PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Anthony on May 13, 2022, 04:27:46 AM
-
The Chinese and Russians have to be laughing their asses off at us. Did this guy actually break any rules?
Michael Cassidy, a Republican House candidate for Mississippi’s 3rd Congressional District and Navy Reserve pilot, said in a recent interview with Breitbart News he believes the Navy is grounding him over his conservative political statements, even though he made them in his civilian capacity and broke no rules.
Cassidy, a reservist instructor pilot and civilian test pilot at the Naval Air Station Meridian in Meridian, Mississippi, said that in late April he filmed a campaign video and took some photos at a nearby civilian air field that is often used by Navy pilots.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/12/exclusive-mississippi-republican-congressional-candidate-pilot-says-navy-grounding-him-political-views/
-
Madness.
-
Madness.
Thanks Stan.
So much for starting conversation here. ::)
-
Thanks Stan.
So much for starting conversation here. ::)
Well this was a case of me being so mad at it I couldn’t come up with anything to say.
-
Well this was a case of me being so mad at it I couldn’t come up with anything to say.
Sorry, just getting cranky at the lack of participation in general. I don't think I add much anymore and just say the same stuff, over and over. Dealing with our being attacked on all fronts constantly by the Left is getting old.
-
The only "rules" apply to anyone who identifies as conservative. Support freedom and liberty and you are labeled a DVE. Join BLM and burn, loot or riot and it's a "peaceful protest".
The military is purging those they disagree with. Soon all we'll be left with is a bung of soldiers that don't know which latrine to use.
-
Sorry, just getting cranky at the lack of participation in general. I don't think I add much anymore and just say the same stuff, over and over. Dealing with our being attacked on all fronts constantly by the Left is getting old.
The lack of participation in general is reflective of the divide in general. There seems to be no possibility of intelligent debate. Everyone has drawn their lines in the sand and they are so far apart it’s as if we live on different planets. If we cannot agree on basic reality there is no basis for discussion whatsoever.
-
The only "rules" apply to anyone who identifies as conservative. Support freedom and liberty and you are labeled a DVE. Join BLM and burn, loot or riot and it's a "peaceful protest".
The military is purging those they disagree with. Soon all we'll be left with is a bung of soldiers that don't know which latrine to use.
A conservative, a libertarian, a centrist, a moderate Democrat (unless they grovel as a useful idiot, or are a literal idiot like Biden), or a liberal who happens to agree with one fact that is now considered right wing disinformation (such as there are only two genders). All are now considered far right enemies of the state.
A cult is something that has a set of nonsensical beliefs based on fantasy. A cult requires you to believe in all of it 100%. If you deviate one iota you are severely punished. Exiled, banned, canceled, shunned, silenced and subject to career destruction. Who does that sound like today?
Let’s take a look at this set of beliefs:
1. The U.S. is an evil empire and the cause of all the world’s woes
2. We are on the very brink of doom from man made climate change and catastrophic pollution
3. Covid 19 was a deadly plague justifying national and global economic suicide
4. Males and females do not exist, but all people are on a spectrum somewhere in between
5. Yet somehow males can get pregnant
6. Printing endless amounts of dollars will not cause inflation and in fact will remedy it
7. Every single white person harbors hatred for anyone of color
8. Males, specifically straight white males, are the very root of all evil. The toxic male patriarchy has brought the world to the pinnacle of misery and brink of destruction
In reality none of the above is even remotely true. But if you dare disagree with any of it, you are a subversive.
-
Liberals are stupid.
Democrats are liberals.
Make your own conclusion… unless you really do believe the lies they demand you believe, in which case, get professional help.
-
Thanks Stan.
So much for starting conversation here. ::)
A couple of times I tried to come up with some sort of reply... if only to play devil's advocate.
At first I was trying to think about how the guy could have avoided the appearance of impropriety.... but it looks like the guy isn't being punished for any inappropriate actions (apparently there aren't any)... but rather expressing his political views.
While the military can legitimately silence certain types of speech in connection with military service, I don't think that extends to views of candidates for federal office.
bottomline might be: there are waaaaay too many f'n lawyers.
-
A conservative, a libertarian, a centrist, a moderate Democrat (unless they grovel as a useful idiot, or are a literal idiot like Biden), or a liberal who happens to agree with one fact that is now considered right wing disinformation (such as there are only two genders). All are now considered far right enemies of the state.
A cult is something that has a set of nonsensical beliefs based on fantasy. A cult requires you to believe in all of it 100%. If you deviate one iota you are severely punished. Exiled, banned, canceled, shunned, silenced and subject to career destruction. Who does that sound like today?
Let’s take a look at this set of beliefs:
1. The U.S. is an evil empire and the cause of all the world’s woes
2. We are on the very brink of doom from man made climate change and catastrophic pollution
3. Covid 19 was a deadly plague justifying national and global economic suicide
4. Males and females do not exist, but all people are on a spectrum somewhere in between
5. Yet somehow males can get pregnant
6. Printing endless amounts of dollars will not cause inflation and in fact will remedy it
7. Every single white person harbors hatred for anyone of color
8. Males, specifically straight white males, are the very root of all evil. The toxic male patriarchy has brought the world to the pinnacle of misery and brink of destruction
In reality none of the above is even remotely true. But if you dare disagree with any of it, you are a subversive.
Great post. Totally agree. Also agree on how extreme the divide has become. There is NO discussion any longer because the divide is so great, no common ground is even remotely possible. Why bother? It just gets both parties aggravated. We are on the brink of a civil war or something to reset society. I don't know, however, nor am I advocating for a civil war or revolution, but that's where we are.
-
Great post. Totally agree. Also agree on how extreme the divide has become. There is NO discussion any longer because the divide is so great, no common ground is even remotely possible. Why bother? It just gets both parties aggravated. We are on the brink of a civil war or something to reset society. I don't know, however, nor am I advocating for a civil war or revolution, but that's where we are.
I agree as well. It seems that the middle is clearing out and everyone is migrating to the two poles. I'm hopeful that it just seems that way. The political class and MSM have no interest in the middle. The MSM only prints news from the poles because that generates clicks and revenue. The political class only panders to the poles since that's where their power comes from. I do hope that there is a vast quiet middle that is keeping quiet. Anyone in the middle is perceived as being at the opposite pole by those at the poles... it's just not worth getting yelled at. The best thing for this country is for the very few people at the poles to fall off into the ether.
-
it used to be that politicians would pay attention to the swing votes. It didn't matter what they did, 40% would vote (D), and 40% would vote (R). It was the middle 20% that really decided elections
at least it was that way until there was massive voter fraud in key swing places.
-
it used to be that politicians would pay attention to the swing votes. It didn't matter what they did, 40% would vote (D), and 40% would vote (R). It was the middle 20% that really decided elections
at least it was that way until there was massive voter fraud in key swing places.
And 100% of the dead vote (D)!
-
I agree as well. It seems that the middle is clearing out and everyone is migrating to the two poles. I'm hopeful that it just seems that way. The political class and MSM have no interest in the middle. The MSM only prints news from the poles because that generates clicks and revenue. The political class only panders to the poles since that's where their power comes from. I do hope that there is a vast quiet middle that is keeping quiet. Anyone in the middle is perceived as being at the opposite pole by those at the poles... it's just not worth getting yelled at. The best thing for this country is for the very few people at the poles to fall off into the ether.
Let’s take abortion as an example. The majority in the U.S. are neither completely pro-life nor pro-choice. Most want it to legal but with restrictions. A majority are okay with first trimester, some with second, but only a small minority are okay with third trimester abortions. This happens to align with Roe vs Wade:
During a pregnant person's first trimester, the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
During the second trimester, the Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.
During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.
https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v--wade-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html
Wait… pregnant person? *sigh*
Anyway, the point is, with RvW we’ve actually been muddling along more or less in accordance with the overall views of the population. But the pro-life end of the pole wasn’t happy that it was unrestricted even just in the first trimester so yada yada here we are with a conservative SC about to overturn it.
The reaction from the opposite pole has been a disgusting display of absolute legality all the way up to and after delivery. It has been to push the extreme pro-choice position so hard that there is now a counter reaction from the extreme pro-life side, that is, a proposal to ban all abortion at the federal level through legislation. But, if they’ve been arguing that RvW is unconstitutional because it should be decided at state level, they can’t, without being total hypocrites, now suddenly assert that it should be a federal ban.
The majority of Americans neither want a total ban of all abortion, nor completely unrestricted abortion, yet all we see on the news is these two extreme sides battling it out. And you are absolutely right that all of these middle view people are seen by both ends of the pole as the opposite pole.
If I say I’m okay with first trimester abortion but no further, the pro-life people call me a baby murderer and the pro-choice people call me a misogynist, anti-feminist, Nazi, fascist, etc., yet that position would put me in the actual majority. Just for the record I’m not necessarily saying that is my position.
-
Anyway, the point is, with RvW we’ve actually been muddling along more or less in accordance with the overall views of the population. But the pro-life end of the pole wasn’t happy that it was unrestricted even just in the first trimester so yada yada here we are with a conservative SC about to overturn it.
I do agree that the ruling really does follow the views of the overall population. But the way I understand it, the original RvW created law from the bench. This court says that doing so is unconstitutional therefore the ruling is invalid and abortion law goes back to the states until the House and Senate can create a law, which is the proper way to do things. The repeal of RvW is because the ruling itself is unconstitutional, not because it's about abortion.
-
I agree as well. It seems that the middle is clearing out and everyone is migrating to the two poles. I'm hopeful that it just seems that way. The political class and MSM have no interest in the middle. The MSM only prints news from the poles because that generates clicks and revenue. The political class only panders to the poles since that's where their power comes from. I do hope that there is a vast quiet middle that is keeping quiet. Anyone in the middle is perceived as being at the opposite pole by those at the poles... it's just not worth getting yelled at. The best thing for this country is for the very few people at the poles to fall off into the ether.
The problem is mainstream Democrats have moved Far Left but conservatives have stayed in place essentially just wanting to MAINTAIN their rights and freedoms.
-
Thanks Stan.
So much for starting conversation here. ::)
Well to be fair I was driving at the time and couldn’t thumb type a manifesto.
-
Well to be fair I was driving at the time and couldn’t thumb type a manifesto.
I was not singling you out. The thanks was genuine.
-
I do agree that the ruling really does follow the views of the overall population. But the way I understand it, the original RvW created law from the bench. This court says that doing so is unconstitutional therefore the ruling is invalid and abortion law goes back to the states until the House and Senate can create a law, which is the proper way to do things. The repeal of RvW is because the ruling itself is unconstitutional, not because it's about abortion.
I agree that the ruling is unconstitutional and should be repealed. I don't agree Congress should make law either restricting or allowing abortion. I understand that they may, legally, but I believe in minimalist government and that includes not making much law about anything that doesn't involve interstate commerce and national defense. I don't favor much centralized authority.
-
what people tend to overlook is whether or not abortion is properly a State matter or a Federal matter.
Pro-life, pro-choice isn't relevant here... it's the Constutional law that is relevant.
-
what people tend to overlook is whether or not abortion is properly a State matter or a Federal matter.
Pro-life, pro-choice isn't relevant here... it's the Constutional law that is relevant.
Agree. People approach it two different ways, from a moral standpoint, and a legal standpoint. The legal issue is indeed that Constitutional law is what rules. The moral standpoint is outside that realm, but that is when it gets tied into the Constitution when you say we have the "right to life". So then the argument becomes when exactly does human life begin? The moment of fertilization, or only when we are viable (able to live outside of a WOMAN'S body)?
I suppose there is a third way to look at it: pragmatically. I think that link I posted said RvW did not actually change much the numbers of abortions that were performed. It just exchanged illegal back alley abortions for legal medically safe abortions, but the number of women's deaths due to abortion went dramatically down. I'm not vouching for the accuracy of things in that link, I just picked the first one that came up when I googled RvW to find the language for the trimester rulings. I have read elsewhere that births went down as a result of RvW and specifically unwanted births went down.
But I've read yet elsewhere that abortion does not change the total number of children a woman has. It delays them til later years. So you might argue that if you don't abort your first pregnancy, you might avoid getting pregnant again. Therefore you are denying your second potential child the opportunity to even be conceived. This of course only works if you have contraception. This was the traditional Catholic Church position: Not only is a fertilized zygote human life, but every egg and every sperm is a potential human life and must be given every opportunity to come into being. Therefore contraception is banned too, and jerking off as well.
if you want the population to increase, ban abortion, but you will also have to ban contraception, and now that women all want careers, you will have to provide daycare for them, or go Taliban mode and forbid them careers. But a century from now we may well face considering doing all of that, as we face a catastrophic lack of young people to support society.
I'm not rendering an opinion on any of this and not claiming any of it is true: I am just going over many possible practical real life consequences of abortion law that one might consider, outside the moral and legal realms.
I personally think it should be states issue. It doesn't go well when a centralized federal government tries to control people's reproduction. It doesn't go well when they force abortions and it doesn't go well when they blanket ban them. But in a Republic of 50 different states like us, and a Constitution that specifically reserves powers to those states, we are free to move to a state whose law we agree with.
-
This court says that doing so is unconstitutional therefore the ruling is invalid and abortion law goes back to the states until the House and Senate can create a law,…
But…if the ruling was that abortion is not a federal matter and belongs to the States, then Congress cannot make such a law either. Because it’s outside the federal purview, it is outside of Congress’s purview too.
-
But…if the ruling was that abortion is not a federal matter and belongs to the States, then Congress cannot make such a law either. Because it’s outside the federal purview, it is outside of Congress’s purview too.
The fix would then be a constitutional amendment, making it a federal matter once and for all. That worked for prohibition. ;D
The whole thing hinges on when human life begins. If the thing growing inside my uterus is not human life, then the Fourth Amendment indeed applies: I have the right to privacy concerning the contents of my uterus which are my effects; the government has no business interfering in my decisions regarding them. This is the position taken by the pro-abortioners, however the logic falls completely apart as pregnancy advances and the fetus clearly resembles a live infant human. It can be nothing else.
Conversely, the pro-life side claims the products of conception are a living human from the moment of fertilization. This is something we assume has always been true but that is not the case. Prior to the discovery of molecular biology, it was not generally assumed the embryo was a human entitled to life. Not by common law anyway. (I’ll get to religion in a minute.)
And physical reality seemed to bear this out. In the first week after fertilization, it is indeed only a “clump of cells”. Then for much of the first trimester it resembles some grotesque deep sea fish more than anything. At the end of the first trimester it still looks more like an alien from outer space than a human child. It’s not until well into the second trimester it starts looking undeniably like a human infant and this is when “quickening” occurs, so it seemed logical that is the point it gains a right to legal protection. At the time the Bill of Rights was written abortion was legal up to quickening.
But to the extent religions opposed abortion from the start of pregnancy, it was not so much that they knew this was a viable human; they opposed contraception too. And homosexuality. The opposition was to anything that blocked reproduction. No one argues that egg and sperm separately are actual complete humans, yet churches, and even laws, banned birth control. This was because they knew the devastating impact on the nuclear family when children don’t bind a couple together, and the harm to society of a shrinking population, and their predictions have sadly become all too true.
Roe v. Wade actually followed on the heels of a court case involving a law banning birth control (Griswold v. Connecticut) which was upheld by the state, went to the SCOTUS and was struck down, citing a “right to marital privacy” (correctly in my opinion) which then lay the foundation for the same “right” when it came to abortion - incorrect in my opinion, but would be correct if the baby isn’t human.
But it is human. We now know this incontrovertibly through DNA and an understanding of embryonic development. This makes the RvW decision fall apart. RvW had followed the pre-science belief that sometime around quickening was when we confer human rights on the fetus. But worse, the SC ignored or discarded the looming socioeconomic consequences of restricting population growth - not with RvW but with Griswold v. Connecticut! Because it’s not abortion that is limiting how many children women have, it is birth control plus women entering the workforce.
Sadly, overturning RvW will not fix this problem.
-
When is an Eagle egg and Eagle. ;)
-
But in a Republic of 50 different states like us, and a Constitution that specifically reserves powers to those states, we are free to move to a state whose law we agree with.
IANAL, and perhaps you didn't to imply otherwise, but the federal government derives its powers from the states... not the other way around.
-
IANAL, and perhaps you didn't to imply otherwise, but the federal government derives its powers from the states... not the other way around.
That is exactly what I meant when I said "the Constitution specifically reserves powers to the states", but maybe I didn't word it right. "Reserve" doesn't mean given, it means leaving it as it already is. All powers rest with the states, save those given to the feds. We are violently agreeing.