JDHillFan

I don’t know if anyone has the answer to your last question as of yet. In the absence of a negotiated peace, is your position that the US should supply weapons and money in perpetuity?

You seem upset. So much so that your post is incomprehensible. Oh well.

If one has supported Ukraine up to this point (a lot of good it does for the people of Ukraine when Average Joe American declares his/her/their support), are they required to support it in perpetuity? Can the longtime supporter step back, recognize Ukraine cannot win, and now prefer a negotiated peace? Is that ok?

I’m just glad a sane, sober, rational lefty has finally arrived. Good god. 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻🤦🏻‍♀️

Possibly your finest post yet. Witty, yet packs a punch. More please.

The war started three years ago and “they’re working on it” is an acceptable response? Why have our European allies been so willing to have us shoulder the load for three years? As allies, shouldn’t they have done more to help?

Solid point from SAS

As our allies, shouldn’t they have shared more of the burden all along? Why would our allies so willingly let America shoulder the load? All the while our allies have spent more on Russian oil than they have on defense of Ukraine. Another Biden failure. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/eu-spends-more-russian-oil-gas-than-financial-aid-ukraine-report In the calendar year 2024, the EU spent 39% more on Russian fossil fuel imports than it set aside for Ukraine. The aid figure does not include military or humanitarian contributions. Vaibhav Raghunandan, an analyst at Crea and coauthor of the report, said: “Purchasing Russian fossil fuels is, quite plainly, akin to sending financial aid to the Kremlin and enabling its invasion.

NTSB is lying to us to protect TRUMP and President MUSK. Right?

Thoughts from the peanut gallery?

No doubt. Overwrought hyperbole is what you do. See the title of this thread for proof.

That’s the spirit! You’ve got this! Only 46.5 months to go.

No. You?

The time for that was 11/5/24. Epic failure. You seem angrier by the day. Try to remember that you don’t care and that you are just laughing every day. That part is not shining through. Hang in there buddy!

The 5% being let go are undoubtedly all critical technical staff. The remaining 95% will have to run with the ball. There will be zero instances this year where someone utters “if only we had more weather experts”.

Agreed. The coaches do not have the benefit of billions of dollars of space technology to assist them. The shat upon government employees will need to work smarter, not harder and do more with less. Kind of like the private sector is generally required to do. That is undoubtedly lost on a government employee that spent a good chunk of his/her/their last two weeks on the internet. There has never been an instance where someone declared “if only we had more NOAA employees, this never would have happened”.

Based on this thread I move that Just Jack change his name to Simple Jack.

Has someone suggested that a 5% cut results in only one person available per task? That’s not a specious argument, it’s a dumb one. How many is the right number of employees? Just more? I guess if the Bills and Sabres just had more coaches they could get over their shortcomings. Can’t believe they haven’t thought of that.

Can someone say why the guy Tapper is quoting is wrong?

Not more people. The right people. Has nothing to do with quantity. I strongly suspect the agencies tasked with weather forecasting and research will survive the horrific 5% purge and life will go on exactly as it has.

Right. If only there were more weather experts employed by the US government the devastation and death wrought by an absolutely freak tornado could have been abated. We just needed more scientists 35 years ago. Give me one data point that shows more scientists could have developed a better system. More does not mean better.

Some pinhead down the road from me flew an upside down flag throughout the Biden years. Impossible to respect someone that extreme.

Based on your wording I would forget the almost and just go with identical!

Has there been a single weather-related calamity that could have been avoided or lessened if only we had enough people working for the National Weather Service? Rhetorical question.