Best Of

Chris on here like.

Maybe he's running low and doesn't have any cigars to smoke.

Hasn't been on in 4 days, which is the equivalent to 10,000 years in terms of anyone else. Is this a schedule outage??

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cost-of-the-american-dream-in-2024/

Hey AI, tell us what you really think....

Gemini AI tells the user to die — the answer appeared out of nowhere when the user asked Google's Gemini for help with his homework

https://www.radioheritage.com/the-shortwave-radio-audio-archive-historical/
https://archive.org › details › sraa-various-shortwave-broadcasts-clips-from-the-1960s-recorded-by-wpe9jel-on-re
https://blog.archive.org › 2024 › 10 › 08 › shortwave-collection

Back in the day I used to listen to the various state-run short wave broadcasts. Voice of America was somewhat up-front about furthering American interests, other countries not so much (but it was obvious). Good introduction to propaganda.

The internet doesn't do that good a job of presenting various national points of view, especially with all the trolling infesting it. I have given up trying to understand geopolitical nuance and content myself with memes and taking a walk with a cigar.

"the hundred year marathon" - A book about China playing the long game.

Overeaters Anonymous, Ph# 1(888) 888-8888

@Amos_Umwhat said:

@VegasFrank said:

@Amos_Umwhat said:

@VegasFrank said:

@Amos_Umwhat said:

@VegasFrank said:

@Amos_Umwhat said:
Which is more dangerous to the mission for a leader

1. Incompetent subordinates?
2. Competent but disloyal subordinates?

The first, maybe you can teach them, carefully delineate what you want from them, replace them if necessary.

The second, maybe they'll carry out the mission? Maybe they'll undermine you at every turn, stab you in the back, destroy your hope of success?

What did Abe Lincoln do when it turned out that the golden boy McClellan was known to be competent, but apparently either disloyal or cowardly? Replaces him with a saddle-maker no one has ever heard of with known character flaws, and wins the war.

I remain hopeful, if skeptical, for the coming days.

Pray for your enemies.

Comparing Matt Gaetz to U.S. Grant is wild af, lol.

I didn't think Gaetz was up for Secretary of Defense, or General of the Army, is he? I thought it was the schmo from Fox Network. So, I wasn't comparing Gaetz to anyone.

At any rate, I notice no one's addressed the point I was making.

At all.

Loyalty counts to a leader. That's the point, in case you missed it.

Yeah I thought you were talking Gaetz but the same applies to the **** who is gonna be my secdef.

So, comparing that fuçko to Grant is also wild AF.

And no you don't have to provide the whole history, but your connotations were that Grant was an average "saddle maker" when he made saddles for 24 months of his life and he was a soldier for 40 years, including 17 before he was promoted as general of the army.

It would be like calling me a dishwasher because I had an after school job as one.

We all know that you are smart enough to know the difference between a truncated version and a dishonest connotation.

And there's a difference between valuing loyalty over expertise (obviously an ok virtue) and claiming that's what's going on when there are literally 2500 more qualified candidates who would ALSO be loyal...

this is a dishonest comparison also because this isn't valuing loyalty over expertise. It's demanding loyalty in lieu of competence.

I wasn't comparing any individual to Grant as I'm sure you realize. I'd never heard of Hesgeth until the selection, as I don't watch FOX news. Again you miss the point, in favor of personality politics. I stand by my statement, loyalty counts. I'd rather go to war in the company of loyal soldiers of whatever competency level rather than someone I'm sure will stab be in the back or run away.

But, you knew that. Didn't you?

Lol Steve okay.

Yes loyalty counts, to your point. You say he sacrificed one for the other, making it appear like he had no choice, like there was nobody loyal who was qualified.

I say that's untrue, even disingenuous, because he could have had both. There are millions of lawyers who voted for trump. Hundreds of retired four-stars. In my opinion he chose incompetence over competence.

I don't think I said anywhere that he sacrificed one for the other, nor did I imply that. Neither did I imply that there was no one else qualified, or better qualified. I merely said that I believe he made his choice based on loyalty.

To add to that, I suspect the status of Hesgeth as an outsider probably factored in. I don't pretend to understand the mind of Trump.

You are certainly correct that he could have chosen otherwise, perhaps better. But, the point here, so everyone will know, no disingenuousness on my part. I'm not trying to hide anything, or mislead anyone. Rather the opposite, in case that wasn't clear. It's his choice.

I'm curious to see what will happen. I'm sure the media is working around the clock to find out if Hesgeth ever stuck his gum under the seat at the theater, or whatever else they can dig up. I don't know anything at all about him, except that it appears from the quick reviews of his books that he understands that unity, not diversity, is a military's strength. You may disagree, but I doubt you'll change my mind on that.

E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. Unity.

Yeah you didn't say it but you implied it or at least I translated your message as implying it and or preferring one to the other instead of finding someone who is both.

I think it's a bad choice for the country, especially coming from my point of view as a DOD lifer. The dod is the most important and complex organization in America, if not the world. It's no position for an outsider or someone who needs on the job training or someone who has spent the majority of his current career writing books and talking on TV in a way that divides people.

This organization has to have unity to be successful. The armed forces are chock full of young people who are politically aware and active. Their preferences fall across the entire political spectrum. I supervise about 220 of these members, and I've heard everything about this particular pic, good and bad. The bottom line is that this pic is divisive.

I personally don't care how much gum someone has stuck under a desk if they are qualified and I think the vast majority of people agree with me on that point. When they are not, opposition will use the gum under the desk to render him an ineffective leader. Another reason not to choose him.

Also we cannot just ignore this choice in the context of all of his other choices. An AG who is not an attorney, an HHS secretary who ostensibly doesn't understand what fluoride and water does or at the very least is very divisive. A dni secretary who has some iffy history with one of our perceived adversaries. The narrative of the entire cabinet is as important as any one candidate.

Any one of these candidates, other than the child rapist, may have passed without much scrutiny or with the usual amount of scrutiny. All of them put together form a narrative that I don't like.