Leaderboard

This is pretty moving.

Knocking over porta-potties with their buds inside is "kids being kids", in my opinion. Personally, I want nothing to to with "kids" that want to tag a historic church with satanic graffiti. I don't believe this behavior meets the cut, and I do not want them in my country's military Additionally, had the target of their vandalism been a synagogue, NAACP office, or a building flying a gay pride flag... with the appropriate words that get media attention... the outrage would have been front page national news. These Airmen are broken. Get new ones. We have almost nothing invested in them. Just one man's opinion.

Part of it is that I believe Christians are tired of being the last group that can be maligned, abused, and discriminated against. World-wide, and in America. I'm not a very good theologian but if these four young Airmen "took up their cross", and truly repented for their actions, Jesus would forgive them. Duh. The feel-good story would be if one or all of them turn their lives around, enter the seminary, and become clergy. Maybe one of them will come back as an AF Chaplain and be able to relate their story to other Airman. Wouldn't that be great, LR? https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/Story/TabId/2672/ArtMID/13567/ArticleID/13934/Former-Satanist-becomes-Catholic-leader-teacher.aspx But save me the "what would Jesus do", WRT to the military's decision. That's a decision for the pastor and the local congregation. I imagine you might be the second person (right after Vertigo), to scream bloody murder if the the AF based their decision on "WWJD?". The AF shouldn't be in the business of offering absolution to these Airman. It take a lot of time, money, and resources that can be used for... you know... killing people trying to kill our way of life. And as a side note: I'm not interested in helping out people that identify with the Satanic lifestyle. It's contrary to what I believe are the characteristics we should look for in military people. Just my personal preference. YMMV. Not everyone that actually gets into the military should be there. The screening process isn't perfect. I'm of the opinion that these four slipped through, and now that they've been identified, they should find a new career. Another point: with ages of 18, 18, 19, and 20, they haven't been out of Basic Training that long. If they principles and discipline of BMT have already been discarded by them... especially the two 18 year olds... I believe there are some serious character flaws that disqualify them from military service. I wish them the best in life, and truly hope they turn their lives around. But I'm personally not interested in putting them through AF-sponsored rehab. They had their chance at a military career, and they porked it away. Adios.

And emotional argument likely to stir the pot, I like it. P.S. He went apeshit when the church was being used as a market, so I could only guess.

Mixed reviews from his time in the C-130 community. Credibility over "breadth"? It'll never happen in the MAF.

You want the truth? 6-9 months of seniority is the only thing making palace chase (guard reserves) palatable. Otherwise I'll save my money and absorb the pay cut first year...

You're defending the argument for more gun control while not defending the argument for zero gun control...so yes, you're a progressive. When you start acting like a libertarian then I'll believe you're a libertarian.

That shitshow should be three separate squadrons.

Can we move this shit to the correct thread and go back to the good WTF shit? And maybe some tits. Tits are good.

@sforron Efficiency!

This is not a good parallel argument.

ACC "IS" terrible about helping the CSAR guys and for some reason (Stockholm Syndrome), the senior CSAR guys remain loyal to their ACC puppet masters. On MULTIPLE occasions ACC used CSAR TOA to pay for other things, how do you think the CAR folks ended up with the oldest C-130s in the Air Force? Another HUGE issue that is always pushed under the rug is the amount of CSAR capability that is in the reserve and guard (50+%). I am not saying the guard and reserve doesn't pull their weight because in this community they most certainly do, but the active component ends up eating a lot of deployed alert because of activation limitations. When you have a low density high demand capability, putting 50% in the guard or reserve causes some second and third order effects. I would disagree with your assessment that AFSOC does not care about "ACC" assets, the minute they become AFSOC assets they will most certainly care as long as the TOA is moved over with them. The HC-130J (long overdue), has about 90% commonality with the MC-130J, but the last 10% is all the special sauce that is equally applicable to SOF or CSAR missions, ACC could care less if you get those capabilities which is a terrible shame. The politics of this potential move are complex and it is not being driven solely by the services or altruism on the part of AFSOC. The genesis was an effort by OSD to save money, SOF is almost always in the same places (and more), as the conventional folks and they have executed many of the recent CSAR events, why not find some synergy. The main sticking point form the CSAR rotor types is the deal would almost certainly drive a reduction in the CRH buy, which I personally think is a good thing. Why in the hell are we buying a 140kt helicopter to conduct long-range CSAR in today's world...seriously? If I were king for a day I would move CSAR to AFSOC (that comes with some doctrinal changes and direction to SOCOM). I would put some of the CSAR forces back in the active component (75%-25%). All 29 HC-130Js (if they get 29, reading the latest NDAA USAF is trying to cut the buy to 26...yeah ACC loves you guys), would be modified to MC-130J configuration (MCTF, SMP, RFCM). CRH buy would be curtailed to 100ish and 30 CV-22s would be added to AFSOC with at least two CSAR units becoming CV-22 equipped.

Or the trainees going through the course could meet the standard that has been set. Everyone doesn't get a medal. Get tough or join the circus.

I was ambivalent about bump stocks. Don't own one, would consider it a novelty if someday I'd amassed a collection large enough to seek unique ways to entertain myself on the range. From a constitutional position, I was waiting to hear some justification; from a legislative position, I was waiting to hear how THIS was the panacea that volumes of previous laws and regulations had promised themselves to be. But just like that (*snap) I went from ambivalent to opposed. http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/06/nancy-pelosi-hopes-ban-bump-stocks-slippery-slope-more-gun-control Guess politics is funny like that.

Race is neither an analog for culture nor economic status, FWIW. There are people from every race that have a "disadvantaged background". No race has the market cornered in western society on "advantage" or "disadvantage", because race is a meaningless quality in a meritocracy. Nonetheless, even when speaking of economic or social status, "equality" doesn't mean "equity." We don't have equity, nor in a society that values both individual liberty, egalitarianism, and personal responsibility do we desire such a thing. It is the "land of equal opportunity", not the land of "equal outcomes".

Sweet, so all the guys who get hit on the river walk in San Antonio for public intoxication should be gone too. And yet again, all those lovely commanders running around with DUIs. How about loud music? Speeding? Ooh, I know, double parking! Lets kick them out too.