Pooter

Considering they just tested an ICBM.. pretty sure they can get some nukes airborne. Obviously we are all happy to see Russia display massive incompetence, but that doesn't mean we can write off all of their nuclear capes because they can't effectively coordinate the ground invasion of a whole country. While it sucks for Ukraine, the status quo (without escalation) is actually pretty good for us right now. Keep funneling weapons, chipping away at russias military/reputation/world standing all while milking this absolute intel goldmine.

This is where you get into constitutional law and the exact difference between slander/libel and free speech. In this example Aunt Karen is a private person not acting in a professional or public capacity, so when she says "I hate Hillary and I think she eats babies," that would be constitutionally considered an opinion and protected by free speech. Alternate scenario: Aunt Karen is a Fox News correspondent and she posts on FB "it is my professional journalistic opinion that Hillary eats babies." This would probably rise to defamation and Karen would be sueable for libel. Either way, section 230 protects FB from liability so they should leave the posts alone and let the chips fall where they may.

The biggest difference between a Twitter/Facebook and a Fox News is section 230. Fox is a publisher of content without section 230 protections and therefore liable and sue-able for things they say that are false, slanderous, or libelous. Any editorial style news organization falls under this category whether it be newspapers or cable news outlets. Social media companies are not treated as publishers by section 230. They are given immunity from liability for third party posts on their platform. Meaning.. your aunt Karen can go off on qanon nonsense and Hillary eating babies without FB getting sued. So my biggest problem is not really Twitter/FB being biased one way or the other. My problem is they're acting like an editorial organization when they've been given specific protections from the government to not be an editorial organization. If Twitter wants to pick and choose which stories they ban/promote, then section 230 protections should be immediately revoked, and then Joe Rogan can sue the fuck out of them every time someone retweets a CNN horse dewormer story.

Yeah I get that, I'm more confused how a single federal judge (there are 1700+) can overrule the executive branch thereby reversing nationwide policy. And if all we had to do was find a single federal judge who didn't like the rule and sue in that court why tf did it take this long.

Happy to hear the mask news but i have to say I legit do not understand how federal judges work.

We have no idea if it's a real phenomenon beyond the normal rate because that number is never mentioned anywhere. This is literally the first question you should ask when someone is trying to alarm you about something. This is basic sample vs control middle school science. You can't make a meaningful conclusion from a data point that exists utterly without context. There are very legitimate criticisms of the lefts handling of covid, but I don't think you fight hot garbage with more hot garbage.

Kept scrolling in that article looking for any mention of what the base rate of heart anomalies in athletes was before the vaccine.. no luck. Seems like an important data point to have if you're going to try to claim a sudden spike. Strangely, the article kept insinuating that it was zero prior to the vaccine which I think we both know is rather silly. I don't disagree with you that the democrats are off their rocker over mandates and covid scare tactics, but this article is hot garbage.

Conspicuously absent from that document is literally anything about primary job performance. Basically if you want to get promoted, know how to make yourself look as good as possible on paper: strats additional duties awards squadron/group positions in the immediate orbit of the commander and don't you dare fuck up the formatting

It'll be interesting if this is tied back to Boeing. That 737max documentary was pretty damning in regards to their trends in corporate culture, quality control, and transparency.

I would bet downgrades are pretty common in most communities. Not really something to be concerned about though unless you're consistently getting them or if multiple could rise to the level of a q2 or 3.

Yeah that first explosion doesn't look like a frog foot crash. Don't know what it is but the airplane that does go down leaves a much longer trail explosion and the fireball doesn't go nearly as high in the air. Also seen conflicting reports that these were Ukrainian frog feet(?) although it seems highly unlikely

Refueled on the 46 many times and it's fantastic. Meanwhile the newest block update on the 135 has turned it into an autopilot-off shitshow. From where I sit, the remaining airframes not qual'd to refuel on the 46 boils down to majcom risk aversion rather than actual aircraft capability.

Going full renewable is a great long term goal. But... -it won't solve our near term geopolitical problems -if we don't get buy-in from China it will have the equivalent effect on climate change of creating a "no pissing" section of the pool -we need to completely re-think our power grid to include on-demand energy that can gap fill when renewables aren't generating -if renewables are so economically competitive maybe the government could stop tampering with the marketplace through subsidies and incentives

Correct. Which is why the insinuations on here that trump would have somehow prevented this or that Biden is bungling it way worse than trump would have are complete nonsense. FWIW this is going about as well as we could have hoped. No American troops in harms way, Ukraine putting up one hell of a fight, and Russia shining their ass in a massive way on the world stage. All while we collect reams of intel on it all.

Yeah it's telling when official casualty numbers have yet to be released by Russia for their side. That probably means: this is not going the way they wanted it to be going.

Playing an aggressive and ultimately pointless game of mud hut whack a mole in the Middle East is a far cry from having a coherent strategy to prevent aggression from a near peer superpower. He bumbled his way through foreign policy just like Biden is right now with his only advantage being more erratic and unpredictable. But don't let that stop you from retconning trump into a tactical genius. It so fun to watch political hacks co opt humanitarian disaster to shit on either the current or past administration. Whichever aligns with the beliefs they already had. 9/11 happens a year into bush's term.. all because of Clinton policies. Ukraine happens a year into Biden's term.. absolutely nothing to do with anything trump did.

If only we had trump back he'd be playing 4d chess. And by 4d chess I mean being such an egotistical, erratic lunatic that he'd likely get roped into this pissing contest and we'd have Afghanistan 2: electric boogaloo, with near peer threat systems.

Come on guys. Be better than this. Wild speculation about an aviation mishap involving our brothers and sisters is a shitty thing to do anytime. But it's especially shitty to co-opt that mishap to bolster your preexisting political biases. Aviators in the room, ask yourself this: Are these sources credible in any way? Does that quote sound like anything you've ever heard on safety privileged mishap tapes before? Of course not. Because no one blurts out verbose political/vaccine statements seconds before they eject from an airplane.

@bennynovaThank you for your service in the relentless pursuit of truth. I heard from a friend of a friend of a friend that the pilot took 69 personal ORM points because of cancel culture but his woke commander made him fly anyway.

You're right I'm just an indoctrinated blind believer. I should adjust my expectations to be more realistic like you.. that government agencies should be perfectly consistent in their messaging across two administrations over 2+ years, that the international community will be in perfect policy lockstep as they all independently respond to a pandemic, and that medications must remain exactly as effective as they were originally even for variants of a virus that didn't exist when the medication was being developed. Anything short of perfection on any of these topics is tantamount to a big government cover-up / conspiracy.

Well if that's your big hang up just go ahead and avoid all medicines until the end of time. Because that statement holds true for every medicine that has ever entered your body.

You're right to have a healthy level of distrust because the pharma companies definitely abused it in the past. But despite legal protections from the EUA, it's still in their financial interest to make a safe vaccine that works. I might not trust them but I trust the financial incentive. There are multiple vaccine options on the market and if one is significantly less effective or safe than the others, word will get out and people will opt for a different shot or none at all. This government-pharma conspiracy to brush adverse effects under the rug simply isn't materializing in the real world. J&J literally had that problem, and it was pulled from the market (some even argued prematurely) while they investigated the blood clot issue.

Again, happy to check out literally any amplifying data on these supposed 800,000 neurological problems. Until then I'll probably default to the stats VAERS, the CDC, and the worldwide medical community are reporting.

I don't accept that claim at face value. I do accept the controlled trials with tens of thousands of participants, the robust adverse effects reporting system, the CDC, the international community who aren't beholden to American pharma companies, and the billions of doses administered in the last year which all point to the vaccine being safe and effective. But maybe the 120 second video of rando lawyer claiming stats that don't even make sense while showing precisely zero causality is more legit.

A few more: If there's a conspiracy to cover up adverse effects why was J&J temporarily pulled out of an abundance of caution for blood clotting issues? Are other countries seeing ten-fold increases in "neurological issues?" or 300% increases in cancer? What kind of cancer? These are some pretty basic questions I would expect anyone attempting to do their due diligence to ask. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not a 2.5 minute video utterly devoid of context or supporting data.