brickhistory Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 We all are or were in the government via the USAF. The thread(s) railing against the stupidity/inefficiency/buffoonery of that part of the government are orders of magnitude longer and larger than those that talk about USAF getting it right. And the USAF is, arguably, staffed with better than the average bears in the overall federal government. We've all see the incredible stupidity/adherence to written in a vacuum policies/pettiness by mindless drones. The VA is government healthcare on a smaller scale than universal but an accurate template. So, please, I'll pass on gubmint running healthcare via any system. Less government is good. 1
brickhistory Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 Further, I much prefer this: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-foreign-policy-were-america-first-2018-6 to this: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/obama-asia-trip-hiroshima-apology-223446 1
Snooter Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 10 minutes ago, brickhistory said: Further, I much prefer this: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-foreign-policy-were-america-first-2018-6 to this: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/obama-asia-trip-hiroshima-apology-223446 Wondering which I would prefer as my Wingman... f you take care of yourself or hey I know I screwed up last time, let me make good this time around...
brickhistory Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 Or American exceptionalism. I see no reason to apologize for nuking Japan. Apologize to South Vietnam? Sure, since we didn't help them win. Coincidentally, the nation that exists beat us. So I wouldn't apologize. Apologies, when unnecessary, shows weakness on the world stage. YMMV.
Vertigo Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 13 hours ago, Lord Ratner said: Conservatives on the other hand deal with the future. What's better for tomorrow. Yes, they lose sight of empathy and compassion, which is why niether side can function without the other. But they are also accepting of the reality today for the promise of a better reality tomorrow. The climate being the exception to that rule, I guess?
Snooter Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Kiloalpha said: Hardly. More like choosing a) bit of a brawler that undoubtedly needs guidance but when push comes to shove, he's down to throw some punches and reshuffle the cards, because "we're America bit$%" vs. b) quiet, professorial type who judges you for the occasional 'Merica. Because in his mind, we're an illegitimate country founded by white racists. That pointless exercise aside, serious question. You think dropping the A-Bomb on Japan was a mistake? Something that we should have to apologize for almost 60 years later, despite rebuilding the country and spending God only knows how much blood and treasure to make them a first-rate regional power? The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the A-bomb. The A-bomb was our middle finger to Russia. Illegitimate country founded by white racists, got it. You have a good day... Edited June 13, 2018 by Snooter
Lord Ratner Posted June 13, 2018 Posted June 13, 2018 The climate being the exception to that rule, I guess?You have to believe the threat, which I do not. 1
Prozac Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 57 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said: 10 hours ago, Vertigo said: The climate being the exception to that rule, I guess? You have to believe the threat, which I do not. Some still prefer to fly by the seat of their pants rather than trust their instruments (I.e. empirical data presented in front of them). More often than not, this doesn’t end well. Oh, and I understand that there may be an instrument that sometimes tells you something different (some data doesn’t jive). That’s why you scan all the instruments. Sometimes you have to throw the bad one out.
Lord Ratner Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 Some still prefer to fly by the seat of their pants rather than trust their instruments (I.e. empirical data presented in front of them). More often than not, this doesn’t end well. Oh, and I understand that there may be an instrument that sometimes tells you something different (some data doesn’t jive). That’s why you scan all the instruments. Sometimes you have to throw the bad one out.Funny thing though, if all of the instruments rely on one single sensor to function, a systemic failure is more likely. The thousands of scientists that form the consensus on climate change rely on temperature data from only three sources. Data that has been heavily and repeatedly revised over the years, and always towards supporting the popular theory. For example, using ship bilge temperature data instead of more accurate bouy data. Or how a well documented temperature spike in the middle of the 20th century had been slowly disappearing from the data sets despite no new data from that time. I could go into more examples of illogical temperature station changes that have been exposed, but it's not my job to do the research for you.When a global warming model successfully predicts the future climate, maybe I'll give it a fresh consideration. Until then, I'll file it with the "guaranteed" catastrophes of global cooling and overpopulation that enjoyed "scientific consensus" in their day. 5
HeloDude Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) On June 12, 2018 at 6:07 PM, 17D_guy said: Interesting. I guess by that you mean something like having the gov't say Insurance couldn't deny people with pre-existing conditions is "further regulation." That is exactly what I meaon by further regulation. Health "insurance" stopped being "insurance" when the government forced people to enter into business where the business was forced to cover things it didn't want to cover. Here's a simple analogy you should be able to understand: Homeowners insurance. If the government forced the insurance business to take a new customer whose house had been burnt down last week and then also forced the insurance company to pay to replace this home after the fact...and then also force me to do business with said insurance company, then this is no longer insurance. It's government mandating that homeowners with insurance who have not had their house burnt down pay for someone's house who didn't pay into the insurance pool before it burnt down. Or even worse, forcing a homeowner who didn't want insurance to pay for the guy whose house burnt down. Like I said, this is not insurance. As for the rest of your post (which came across as quite emotional by the way), I'll gladly respond once we can understand each other as to what is and isn't insurance. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2016/11/01/why-should-the-young-and-the-healthy-bail-out-of-obamacare/#309d294f1f69 Edited June 14, 2018 by HeloDude 1
Prozac Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said: Funny thing though, if all of the instruments rely on one single sensor to function, a systemic failure is more likely. The thousands of scientists that form the consensus on climate change rely on temperature data from only three sources. Data that has been heavily and repeatedly revised over the years, and always towards supporting the popular theory. For example, using ship bilge temperature data instead of more accurate bouy data. Or how a well documented temperature spike in the middle of the 20th century had been slowly disappearing from the data sets despite no new data from that time. I could go into more examples of illogical temperature station changes that have been exposed, but it's not my job to do the research for you. When a global warming model successfully predicts the future climate, maybe I'll give it a fresh consideration. Until then, I'll file it with the "guaranteed" catastrophes of global cooling and overpopulation that enjoyed "scientific consensus" in their day. I hear you. I really do. But do some research on the whole ship temperature thing and why it was revised. It makes sense. I admit I’m no expert in the field. That’s why I choose to trust the experts. It’s that whole “nine out of ten doctors recommend” thing. I usually don’t trust the outlier. Problem is, these days everybody’s an internet expert and thinks they’re entitled to their own little version of reality. If we can’t agree on the facts, we are truly in trouble.
Lord Ratner Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 I hear you. I really do. But do some research on the whole ship temperature thing and why it was revised. It makes sense. I admit I’m no expert in the field. That’s why I choose to trust the experts. It’s that whole “nine out of ten doctors recommend” thing. I usually don’t trust the outlier. Problem is, these days everybody’s an internet expert and thinks they’re entitled to their own little version of reality. If we can’t agree on the facts, we are truly in trouble. Lol, I have read the data, and analysis. Using ship data was insane. Look at it this way. Don't you think it's odd that the adjustments to imperfect instruments always seem to work in the direction of the proposed theory? If you look at the adjustments made to weather stations, old temps get revised down and newer readings go up, even for stations that have had no surrounding infrastructure changes or equipment modifications. Similar to how satellite data, by far the most accurate measure of global temps, doesn't paint the nightmare scenario the true believers would have you believe. Where's the flooding? Super storms? Extinct polar bears? Hell, where's the predicted temperature increases? How many forecasts have to fail before you doubt the premise? How many scientists need to get caught bending the established rules of science? You should never trust a theory that demands the end of debate. Ask Judith Curry, she's a much better source than I am. I could be wrong. But the difference is that you trust the experts. I choose to read their literature, and it is lacking. 2
tac airlifter Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 7 hours ago, Prozac said: If we can’t agree on the facts, we are truly in trouble. We can’t, and we are. this is preceisly why open minded debate is so important. By the way, we’ve never had a public reckoning with past scientific certainties that turned out false: I recall being taught that acid rain would destroy crops by 1990 and the world would starve. How about that hole in the ozone layer 80s kids were forced to fear? “Every expert agrees this scary thing will happen soon, no time for questions, do what we say now!” has been a progressive TTP for a long time. Listening to each other politely and crafting arguments that convince is hard. Squashing disagreement and ordering compliance via fiat is easy. Which method would you prefer to be used on you? 1 1
Vertigo Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 All those that panned Obama for bowing. We're cool with this, right?
pilot Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 Returning a salute is a lot different than bowing to a king. Bowing is a sign of submission and is not a military or US custom/courtesy. Returning a salute is a sign of mutual respect and is customary, especially for the CiC. Not returning a salute is a sign of disrespect. When on a historic foreign summit, why on earth would he disrespect a general of a country with whom he is trying to mend decades long strained relations? Trump returns salutes to a brand new E2. Sign of mutual respect...he's not showing submission to said E2. I haven't been to SERE in a while, but last I checked you are required by the geneva conventions to salute enemy officers who outrank you if you are a POW. But you aren't required to bow. Trump bows to no one. Apples and oranges. Of all people, I'd think a military member would understand the distinct difference between bowing and returning a salute. If he initiated the salute, that'd be one thing (still nothing like a bow). But he didn't. 2
nsplayr Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 5 hours ago, tac airlifter said: How about that hole in the ozone layer 80s kids were forced to fear? I mean, the world took action via the Montreal Protocol in 1987 that banned the CFCs that were harming the ozone layer, and we're seeing the problem begin to subside. That's why the worst predictions didn't come true - the world got together and took action. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/ozone-layer-mend-thanks-chemical-ban
nsplayr Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said: Where's the flooding? Super storms? Extinct polar bears? Hell, where's the predicted temperature increases? I mean, I'm enjoying the irony here my friend. I'm not a scientist (I just play one on TV!), but in the last year or two we had pretty salient examples all of the things you're asking about: Major flooding in Houston after Hurricane Harvey https://www.texasmonthly.com/energy/climate-change-experts-weigh-houston-flooded-hurricane-harvey/ Category 5 Hurricane Maria was arguably the second-deadliest natural disaster to ever hit the US. 2017 was the second-costliest hurricane season for the US ever. There was a viral video of an emaciated polar bear making the rounds online. One data point, polar bears aren't in as much trouble as other species, yadda yadda, but here's your hard-hitting video https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/starving-polar-bear-video-climate-change-spd/ Here's NASA's data on temperature changes. Take it for what you will, but I know the new NASA administrator and he's a Trump-appointee who is very conservative politically. Not that data gives a shit about politics, but feel free to call him up if you think the data is skewed. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ I'm not a fan of climate change hyperventilation, but it's much worse to dismiss the problem. What exactly is the downside of accelerating the switch to renewable, US-based energy sources that don't pollute as much? We still extract plenty of fossil fuels but there is clearly room for both. What is the downside to leading the world in clean technology? What is the downside to energy efficiency measures and reducing waste? I really don't understand why this issue is often argued from the standard left/right points of view... It's like Pascal's Wager. The downside of getting it wrong (i.e. climate change is #fakenews and NBD) is huge, while the cost of taking action, even if you don't believe the data and experts, is much lower. Edited June 14, 2018 by nsplayr
Snooter Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 Get in a car and drive 120mph down a country road at night, driving above the speed limit never killed anyone... Much as it’s trees and blunt force trauma that cause the death in that scenario, similarly some may try and refute that carbon emissions are causing climate change. Are we really so careless as to not mitigate a potential risk if we have the ability?
Vertigo Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 1 hour ago, FlyArmy said: Returning a salute is a lot different than bowing to a king. Bowing is a sign of submission and is not a military or US custom/courtesy. Returning a salute is a sign of mutual respect and is customary, especially for the CiC. Not returning a salute is a sign of disrespect. When on a historic foreign summit, why on earth would he disrespect a general of a country with whom he is trying to mend decades long strained relations? Trump returns salutes to a brand new E2. Sign of mutual respect...he's not showing submission to said E2. I haven't been to SERE in a while, but last I checked you are required by the geneva conventions to salute enemy officers who outrank you if you are a POW. But you aren't required to bow. Trump bows to no one. Apples and oranges. Of all people, I'd think a military member would understand the distinct difference between bowing and returning a salute. If he initiated the salute, that'd be one thing (still nothing like a bow). But he didn't. So you think it's It is wholly appropriate for the commander in chief of our armed forces to salute the military of our adversary, especially one which is responsible for a regime of terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people? K.
HeloDude Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 14 minutes ago, Snooter said: Get in a car and drive 120mph down a country road at night, driving above the speed limit never killed anyone... Much as it’s trees and blunt force trauma that cause the death in that scenario, similarly some may try and refute that carbon emissions are causing climate change. Are we really so careless as to not mitigate a potential risk if we have the ability? By your logic/scenario above, cars shouldn't be able to drive faster than 40 mph since people have died in car accidents driving faster than 40. Or does "mitigating potential risk" not also work in your own given scenario?
Lord Ratner Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 I mean, I'm enjoying the irony here my friend. I'm not a scientist (I just play one on TV!), but in the last year or two we had pretty salient examples all of the things you're asking about: Major flooding in Houston after Hurricane Harvey https://www.texasmonthly.com/energy/climate-change-experts-weigh-houston-flooded-hurricane-harvey/ Category 5 Hurricane Maria was arguably the second-deadliest natural disaster to ever hit the US. 2017 was the second-costliest hurricane season for the US ever. There was a viral video of an emaciated polar bear making the rounds online. One data point, polar bears aren't in as much trouble as other species, yadda yadda, but here's your hard-hitting video https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/starving-polar-bear-video-climate-change-spd/ Here's NASA's data on temperature changes. Take it for what you will, but I know the new NASA administrator and he's a Trump-appointee who is very conservative politically. Not that data gives a shit about politics, but feel free to call him up if you think the data is skewed. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ I'm not a fan of climate change hyperventilation, but it's much worse to dismiss the problem. What exactly is the downside of accelerating the switch to renewable, US-based energy sources that don't pollute as much? We still extract plenty of fossil fuels but there is clearly room for both. What is the downside to leading the world in clean technology? What is the downside to energy efficiency measures and reducing waste? I really don't understand why this issue is often argued from the standard left/right points of view... It's like Pascal's Wager. The downside of getting it wrong (i.e. climate change is #fakenews and NBD) is huge, while the cost of taking action, even if you don't believe the data and experts, is much lower.Right. So after what, a decade of practically no major hurricane activity during the period models predicted would be hardest hit, the first big storm is evidence of GW? This is the type of shit I'm talking about. Absolutely anything that counters the theory is ignored, or scientifically-explained away after the models were wrong, while any otherwise normal or slightly abnormal occurrences are proof. https://www.thegwpf.org/as-polar-bear-numbers-increase-gwpf-calls-for-re-assessment-of-endangered-species-status/The downside is that diverting resources to projects that fail to deliver the promised gains are keeping us from other projects more likely to deliver results that benefit humanity. It matters because there are many, many real threats to the environment that aren't getting the attention or money they deserve because some dipshits want to control the air. And it's astounding how little climate scientists talk about the biggest threat to global warming, the sun.Much in the same way people complain about military spending or welfare, national wealth is not finite, but neither is it infinite. I'd rather clean the oceans, or protect the rain forests, or the white rhinos, than burn it on a theory with more gaping holes in it than BQZip's family reunion, and a bunch of artists, actors, and politicians as it's biggest proponents. 2
HeloDude Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 3 minutes ago, Vertigo said: So you think it's It is wholly appropriate for the commander in chief of our armed forces to salute the military of our adversary, especially one which is responsible for a regime of terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people? K. Funny how you conveniently left out the "returning" portion when discussing the salute. But to go with your post above, do you also then think they should not have shaken hands/greeted each other?...since their regimee is "responsible for terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people"? Also, just a few weeks ago you were praising how Obama dealt with Iran...who is also a sponsor of terror, murder, and unspeakable terror against its own people. Too funny lol.
HossHarris Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 11 minutes ago, Vertigo said: So you think it's It is wholly appropriate for the commander in chief of our armed forces to salute the military of our adversary, especially one which is responsible for a regime of terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people? K. Yes. Appropriate and to the letter of protocol. 2
pilot Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 21 minutes ago, Vertigo said: So you think it's It is wholly appropriate for the commander in chief of our armed forces to salute the military of our adversary, especially one which is responsible for a regime of terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people? K. Both the AFI and army reg say to salute officers of friendly foreign nations (referring to when to render a salute to a foreign officer). While NK isn't exactly a "friendly nation," in this case, it was a friendly visit, meant to come to mutually agreeable terms and develop a path ahead for a peaceful relationship. Because it was a "friendly" meeting between two heads of state trying to forge a peaceful future, the NK general rendered a salute to Trump, out of respect/custom/courtesy. Returning a salute is a standard, respectful gesture. NOT returning a salute is disrespectful. Trump didn't go over there to disrespect NK. He went over there to get shit done in a peaceful and respectful way.
Vertigo Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 4 minutes ago, FlyArmy said: Both the AFI and army reg say to salute officers of friendly foreign nations (referring to when to render a salute to a foreign officer). While NK isn't exactly a "friendly nation," in this case, it was a friendly visit, meant to come to mutually agreeable terms and develop a path ahead for a peaceful relationship. Because it was a "friendly" meeting between two heads of state trying to forge a peaceful future, the NK general rendered a salute to Trump, out of respect/custom/courtesy. Returning a salute is a standard, respectful gesture. NOT returning a salute is disrespectful. Trump didn't go over there to disrespect NK. He went over there to get shit done in a peaceful and respectful way. I don't believe the President is beholden to AFIs or Army regs. He's a damn civilian. Heads of State do not salute or return salutes from foreign military. 1. General salutes then offers handshake. 2. HoS nods then accepts handshake. Also, wtf do you think a bow is? It's a display of respect.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now