Jump to content
Baseops Forums

Seriously

Supreme User
  • Content Count

    391
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Seriously last won the day on May 5

Seriously had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

157 Excellent

About Seriously

  • Rank
    Flight Lead

Recent Profile Visitors

7,827 profile views
  1. You can... you just get reimbursed up to the rate for on base lodging.
  2. Yes. Back in the 70s they were doing it. It died sometime in the 80s when AFE decided that all helmets should look identical with no tape covering. That made it easier for them to find cracks in the shell.
  3. The O-6 formerly in charge of the solving the crisis at the Pentagon is quoted as saying, "it's a production problem, not a retention problem." This was about a year ago..
  4. You should see the JTAC PT test.... that thing is brutal.
  5. It's easy to forget how many people lurk on these boards.
  6. I can name 5 APZers that would all do well commanding a squadron. There are some shitty APZs, but at least from what I've seen (F-16 world), there are some really good dudes too... far better than the few BTZers I've seen.
  7. Assuming you're talking about pilots, those seem like prohibited statements. "When making an assignment recommendation on an OPR, there will be no reference to a higher grade, and it must be consistent with the officer’s appropriate progression of their professional development." "3.17.4.5.2. Prohibited EXAMPLES: 3.17.4.5.2.1. “Make Lt Triska an FSS Commander.” (Inappropriate next level of progression). 3.17.4.5.2.2. “Send Capt Brown to IDE after selection to major.” (Reference to IDE is appropriate, but the comment “after selection to major” is an implied promotion statement). 3.17.4.5.2.3. “SDE in 2008, Group Commander in 2012, and Wing Commander in 2015.” (Goes beyond the scope of the next assignment). 3.17.4.5.2.4. “Capt Phelps is ready to be a flying Sq/CC” and “Make Maj Knisley a group commander.” (In both cases, the recommendations are clearly beyond the officer’s next assignment and are viewed as veiled promotion statements).
  8. Kwast has a fairly long history of not tolerating shenanigans.. instructor to student or major to cadet
  9. This is the logical conclusion of this change in policy coupled with the BRS and the fact that they don't select majors for school at the board anymore (i.e. you don't know exactly where you stand at decision time). The #1 problem with the new ADCS policy is that guys hot for non-flying 365s will have to go on said 365, then they incur a 3 year adsc when they get requal'd to fly the plane they already knew how to fly. It's like getting caught in a hydraulic in the rapids. Beatings will continue whether morale improves or not.
  10. It used to be like that by the way. I think the current merit based system started in the 80s. Hacker posted a paper on the history of UPT a few years back that talks about that.
  11. First, I don't necessarily think free college is a good idea. I honestly just haven't made up my mind on it. I want to put that out there so that you don't automatically assume that I'm Karl Che Lenin Stalin reincarnated. Second, the label of socialism doesn't apply to the government providing free college for everyone because the state doesn't own the means of production (in this case of knowledge), they're simply paying private institutions for the knowledge. This is a semantics argument which I feel dirty using, but it's important because if you're going to argue that a policy won't work because it's socialism, then you need to apply that label correctly. Last, if free college is socialism, then is free K-12 education also socialism? How is that any different? All we would be doing is taking people from a 12th grade education level up to a 16th grade education level. This could be a complete waste of money, but again, I'm not trying to talk about that merits of free college. I'm trying to get you guys to realize that calling everything you disagree with "socialism" or "fascism" is specious.
  12. Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned by the government (which you stated). A capitalist system is one in which the means of production are privately owned. But clearly you have trouble identifying real-world examples of socialism, so here are some examples of things commonly dubbed "socialism" that categorically are not. Socialism: Nationalized health care (like the UK) Not socialism: Affordable Care Act Socialism: Publicly owned broadband Not socialism: Net neutrality Socialism: 100% taxes redistributed evenly Not socialism: <100% estate tax Socialism: Completely state owned education system Not-socialism: Free college for everyone I advocate for some of these policies but not all... Yet, over and over again, anything the Democrats want is called "socialism" and anything the Republicans want is "fascism." These words are now completely meaningless outside of an academic setting and have resulted in both the Democrats and Republicans thinking the other has moved radically away from center. So you blindly calling all taxes or welfare systems "socialism" is flat-out wrong, continues to polarize your own views, and starves the conversation of actual debate as you've demonstrated... Your basic premise for argument follows this typical formula: pick any topic -> call it socialism -> point out that socialism has failed universally -> reiterate that all redistribution of wealth is socialism-> repeat. Often, you'll create a straw-man argument and attack that instead. If that doesn't work, then you'll just resort to personal attacks. Classy. So here we sit. I've given some arguments for political topics like the estate tax and social security. You've given me, "That's redistribution of wealth, which is socialism, which is bad." You follow that up with more right-wing rallying cries against the Democrats. So who's argument is simple here? Because all I'm hearing is the same refrain repeated ad nauseum. We started this conversation before Senator McCain's passing which makes his farewell message ever more poignant. it's reread my posts over the last couple of pages then reread paragraph 7 & 8 of Senator McCain's farewell message. Here was my first post, if you don't want to scroll back through the conversation: Commence more straw-man arguments...
  13. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/11/23/a-hated-tax-but-a-fair-one This article addresses the pros and cons of the estate tax. And the farm argument was interesting to me at first, but if you do the research, the number of farms hit by that is extremely low, so the tax as designed, goes towards preventing wealthy dynasties from continuing to amass wealth and power. https://www.businessinsider.com/does-estate-tax-hurt-small-businesses-2017-6 My comment about "hoarding money" was an oversimplification used for brevity.
  14. Ratner.. why are you telling me about the evils of socialism? Please quote me where I advocated socialism. Everyone already knows that economic system does not work. My original post was talking about defining socialism because it isn't cut and dry like you try to make it out to be. there's definitely a spectrum, and we're finally starting to get there with MooseAg03's post. I'm trying to stick to one topic at a time, so we'll continue with social security since MosseAg03 brought it up and that's a pretty easy kill. Social security has definitely become a failure because the government has treated the money as if it's their own personal bank account. They haven't been good stewards of the money, and now that system is collapsing. It was poorly designed and poorly implemented. It was a good idea though, and I'm sure there are ways to implement individual retirement accounts for everyone so that they can live into old age with the bare necessities taken care of so that they aren't homeless and starving. Not everyone has a loving family that can care for them, and not everyone has the means to plan properly for their retirement. There are a lot of people that lose their entire savings because they were tricked (by financial planner not held to a fiduciary standard), took bad advice, or just blew all their money on some addiction (shopping, gambling, what have you). You can call them dumb, and they might be, but they don't deserve to be thrown out onto the streets with no food and nowhere to go. I certainly don't want a bunch of bums milling around. They attract crime and bring down property values. So we need something as a society to prevent that from happening. I don't call that socialism. I call that taking care of Americans.
  15. Cool... I agree with that author and everything he said, but he didn't really say anything of substance. He said loving your country is good, you shouldn't burn the flag (but you have the right to), living in America is great, and that the American government was meant to be limited and self-governing. Then he lists a bunch of stuff that we get for free... That stuff doesn't just happen. It happens because we have a well-funded government that is generally not corrupt. You get safe to drink water and a sewage system because of the government's regulations. You get a well built house because we have building codes and inspectors to ensure construction companies are complying with those codes. You get generally safe to eat food in the grocery store because our government has rules in place to safeguard them and the means to enforce those rules. The free market didn't magically give us all of those things. Why is Nogales, Mexico a complete shithole, and Nogales, Arizona is only partially a shithole? Because good laws and the means to enforce them make a difference. So then what exactly is limited government? Because I feel like we're having a pointless debate right now.
×
×
  • Create New...