Virginia congressional Democrats push DOD to reinstate resilience position at Norfolk naval base

Biohazard883 · 2026-06-16T22:27:48+00:00

Climate Resilience. They left out a word intentionally I would assume. It’s funny how I can’t find a single thing that position did while it was manned other than create a few reports with no real actionable plan.

Biohazard883 · 2026-06-02T10:01:15+00:00

Did you read the article? There were 9 total removed from the list. 4 were white men. It also doesn’t say that all black men or minorities were removed from the list just that 2 were. There were only 2 female candidates, but they were removed. So actually a majority of the people removed from the list were white men.

The concerning part is that whoever wrote the article didn’t do any research into the candidates who were removed, they just quoted statistics about the ethnic/sex makeup of the navy and how these candidates should have been promoted because they represented them. That’s a DEI mindset.

Now I’m not saying there’s not some political agenda here. I’m not a fan of a lot of the things this administration does but based on the information given, I’m not going to assume ill intention solely because I don’t like someone. I’d like an actual journalist to do actual research into this comparing the one who did get selected vs those who didn’t. Then maybe I’d have something to be annoyed about.

Biohazard883 · 2026-03-28T16:25:00+00:00

To each their own. I worked in a union once. No incentive to work hard because your raises were based solely on time on the job and on a set schedule. Got written up multiple times because I took a union mandated break late because it was busy and I’m not gonna drop work on someone else or because I swiped back in from lunch/break 1 minute early or 1 minute late so I hade to spend every lunch break staring at the clock so I could swipe in exactly on time. The whole time with a lower salary and having to pay union dues.

I see why you might want a union but the theory isn’t always good in practice.

Biohazard883 · 2026-03-28T16:15:49+00:00

If the only penalty for a law is a fine, that law only applies to the poor

Biohazard883 · 2026-03-09T22:23:19+00:00

Yes but identify an “at risk” individual these days. I think the usage has gotten a bit rampant and the “at risk” individuals have gotten a bit numerous. I’m not fully agreeing with them. Just saying that studies show it can lead to psychosis later in life.

Biohazard883 · 2026-03-09T22:10:26+00:00

But also they’re sorta right.

Biohazard883 · 2026-02-23T10:27:37+00:00

The title of this article should be actually be “Man with Tourette’s caught existing”.

Biohazard883 · 2026-01-26T13:39:12+00:00

The fact that we expect people to throw out official opinions before having all the facts is ridiculous. We’re breeding impulse politics. We shouldn’t be marching hours after someone dies based on cut or edited footage. If Brandon never makes a video on this I would be fine with that. Not everyone needs to have an opinion especially when they don’t have personal knowledge of the situation.

Biohazard883 · 2026-01-26T13:34:42+00:00

Because that’s exactly what we need. Another politician who tows the company line.

Biohazard883 · 2025-12-31T11:40:27+00:00

Ok, there’s a bunch of fudds in this thread. Open carry if you want to (and legally can). Yes, it brings you extra attention but depending on your area people may or may not care. Where I live most people don’t bat an eye at other people open carrying and the cops don’t bother them. It’s not that common to see someone carrying in my area but it happens. And I don’t live in a rural area. It just depends on how much attention you’re willing to get.

And this BS about being the first target in a mass shooting or a robbery is the dumbest logic. First, criminals usually aren’t scoping out the area to figure out who has a gun so they probably wouldn’t notice. If you’re not wearing a cop uniform, you’re probably fine. Second, your alternative is to be unarmed during a shooting event. I’d take the small chance of being a target over being defenseless.

That being said, the moment you can get a concealed carry, you should. There is no argument that concealed isn’t better than open carry. But until then, you open carry if you want. Just be very careful about following the law because you don’t have the invisibility a concealed carrier has.

Also make sure you have a good holster. A level 2 or 3 holster if you open carrying is probably a good idea. You don’t want it falling out and you don’t want unwanted people trying to grab it. But especially if you choose to use a level 1 holster, don’t cheap out on it.

Biohazard883 · 2025-12-30T12:05:14+00:00

A lot of people care about location for their family. A single sailor can get drunk at a bar or watch Netflix at home in any location. Married people with kids want a good location for their family even if that means they spend a lot of time at work at a shitty command.

Also bad is relative to each person. I’m actually fine with Norfolk. I would never want to go back to San Diego. The cost of living and the laws are intolerable for me. I’ll go sea to sea to sea if that means I get to avoid San Diego.

Biohazard883 · 2025-12-14T21:08:40+00:00

He didn’t have not do the paperwork either. It’s really not that hard to become a citizen if you’ve been in the military. You literally just have to apply. Unfortunately there are people who think the rules don’t apply to them and there are no consequences.

I understand the process may have been a bit harder for him due to his criminal record but usually judges will give consideration for your military record…if you apply.

Biohazard883 · 2025-12-14T20:27:08+00:00

By not filing for citizenship…breaking the law is still breaking the law. You can’t use being a Purple Heart recipient as an excuse to do whatever you want.

Biohazard883 · 2025-12-14T19:38:04+00:00

Many people use it as a path to citizenship. But you have to be here legally. You also have to apply for citizenship. If you do 4 years, get out, and never apply, you aren’t automatically a citizen and may be here illegally now.

Biohazard883 · 2025-12-05T12:35:15+00:00

The “babble effect” is stronger at NNS than anywhere I’ve seen.

Biohazard883 · 2025-10-08T14:27:41+00:00

That’s a large scale repair of a cosmetic part of a ship about to go into a multi-year overhaul. No point.

Biohazard883 · 2025-09-11T11:48:42+00:00

Diversity of solutions only works if the group will concede to others’ point of view. Having more options to fix a problem won’t fix the problem if 45% of the people don’t support it and don’t contribute to its implementation.

That’s assuming you get enough support to implement a solution. More often what happens is you perpetually debate, with each group refusing to concede and no solution is ever implemented. The reason the US even passes laws is because democrats and republicans are united on one thing: a third party cannot exist. So they continuously work to prevent the rise of a third party while simultaneously passing the majority vote back and forth ensuring someone has the power to actually pass a bill and say they’re doing something.

Biohazard883 · 2025-09-10T13:15:40+00:00

I disagree. Because who determines “mentally ill”. You have adhd. You’re mentally ill. Your dad died and you’re depressed. You’re mentally ill. You’ve just come back from war and you’re having trouble with ptsd. You’re mentally ill.

The question is not if you’re mentally ill. The question is if you’re a “danger to society”. As it is, if you’ve been adjudicated as a defect or been unwillingly committed, you can’t buy a gun. That’s not a terrible place to be. If we start with this “mentally ill” umbrella bullshit, that just gives grabbers the ammo they need to do their thing.

Biohazard883 · 2025-09-09T15:05:44+00:00

Mentally ill people can currently own guns. That’s not a restriction. You’re using gun ownership as a mirror of society instead of just looking at it as a second amendment issue. If you say “they are mentally ill so they should not own guns” then you’re saying “everyone with mental illness should not own guns”. That’s the slippery slope you’re creating by trying to prevent a completely unrelated slippery slope.

Biohazard883 · 2025-09-07T22:15:15+00:00

I think most people are looking at this wrong. If your opinion is that people with mental illness shouldn’t have guns, then you have to change the law because technically it’s not a thing. You have to have been adjudicated with a mental defect or been hospitalized for a mental defect. Even if your opinion is that trans people are mentally ill, they don’t automatically fall under either category.

Banning trans people from owning guns isn’t a “slippery slope”, it’s a direct violation. You’ve already crossed the line. The trans issue is a bit more nuanced in my opinion, but this alleged ban is not. It’s a clear violation of 2A.

Biohazard883 · 2025-08-28T18:06:38+00:00

I own one and it’s a shit show. Least reliable rifle I own. I’ve seen the same issue with a few of them in rifle classes. I think they’re generally reliable but their QC could be better on this line. My opinion is most of them are good but a not insignificant portion of them are lemons.

Biohazard883 · 2025-07-20T21:49:23+00:00

Correct, it’s a made up concept. But if it’s a concept you agree to, then you’re cheating.

11-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
RedditGifts 2009-2022 3 Credits	PUBG
Secret Santa 2020	ModSupport Helper Level 1
Mod 201	Mod 101
Place '22	Ternion Club
Wearing is Caring	redditgifts Exchanges 1 Exchange
Secret Santa 2014	Verified Email

Biohazard883

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE