Leaderboard

Brownie, it’s a bit ironic... you coming on here and accusing people of not thinking for themselves... when that entire list was created two years ago by a Reddit user named “TrumpImpeachedAugust,” and you just copy/pasted it in here. Unless you moonlight as that guy, in which case bravo. However, I’ll dig through that info when I have more time and get back to you. But let’s be clear. I’d be doing more work than you did to post something that validated your feelings. Just saying.

Hey man, I’m not going to sit here and say that Trump is a saint. But you can’t sit there and criticize the morality of Trump while claiming Biden is a “decent man.” Most intelligent Trump supporters would never try to convince you that Trump is some kind of saint, but in a government where most politicians are scumbags, we will take his policies which even his most ardent opponents would agree have been beneficial for the country.

More than the guy who just straight up grabs them by the pussy? Yes.

1. The numbers of single, childless, and in many cases white young adults participating in the riots indicates more that just hopelessness. Given a green light to destroy, many will. 2. Which leaders? Many of the thought leaders on the left, cited and lauded by media and political figures, are doing no such pleading. And I'm not sure a single (D) politician has condemned Antifa. How many Republicans have condemned the white supremacists? (All of them, including Trump, who is awful). 3. When you define racism as "far right" it becomes hard to find racist leftists. If you include "the soft bigotry of low expectations," as Sowell describes, the left is overwhelmingly racist. It doesn't help that we are redefining racism to fit a progressive narrative. Couple all this with the fact that the data completely disproves the narrative of systemic police racism targeting and killing black people, and the whole thing becomes impossible to resolve. You can not, under any circumstances, have a productive discourse if the facts are treated like lies, or worse, if presenting the facts makes you racist. Unfortunately, the public figures of "your side" are not engaging honestly in the debate, as you are.

You very well stated exactly how many right leaning people feel about the left. So what does that say about our society in general? I think the underlying problem is politics has become a team sport and nobody is willing to admit other viewpoints may have merit, even if you don’t fully agree with them. Instead, everyone who doesn’t agree with you is immediately ignorant, biased, doesn’t fact check, use shitty sources, yeah but!....it goes on and on. You do it, I do it, we all do. Maybe the first step is admitting we as a country are at this point, and need to cool the jets and be able to have conversations that don’t end in total agreement.

I don’t think it helps that the cause is labeled “Defund the Police”. We should say “Reform the Police”, or “Reallocate Some Police Funding to Mental Health”. But those just don’t have the same ring. It’s hard to blame conservatives for misinterpretation of your position when your slogan is deliberately misleading. It’s yet another example of how we can talk past/over one another without seeing that we agree on more than we realize. “Institutional Racism” is another term that many of us seem to latch on to. I read Kiloalpha’s and Lord Ratner’s posts above and realize that they are cognizant of many issues that I would label institutional racism, but that they choose not to use that label. Buzzwords and catchy phrases look great on memes and banners, but have no place in a serious conversation about issues.

I'll admit I was hesitant of this sort of talk initially, but after reading about it it does seem like a good idea. Having a different organization responding to mental health events with more specialized training might be a good way of alleviating much of the stress on the police force and allowing them to focus their training in other areas. We expect them to do too much and are shocked when combining poor training with low pay we get shitty results. Right now it takes me longer to complete barber college than to become a cop. I listened to an interesting podcast that talked about the parallels of this and how EMTs were first stood up in the states. Lots of resistance initially but after a while the value is seen and it becomes commonplace. Will be interesting to see the ideas that come out of solving this problem if the marketplace of ideas is allowed to flourish. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/freedom-house-ambulance-service/ We can't have a realistic conversation about it, because of the extremes. Yes there are some on the fringe calling for no police at all, and at the other extreme you have people begging cops to just shoot the protesters and move on. In the middle is the opportunity to solve the problem of an overworked, underpaid and undertrained police force we want to handle all these sticky situations with no accountability.

I did, and like all studies, there are weaknesses. So much of this boils down to "systemic." POC *are* more of a threat. This is an inescapable statistic fact in 2020. Racist answer: black people are genetically prone to violence Systemic racism: The punishment for carrying a weapon is 5 to 10 years if you're white, 10 to 20 if you're black. Racist judge: sentences white people to fewer years in prison for the same crime as black people Racist cop: gives black people tickets for all speeding infractions, gives white people a warning Three of the four exist. The second does not in 2020 America. There's a very real and critical conversation to have about why people of color are a bigger threat. And it has nothing to do with the amount of pigment in someone's skin. Putting 18-year-olds in prison for decades because they committed a crime that anyone of us would have committed had we grown up in a broken home, in a shitty neighborhood, with no schooling, and no opportunities is insane. The modern disincentives towards a two-parent household, which is affecting all races, but black families at an alarmingly higher rate, is another problem we need to address. Conservatives have no interest in acknowledging the disparities that exist today, and that fixing them will require a tremendous allocation of resources. Liberals have no interest in a solution that doesn't involve racism as the primary driver and focus. So neither side is going to get anything done. Racism started this whole mess. Actually, slavery started this whole mess, it just happened to be black people that were the slaves in America. The racism part has been solved systemically. Making up for the after-effects of that racist system (and the good-intentioned policies that have made things worse) is the problem we face today. But the people who are around today, who are not racists and who are not responsible for the racist systems that caused these problems, are not going to be a part of the solution if that solution mandates labeling them as racist by association. And calling the system racist *is* akin to calling the people involved with the system racists. Because what decent person would be involved in a system that is so blatantly racist?

Comparing the rates of use of force and police violence to the raw population composition is a statistical mistake. Compare it to the rates of violent crime perpetuated by each of the various races, and you get a much more realistic look at why this is happening. The racist narrative falls apart especially when you look at the race of the police conducting these interactions. Minority police have a higher representation in use of violence against minorities than white police. All of this to say, we absolutely do not have a systemic problem with racism in policing interactions. What we do have is a problem with policing philosophy in the United States, the use of force, and an officer's right to self defense before a threat has materialized. But as long as we insist on including racism as a component, and in fact a dominant component of the conversation, we will get nowhere.

Possibly one of the dumbest things said here. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's too bad your side is shooting cops and is OK with it. Perception is the riots are getting mostly violent more often than not and the country is getting sick of it. Have fun losing again in 2020, repeating the same bullshit you have for the past 4 years.

No, it wasn't. If you actually read the reports from the republican-controlled senate intelliegence committee, you would know otherwise. There was significant coordination between the Trump campaign and russian intelligence officers, wikileaks, etc.. Manafort, Stone, Flynn, Papa, Cohen, Gates all doing shady shit. Yet you, a "centrist" look past all of that, look past the actual spy Butina who was rooted out, her NRA ties which are being linked to funneling money through the NRA to republicans, the 8 (R) congressmen who spent an emergency 4th of july in Moscow, the repeated softening of republican policy against russia, Trump kowtowing to Putin in Helsinki, and all you see is Hunter. Hunter is a red herring. He isn't running for office, and the republicans just released their report on his involvement and found no illegal activity and said it didn't influence US policy. Again, your choices are "do nothing" or "do something" to save the environment. One party wants to open everything up for oil drilling and fracking, another wants to help curb CO2 emissions. Is it alarmism? Perhaps...only time will tell, but ultimately it is beneficial to the planet, so why not at least go in that general direction and have a good debate on how drastically we should commit? Again you are focusing on the most extreme of the party. Sure there are some randos claiming open borders, but they are not center of mass for the party and no one is actually trying to make that happen despite what fox news tells you. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a politician to say border security isn't vitally important to the US, particularly in post 9/11. You can't have a discussion about what are reasonable legal immigration levels, paths to citizenship for illegal aliens, amnesty policy, etc. without the right screaming "deport them all". It's not realistic, it makes for good sound bytes but ultimately it's a waste of everyone's time. There is little discussion on actual policy, and I'm sure the debates will be much of the same. Biden will discuss policy which is generally boring to the average american...trump will make some quippy soundbytes, drop a bunch of chaff about obama spying on him, insult Biden's wife and the crowd will hoot and holler. That's basically 2016 debates in a nutshell. I don't disagree and Citizens United has done more to undermine our democracy than anything we will see in our lifetime. That being said no system will ever be perfect and void of exploitation by a populace. Our current system is heavily exploited by the rich, and the democrats have worked to pass some (not a ton) of legislation to help care for the poorest of the populace. Healthcare is one of them. The republicans really screwed the pooch, and if they had lived up to their promises to repeal and replace the ACA with something more workable they would easily sweep democrats this election by beating them at their own game. Instead they just broke the system, threw a party and walked away. I've seen more republicans turn democrat over the US healthcare punching them in the face than anything else, and it's going to continue happening. It's easy to overlook things that never affect you personally, but when you have children dieing of cancer and families going broke to help keep them alive, it really shows how terrible our system is. What are you referring to specifically? The BLM/Police brutality issue? Is fighting for racial equality off the rails?

Political compass inop... Yes the Democrats have shifted left, which is what progressives do, and the conservatives traditionally resist change in favor for a more cautious approach. It wasn't until recently the republican platform turned into "undo everything and return it to 1950s america, except the taxes". The republican party used to be respectable. You used to hate the Russians more than the Democrats, you loved the environment so much you created the EPA to protect parks, hunting grounds and our natural resources, you could have a realistic conversation about illegal immigration, background checks, or healthcare...you didn't bend over backwards for the rich and actually tried to balance the budget and be fiscally responsible. Your party is off the rails to the point where you don't even have a stated party platform other than "not obama, and whatever comes out of the orange man's mouth". To think the Republican party shifted left just goes to show how little you have been paying attention to politics during that time. I mean seriously show me a republican platform from the last 30 years that is further right than the current administration. I'm interested to see your well-thought out points.

Oh great, MPF customer service is going to get even worse. It's already bad enough they never answer their phones as it is, now I won't be able to walk over there and corner them to get answers. They already appear to set their schedules around dropping off/picking up their kids from school, now they won't be answering their phones because they're helping little Timmy with his schooling during the work day. Yay customer service...

Sorry guys, picked up for what? Haha

I’m on day 25 of a TDY, VPN has been enough so far. We’ll see what happens when I hit 30.

Thanks for posting this man. You reminded me that this has been on my watch list since it came out so I took the time to sit down and watch yesterday. I notice there are a couple downvotes on your post from people who likely haven’t watched it or even know what it’s about. For those who don’t want to click on links, what Sua posted was a link to the Netflix doc The Social Dilemma. It looks at how the business model of social networks, and to a lesser extent, cable news, can have unintended consequences when applied on the scale of basically the entire general public. The film takes an intentionally nonpartisan tack and the pitfalls it attempts to reveal can be equally applied to Republican/Democrat/Right/Left. Should be required viewing for anyone with an internet connection.

**Trigger warning** You know, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall when I'm trying to have legitimate philosophical discussions with republican leaning dudes on this forum and in the real world. I will point something out, and you will just say "no." What do you believe in? What policies do you support? Why is there no consensus? Is there a moral compass that guides republican policies or opinions? Why can't you give me a solid answer to any of these questions? Why must you consult with your news sources to determine what your opinion should be? You see it with everything from Coronavirus to Police Reform to Global Warming to Iran/Syria/China to healthcare to religion to fiscal policy. It's simple: you don't think for yourselves. The only thing that you guys agree with is that the "republican policies are better than the alternatives." You guys are voting for Trump just to not vote for Biden. Not that you actually know any of Biden's policies. The problem, here, is that you guys are not arguing in good faith. It means you're not arguing to come to a mutual understanding. In a true debate, both sides must be willing to acknowledge if the other side has good points and be open to changing their minds. Arguing here is the equivalent to arguing with sheep, even if you guys are some well-educated, well-employed sheep. Whatever the party, whatever fox news, whatever the memes say - that is what you will believe and vehemently defend. Think for yourselves is easy for me to say, but I know it's not going to happen, based on the actual data: Exhibit 1: Opinion of Syrian airstrikes under Obama vs. Trump. Source Data 1, Source Data 2 and Article for Context Exhibit 2: Opinion of the NFL after large amounts of players began kneeling during the anthem to protest racism. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Morning Consult package) Exhibit 3: Opinion of ESPN after they fired a conservative broadcast analyst. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing YouGov’s “BrandIndex” package) Exhibit 4: Opinion of Vladimir Putin after Trump began praising Russia during the election. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 5: Opinion of "Obamacare" vs. "Kynect" (Kentucky's implementation of Obamacare). Kentuckians feel differently about the policy depending on the name. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 6: Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 7: White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. (Same source and article as previous exhibit.) Exhibit 8: Republicans were far more likely to embrace a certain policy if they knew Trump was for it—whether the policy was liberal or conservative. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 9: Republicans became far more opposed to gun control when Obama took office. Democrats have remained consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 10: Republicans started to think college education is a bad thing once Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 11: Wisconsin Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 approval points the day Trump was sworn in. Graph also shows some Democratic bias, but not nearly as bad. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 12: Republicans became deeply negative about trade agreements when Trump became the GOP frontrunner. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 13: 10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren't paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. Source Data and Article for Context Exhibit 14: Republicans suddenly feel very comfortable making major purchases now that Trump is president. Democrats don't feel more or less comfortable than before. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Gallup's Advanced Analytics package) Exhibit 15: Democrats have had a consistently improving outlook on the economy, including after Trump's victory. Republicans? A 30-point spike once Trump won. Source Data and Article for Context

Well, I’ll absolutely agree with you on it being a policing philosophy problem. Cops should not be able to lord authority the way they do. Protect and serve, not dominate the situation and intimidate. Saying you felt threatened is the go-to defense. Dude put his hand in his pocket, so you shoot? I hope you never become a police officer if you’re okay with that. While I agree it’s legal, doesn’t make it right... Police need more training for sure, but not in tactics. In deescalation, working with the mentally ill, and emotional intelligence. If we’re not going to focus the training on that, then, defund (look up the difference between defund and unfund) is a good route. Some of that funding can be directed at mental health personnel that can be sent to deal with a situation instead of a cop who is ignorant (literal definition, not pejorative) on how to deal with those situations. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Stay on topic, brother. You said something that has been shown to be false, and was even shown false in the article you sent, and that is what was pointed out: From you (this is the false part): "The racist narrative falls apart especially when you look at the race of the police conducting these interactions. Minority police have a higher representation in use of violence against minorities than white police." From your article: "Black officers were not more likely to fatally shoot Black civilians (OR = 1.06 vs. 1.23), and Hispanic officers were less likely to fatally shoot Black (OR = 1.23 vs. 1.29) and Hispanic (OR = 1.32 vs. 1.84) civilians" From nature: see previous graph. Also, if you want to get into a scientific discussion, then I assume you are smart enough to know that how you look at data affects the conclusions you can gather. If you intentionally ignore certain permutations of the data set, then you can often show things that aren't true. Here's the best part, the authors literally RETRACTED their article because it was being misused. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/18130 "The authors wish to note the following: “Our article estimated the role of officer characteristics in predicting the race of civilians fatally shot by police. A critique pointed out we had erroneously made statements about racial differences in the probability of being shot (1), and we issued a correction to rectify the statement (2). Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general. To be clear, our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research." They had to literally issue a retraction because people like you mis-cite it to make false points.

And you wanna know the worst part of this, Lord Ratner? It took me 2 minutes to fact-check the BS you wrote using google. In 2 minutes, there’s concrete proof you are incorrect. Other people will just agree with you - without fact checking - because it fits their narrative, and the cycle of false narratives and pointless arguments will be reinforced.

When I’m teleworking I forward my office phone to my cell phone. When it rings it has a six digit number that is obviously from base which I don’t answer if it’s after 1600. The answer here may be to have the support agencies have on call phones that are forwarded from the desk phone in the same way. The problem here is that aren’t able to ask for their supervisor if they are incompetent.

5B266563-7C92-436B-B9DE-C6A0CE471046.webp

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/23/trump-biden-first-debate-420189 Ok, so I get that you will say it's Politico, so it's "fake news" but you guys keep letting "seadog" or whatever open his trap, so I think it should be allowed. Also, I want to restate something I've said many times, I think Biden is also despicable, just not as gross as Trump. Goes without saying that Pelosi and her ilk are also just abhorrent people. That being said, these are quotes from the Trump team. Not spun, just their words. The guy they've been trying to say has dementia is somehow an amazing debater according to them now. Just funny stuff. Not really looking to prove points here. Gotta inform yourself reading Fox and Politico right? Otherwise you can't make informed decisions... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2 additional problems 1- Support functions haven't implemented it properly yet. Email MPF trying to get a document fixed, auto reply "this inbox has a 72 hour turnaround due to covid manning". Sounds like less work being done 2- No good way to call someone. Sometimes you need info/action immediately, sometimes it's just easier to get the point across over voice. Putting cell numbers in Global would pose the issues in Flea's post; some companies and agencies can forward desk phones to a cell.

Damn right he’s no saint. He’s a piece of shit. I’ll give him credit for appointing strong conservative judges and not expanding war in the Middle East. But I wouldn’t follow him out the front door if my house were on fire.

Replace racist with communist and you have the conservative playbook.

By historically democratic, you mean the Democrats of the 1960s, which are really today's GOP? He's apparently the leader of the local "Three Percenters" group, so there lies your answer. David Duke also ran as a Republican during the 1992 Presidential Election. Both parties came out about some dude tying a noose around an effigy of the governor, on the state capitol grounds? Shocking 😂 https://www.lex18.com/news/covering-kentucky/rep-maddox-responds-to-beshear-ky-democratic-party

I liked this Frontline doc. It attempts to explain why Trump and Biden are the way they are. BL: I can respect Biden as a man even though I may disagree with his politics. I can’t respect Trump, and his politics are whatever serves Trump best in the moment.

Lol, you cited CNN but you get mad at other people who cite Fox.👍

When the Democratic Vp nominee Harris proclaims that the riots should continue, then I think we have our answer on which party represents the rioters and looters best.

Kiloalpha said: Slack, serious questions. Which party, in your opinion, best represents the looters and rioters? Response: I find it very interesting the way you chose to word this. Sincere response: neither party represents looters or rioters. I would put money on the fact that the overwhelming majority of looters and rioters aren't voters and don't care, beyond superficially, about the issues they are abusing and using as excuses to loot and or riot. Looters more so than rioters. What candidate for President do you think they will vote for? Response: See above. If they vote, probably for Biden. If you think this question is legit, then I have one for you that shows how silly this question is. What candidate/party do you think white supremacists, or the people driving their cars into peaceful protestors will be voting for? Looters or white supremacists aren't representative of the majority... Which media outlets/personalities have excused their actions? Response: caveat to my answer, I don't watch any news channels really, but this is a question you already know the answer to, and is ridiculous on the surface. What does media have to do with it? Idiots that can't think for themselves watching either side's media believe everything they see/hear on that crap. Can't work with those people. The ones we should care about are those willing to have an actual conversation and critically think about the other side's perspective. There are members on here who say they listen, but they don't. I respect a lot of what guys like FLEA have said on leadership topics, but think he's too firmly in the camp of systemic racism is fake" to actually listen to other's ideas. There has been great evidence posted right here, not just from WaPo , that he and others immediately dismiss because (speculation on my part) he isn't affected by it, or it doesn't fit his/their narrative. What media outlets/personalities have consistently excused abhorrent statements or ethically questionable things made/done by the President? and... Do you think any of the looting and rioting is justified? Response: looting absolutely not! Rioting, we're on the balance of condemning history, and I think only history will accurately judge riots for social justice. I think Boston Tea Party is similar. POC feel underrepresented and oppressed, so when they are continually ignored (as has been done similarly by people on this board who ignore the mountains of evidence that has been presented here, yet in an out of hand fashion, dismiss it without real thought) what options do they feel are left to them? They want/crave attention and change. People won't listen because they don't believe it is real. Largely because they don't feel the effects. I'm sure at the time, people ignoring the issue of taxation largely condemned the Boston Tea Party. I recognize that is a loose comparison, but you get the idea. --Please excuse typos, straggling sentences. Typing this crap on an iPhone gets tedious and easy to get lost since you can't see it all. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The one bad thing about telework though is it creates the insidious problem of always being available to work, or at least that becomes the expectation. At least I know, and for others who have had iphones/blackberries, there comes this expectation that you are always available and always reading your email. This could turn out bad if its not steered the right direction.

All of the Russia collusion accusations have been proven multiple times to be completely false. Hunter Biden has more Russian ties than anyone from the Republican Party. The Republican party absolutely has a terrible environmental policy these days, especially for those that embrace a Teddy Roosevelt style of conservationism. However, the Democrats provide zero legitimate alternative. The entire Dem environmental "policy" is based on climate alarmism and the Green New Deal, which is wealth distribution and socialism disguised as an environmentally friendly policy. Spend some time in California and you'll realize that Democrat policy has no actual environmental concern. Pot meet kettle. Where is the link to the speech of Bill Clinton talking about the utmost importance of border security? Current Republicans are fiscally terrible, that is true for sure. But both parties are completely controlled by the ultra rich. Look who the major donors and influencers of the Democratic party are. Subtly encouraging violence in this country and playing racial politics vs actually pushing a legitimate agenda isn't off the rails? None of this was a defense of the Republican party btw. But acting as if the Democrats somehow hold some sort of moral high ground is laughable. Honestly both parties are beyond broken.

I believe the feeling is mutual on the other side. So the question becomes: How do we bring politics back to something approximating the center in this country? I’m not sure as many political issues seem nearly insurmountable at present. Term limits and campaign finance reform would be a start, but those issues are a third rail for career politicians with too much to loose. I think the fact that you make the distinction between political actors and normal everyday folk is an important step that many, many keyboard warriors should consider.

That won’t happen because all the tankers will be shot down night one.

Russian PA image of the SU-35 that got the kill.

Speaking of echo chamber...

A masterpiece.

I appreciate the “Never Give Up” attitude more then most and just understand timing is everything despite the best laid plans. My late 80s/early 90s story among many other great stories out there. 1. Planned to join Air Force ROTC work hard/stay focused and earn a Pilot Slot. 2. Several of us in the running for a pilot slot in a non-normal environment. Graduating Class before us multiple pilot slots awarded, our class a total of 0. It was Post Gulf War 1 drawdown and ROTC dropped from 1200 slots to 100 slots annually. Try applying several years after Top Gun came out and a Reduction In Force Impact - nothing was tougher. Haven’t seen anything like it since. Banked Pilots, no fly just working other jobs awaiting a seat in aircraft that didn’t exist. 3. Next focused attempt. Give it my all to earn the Commandant/Vice Commandant Award at Basic(Camp) since all previous award winners were given the choice of either a Full Scholarship or Pilot Slot (Rated Position). Finished Basic and received the Vice Commandants Award. Finalized paperwork for Pilot Slot opportunity vs Scholarship and missed the writing on the wall. Due to continuing cut backs we regret to inform you we have canceled all Pilot Slot awardees via the Top 4% Award Winners program and I was unable to go back and receive the Full Ride Scholarship to further kick sand in our face. 2nd Upset, Timing is everything. 4. Elected to enter/serve the USAF as a Maintenance (MX) Officer and continue to compete for slots while young enough. Applied every other year for a total of 2 more times while banked pilots continued to roam the base in alternative positions. 27.5 years old was the cut off and that ended the Active Duty pursuit. That’s 4 legitimate full force attempts where I crashed and burned. 5. Sent to the Air National Guard Headquarters as an Active Duty Staff MX Officer. Worked hard as always, especially taking care of my assigned ANG units. Saw the light with the Guard and while many were offering the opportunity for me to transfer to their units as an MX Officer, several of my preferred locations did not have those positions and asked if I was interested in becoming a pilot? Imagine that, someone working on your behalf which was new. Told them I was too old and they never batted an eye as they had the political gusto to cut red tape and make it happen. Offered amazing opportunities by three units and one other Great unit officially hiring me as B-1 WSO (Now JSTARS) just in case my age waiver was torpedoed by the USAF Chief of Staff. Turns out the Director of the Guard had Gen Ryan at the time personally endorse the waiver, especially after the UPT age limit just rose to 30. I entered Pilot Training after nearly seven years of Active Duty at the ripe age of 31 as a senior Capt. Just happy to be there. While pushing for Pilot I broke myself physically and paying for it now while doing CCT/STS Team tryouts annually. Much easier life now and I probably would have been dead on a mountain in Afghanistan or at least divorced so someone up there is looking out for me. Overall, it’s not necessarily what you but who you know, the work effort and trust you will build with those above below and around you and once again timing is everything. Let your work speak for you! You never make the shot you never take! Fully retired now, C-141s, C-17s, too much Staff Work , but I am making up for it here in Korea resting up for my flight to Australia flying a 747. Some senior officer (New OG at Columbus AFB) once told me during pilot training - “You shouldn’t be here!” He was one of the AD Staff O-6s holding back my application packages at the Pentagon, but our General swiped it from him. Look at me now: Multiple incomes, flying The Whale and loving every minute of it. Even if doesn’t last, it has been an amazing opportunity. Hard work eventually pays off, but it was those below and above that raised me up and pushed me up to the front of the line. You only have “ONElife”....

Recognize that when people feel compelled to say “officer first” they usually mean “aspire to be a leader,” and don’t understand how that works in the flying world. Also realize that the type of leadership that happens in combat aviation is inaccessible to those who haven’t spent years studying combat aviation. A non-rated Captain with many subordinates may see a rated Captain with none and assume that the rated captain isn’t a leader. They don’t see the briefs with hundreds of pages worth of information conveyed in 65 plus or minus five minutes. They don’t see the planning process in which the mission commander coordinates for every domain, service, and discipline of physics to achieve a goal handed to him by the Army four star. They don’t see the split second decision-making that will drive success or failure. They don’t see the meaningful eye contact when you go over something one last time because ing it up will be a disaster. They see a tired Captain with messy hair, who’s never officially supervised anybody and therefore can’t possibly be a leader. That’s not the non-rated officer’s fault; their exposure is movies about aerial combat that’s portrayed more like boxing than war. Give them time, and they’ll get it eventually... or they won’t, and they’ll be sent to tell you that aircrew aren’t leaders. Be a leader; scoff the people who want you to prove it in a silly way. Fly, fight, and win. Don’t apologize for it.

Pilot or bust.

Anyone who tells you they would rather not be a pilot in the Air Force, but is in fact a pilot in the Air Force can go f*ck right off. I might bitch about shit constantly, but I love flying. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ya actually. Every time a 18x er says they are a “pilot” I have no problem pointing to their wings and correcting them. I’ve been stuck in drones for 3 years, the 18x product is not a pilot. It’s a glorified system manager. Do they bring a lot to the current fight? F ya they do, probably more than 95% of the current manned platforms, but do they risk life/limb? Or have the training manned dudes have? Hell no. They can’t transit frome point a to b in the AOR without having a published route, don’t get me started on system knowledge. Take that weak ass shit out of here.

So, you didn’t? Copy.

Who? There’s a few of them here that do that 😂

I'm sure this is ok. You sound well adjusted. Tell cops to stop shooting people. You see how dumb it sounds when baseless allegations are thrown around without proof. Especially with the vitriol you seem to be spewing... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol, you site ABC, dailymail, and politifact and get mad at other people who site Fox. 👎

Oh yeah, also when your side repeatedly and constantly calls black men uncle tom's when they aren't inline with the the leftist group think, women who vote for Trump aren't real women, and gays/LGBT who vote Trump are deplorable, you defeat your own cause. Constantly going against the Constitution, using arms of the government as clubs against the other side, I can go on and on. We were already sick of you in 2016, it's going to be much worst for you in 2020. The silent majority is real and we are all sick of your bullshit.