Note: Use of the term '"they" in the above is in the old sense of the word. Not the newfangled and imposed genderless nonsense it is now sometimes used to denote.

I'm pretty sure all officers and higher up Es are due single billets...notwithstanding deployment.

@FourFans130 and @jice, I was being intentionally a little provocative. I agree the rest of the constitution matters, but I do think the 2nd amendment is categorically unique. It speaks to the primacy of violence. Which at the end of the day, underpins every system man has created.

No American troops are engaged. Soooooooo, what's your point? You're worried about things that aren't happening? Sometimes, country's foreign policy goals happen to align, that doesn't mean they are dictating our foreign policy. By the way, back in the 90s, we guaranteed Ukraine's security in exchange for them giving up their nuclear arsenal - which was the 3rd largest in the world (bigger than China's). Here's a liberal source for you to brush up on: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion So yeah, in some (real) sense, we owe them. Just like some other country would owe us...you know, if we agreed to give up all of our nuclear weapons in exchange for security...but you know, who cares about promises at the end of the day. Amirite?

Foolish war is an oxymoron. We're already there.

The naivete of some here is completely incredible. Who the F cares if we blew it up?!? Russia is the aggressor! Do you seriously think that we're just going to let Russia run roughshod over Pax Americana because a couple aging douchbags got their feelings hurt they're not empire they convinced themselves they deserve to be while chugging vodka? Grow up. Some shit doesn't smell right upon first whiff, but makes sense when you accept that bad shit happens in war. We're not above that, nor should we be. We're not about to let Russia undo the last 70 years of history and us being in the right. If we did do it, we out-maneuvered them. You should be happy and proud you have people in our government capable of such foresight with the balls to execute on a bold plan. If Russia did it, then you should be glad they're such unbelievable idiots. If Ukraine did it, that's the price Russia pays for invading it's neighbor without just cause. Stop listening to pundits who have zero skin in the game who cast moral aspersions in realms they wouldn't dare set foot in. I say again: you don't know what happened and you never will. It doesn't matter which source you read on the internet. Pick your side.

In fairness, she looked that way without the juxtaposition.

2nd amendment is the only one that actually matters. It's the only one with a meaningful "fuck you."

Best part was the safety cone sword vs. the chair hammer. Our weapons have become less deadly - but more embarrassing - to be smashed by. We're basically the same people we've been for thousands of years.

I just have to say, the previous pages' back-and-forth is pure comedy gold. I want to see the fight, and the follow-up hug fest afterwards!

Kinda like when Ross Perot kicked off the whole Clinton era back in the 90s. Never would have had an entire generation of bullshit without that guy. I liked him and have usually been a third-party/protest voter, but now I see the cost to such people. Without a different type of voting system in place, we're doomed to two candidates - especially with the way our politics currently operates.

Tell me you don't know the first thing about crypto without telling me you don't know the first thing about crypto... Bruh, the entire basis for the blockchain is to be a distributed, peer-to-peer, value-exchange system. It may be that more "action" is taking place in the exchanges, but that's like the fact that there is more action in the futures markets for soybeans. None of the soybeans traded in Chicago ever make it there, but I assure you there are soybeans that would still exist if the CME was shutdown. Think of it like that. The CME plays the role of the exchanges in the cyrpto market, but the actual blockchain (the bottom line behind crypto) are the soybeans growing in everyone's own backyard.

Nope. I am morally opposed to all those things Russia did. That's not the point though. The unstated assumption supporting the logic in your argument is that because I haven't intervened in every conflict where a moral case can be made to intervene, I cannot, therefore, ever intervene upon moral grounds. You don't get to simultaneously deride someone's moral justification for war on that basis, and then immediately turn around and cast moral judgement upon those who wish to intervene on those grounds. At least not using that formulation. Morality isn't our reason for going to war. Morality is our justification. You're looking at morality in warfare in reverse, and just because we don't intervene in every conflict where we could morally justify it, doesn't mean you can wholesale discard morality's role in warfare. The proper way morality figures into this is as a check on our interests and actions. We first have to ask ourselves if it is in our interest to kill Russians. Check? If so, then you have to ask if it is moral to do so in this case. Presumably the answer to question #1 is always yes. The answer to question #2 is contingent. The role the "moral question" plays in any given conflict is to serve as a check and balance on keeping us from going to war with everyone who has different interests from us. Look at it this way. Is it in Russia's interest to take over Ukraine (let's take their word for it)? Yes. Question 1, check. Question 2? Is it moral for Russia to take over Ukraine? Nope. Hence, they have no justification for war. If you want to go on a moral crusade and fight every immoral thing in the world, go ahead, but you're going to be pretty busy.

This post has to be satire. You find the *moral* case lacking??? I don't think there has been a clearer moral case since 9/11 or WWII to intervene in a conflict. It's fine if you want to be a nihilist/relativist. But if you choose to go there, you don't get to judge it on those grounds from either side.

I don't think this post is going to age well. Based on how the war is going so far (for Ukraine), do you seriously think no one in our government has thought of this???

Fact: Being "Pro-Choice" makes you not a Catholic. This is a simple matter of definitions.

No. No. No. No. No. And no. We knew all those things and more. And moreover, the historical record in this very thread is still available for those who care to go back and read it. People here knew the mortality rates were getting blown out of all proportion. How did they know? It wasn't because they were conspiracy nuts. It was because they looked at and compared diverse data sets, examined how certain groups were behaving and listened to what they were saying, and taking in the totality of all that, made a more accurate deduction. Plenty of others were willing to just take the properly-credentialed authorities' opinions and run with them, sans critical thinking. I'm glad you've revised your view "now" that "more" data is in - and respect that you have the balls to publicly admit at least that much. If you dare look back further, however, you'll notice that the data to make that same determination was present then, as well. History is not confirming for you that other people "guessed" right. We more thoroughly analyzed the data available and made a more correct assessment.

1. Our culture of "safety" and "equity" will stop a lot of progress. 2. Unless a politician can get rich off of it, it ain't got a chance. The people in charge are the ones who lived in the glory of what their parents built. They don't understand America or the world in their most fundamental sense. Hence, we're complacent and have allowed ourselves to become preoccupied with feeling good vs doing good.

Maybe we are comparing apples and oranges (Europe vs USA). I agree that rail can be more comfortable and economical than air travel. The only point I was trying to make, is that right now, it's not. I travel by air a LOT. I usually plan to show 75 minutes before my departure - it's usually way more than enough time. The only places I struggle to time perfectly are places like Vegas with their FUBAR rental car return circus and LAX where there could be wicked traffic at 11 PM on a Wednesday. One-offs like those places, yeah, you gotta give it a bit more to deal with the stupid.

I don't know why, I just feel like proving you and @nsplayr wrong. Here are bus tickets, train tickets, and air travel from DC to NYC on Jan 25th. Do your own research if you don't trust me. Train is the LEAST convenient in terms of time and $. $25 for a bus, $60-100 to fly, $60-360 for the train.

Ohhhhhhh ok. So what you were really saying is that in your *hypothetical* world, train travel would be more convenient than air travel. Missed that part. So much here. 1. If you're arriving at the airport 2 to 2.5 hours early, you're wasting your life. No shit. Only my grandmother shows up that early. And even she is wasting her life when she gets there that early. 2. I went to Europe after having last visited 10 years prior, and lets just say, train ticket prices are now exorbitant. You might be able to catch a cheap fair between London and Paris, but if you want to *see* Europe, well, it aint the early 00s where your gonna grab $250 Eurail pass and see the continent. Sorry to break it to you - those days are long over. 3. Ryan Air is cheaper. 4. German Wings is cheaper (as long as their pilots don't run you into the Alps). 5. Sweet spots might exist in Europe, but in the US (places like LA), you might need to fly from Compton to Huntington Beach to achieve the 2.5 hour *pressure* relief you're talking about. Last I checked, there's not many Compton to Huntington Beach flights available to the general public. You're comparing apples and oranges. You got to take the 405. There is no other option. Those are facts. I don't know what you're talking about. Yeah, there is room for rail and trains in this country. Why the F we have so many big rigs going coast to coast is beyond me. All that shit should be moving by rail. Get the fuck off my interstates. But yeah with your theme: trains should be a thing in this country. The point is, right now, they are not. They could be, they should be, but they are not.

I *feel* you bro, but do you realize it's cheaper to fly from DC to NYC than it is to take the train??? A train ticket from DC to Manhattan can cost >$400. AYFKM? The only *cheap* travel option along the eastern sea board (that I've found) are the various bus companies (Megabus, etc). Also. No. Flying is 1000x times better than taking a train as far as convenience goes. Period. Were you serious with that? Spend 2.5 days to get across the country or do it without even taking a leak...yeah I'm going with option B.