Leaderboard

105-0 ?

Yeah, you missed it. But it's the internet, so no worries. I'm against govt-run healthcare. One reason is because in order to have it, those choices need to be made. People who want govt healthcare never want to talk about those choices. My grandma should not be supported by the govt. They are paying to fight an unwinnable battle at the expense of other programs. If people want to spend their own money to do so, great. All for it. QOL is not QOL. If you can't see the difference between a sick child and a sick old person, I can't help you. Denying the concept of differential worth between humans is one of my least favorite aspects of the progressive movement. Promised? By who? If you promised to make it to my birthday party, but then the power went out in your part of the country for multiple days, and the only way to make it to my party was to leave your wife and child at home alone and unable to fend for themselves, would you still go? We can argue all day about what is and isn't right, and what promises the government should or should not honor. But at the end of the day my political philosophies boil down to two very simple premises. 1) We don't sacrifice our children's future for today. Taking a loan out is okay, but not when you know that you will be worse off at the end of the loan then you were at the beginning. 2) Never ignore human nature. People will always choose their family over a principal. You see this everywhere. Rich liberals who decry school choice, but send their kids to the most expensive private schools. Calls for renewable energy, from the same people who demand no wind turbines be built that obstruct the view from their porch. Old conservatives who talk about the unsustainable levels of handouts from our government, as they drive to their govt funded Medicare appointments. The ultimate goal of the progressive, socialist, liberal, whatever you want to call it, movement is the creation of a global community, and that will never, ever succeed. Even if it wasn't an impossible goal, people will always work harder for their family and their immediate community. Working harder means producing more. Producing more means more overall wealth. More overall wealth means a better world for everyone. Does it seem like a coincidence to anyone that the greatest, fastest improvements in the overall condition of humans on this planet, to include the very poorest amongst us, have occurred during the last century of unbridled capitalism in America? And the parallel socialist experiments have all, every single one, resulted in unspeakable horrors and millions of dead? Free healthcare in Britain isn't helping the starving kids in India. The incredible fruits of the profit-motive are. I'm not against universal healthcare because I don't think it's fair, or because I pity the rich doctors, or because Hillary likes it. I'm against it because a capitalist system is the best chance that my grandchildren won't know what cancer is. If I have to die at 86 instead of 92 from kidney failure to achieve that, so be it.

I cannot even imagine what sort of "security protocols" are going to be discussed... and some implemented... as a result of this. Stand by for knee-jerking...

Sad that it’s mostly come to that, watching SQ/CC ask on a facebook page why they are finding official news from a Facebook page instead of official channels is entertaining. Also that info came from my commander in response to a direct question.

John Piowaty still has an epic mustache.

Kenny, I sure hope you are right. And I hope they explain as much as they can about how they determined that.

Really? Mach, you can PM me with questions about lifestyle of a Guard Fighter Pilot.

Heard one of CNNs security “experts” this morning stating that this proves we need tighter security and mental screening for.......pilots. People are fucking stupid. Standing by with Vaseline.

Agreed that a small percentage of the population uses the biggest percentage of the health care pie. But I'm a little confused by your post as to your point. Are you arguing that 94-yr old Granny shouldn't be supported by the government's healthcare or at all, i.e., with family money? If it's the government, who gets to decide life or death for Granny? If it's ok to deny Granny continued care because of the cost, then, logically to me anyway, why do younger people, including kids, who have life=debilitating disease/injury/etc, get government coverage as you indicated? QOL is QOL. Money is money. Which goes back to who makes those decisions. If the gubmint is fubared on everything else, I don't want somebody faceless/nameless to make those decisions for me/mine. As to your father's not wanting to give up his promised Medicare; 1) he was promised it at whatever benefit to him by the government in return for his taxes, is he really wrong to expect a commitment to be honored? Which furthers my point that the government making broad brush social commitments is evil, e.g. Obamacare. It has been historically impossible to take something away from the population once it's been "given." and 2) Would you be ok with a unilateral drastic change to Tricare along the lines you say your father does regarding Medicare? You signed up with an understanding/agreement. Perspectives change along life's timeline and I don't think it's Uncle Sam's prerogative to decide when I've been around long enough. I should. If I missed your point, then apologies. full disclosure: I'm a penultimate year-group baby boomer.

Easy now-but I do know quite a few that may resemble that remark

No glorification for this POS from me. He was a fvcking criminal. Period. Thankfully there was no further loss of human life during his commission of a host of felonies. He could have driven the plane into the Space Needle. I don’t give a shit if he or the Germanwings piece of human excrement needed more coddling. That criminal made it harder for the rest of the professionals left in the wake of a major security breach.

No shit. But WOs count against officer billets regardless of what the AF did after getting rid of WOs. HAF has said multiple times that WOs won’t come back.

I don't care who's razor it is, just give it to me so I can slit my wrists and be done with this.

Yepp, kind of like the MAF AFMAN vol 1, two interim changes in 1 month and still haven’t gotten it right with utter confusion across the squadrons. But still, better than nothing.

A huge percentage of healthcare costs goes towards keeping old people alive when they should be dead. We cannot have a productive conversation about changing the healthcare system in the US without first addressing this. In the market, it's simple: until you're out of money. But when it's the government's money, the system collapses before the fake money runs out. I love my grandma. I like visiting her whenever I can. But she shouldn't be alive, and the amount of money being spent by Medicare to keep her alive is staggering, and the only thing she's dying from is old age (94 years old). We can easily afford to give every child in America unlimited healthcare. In fact, I think it should be that way. Full coverage until age 20, then lifetime coverage for chronic conditions that manifested during childhood. After that, you better have insurance. But if you think the boomers, or any other generation of senior citizens is ever going to vote for something where other people get free healthcare and they don't, just ask my Sean Hannity-quoting, millennial-bashing, proudly conservative father who loses his mind anytime someone mentions making cuts to his precious Medicare. This doesn't even get into the issues of producing doctors, questionable data on the efficacy of medical coverage, incentives to plan for retirement, etc.

If a critical comment was rejected un-adjudicated then that is still a MAJCOM failure since critical comments essentially mean the MAJCOM/CC non-concurs with the reg as written. However, at least in A3, most of the MAJCOM “critical” comments are admin comments at best...and when queried about the comment the MAJCOMs usually say that they don’t really care about it but some GS-11 thought it was important. Not defending the other HAF weenies, but there is blame to go around if MAJCOMs truly did critical comment this change to the AFI.

Not totally accurate... the MAJCOMs cut on this change. And because there are next to no bag-wearers working in A-1s, many MAJCOMs sent no comments. The few that did send back critical non-concur’s were effectively ignored. Part of this problem is that from the top-down the manpower/personnel folks have been allowed to do their jobs from strictly a manpower/personnel perspective, and completely decoupled from the pulse of the force. This started most recently in the James era (last bag-wearing A-1 was LtGen Sam Cox, who fought James and lost) and has continued, filtering down to the MAJCOMs. The willful ignorance of current ops in the -1’s the last couple of years has been astounding. What’s worse is nobody’s stopped the madness... But when the only bag-wearer you’re accountable to is the CSAF, it should surprise nobody that this happened. How can the lowest level of integration be the four-button-in-charge...?! All that said, this is exactly as it appears to be - an extension of your Service Commitment by other means (*or means other than stop-loss) based on the data available for the demographics the AF targeted for “retention.” It was 100% intentional. Occam’s Razor, not Hanlon’s Razor... I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t think that’s the case. Chuck edit: clarity

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1455/RAND_RR1455.pdf

And how much you wanna bet his source was the MAF FB page? 😂

Probably Cyber Warrant Officers.

They can publish a GM to immediately 'fix the glitch' while it goes through full review or awaits republication of the next version. This would restore some level of the institutional integrity that was lost by them saying one thing and doing another.

You mean HAF is doing a "review" after the AFI mandatory review/coordination A1 had to do in order to publish the new version? Aka: We've investigated ourselves and have found no evidence of wrong doing. Lip service because while this "review" goes on it's the letter of the law.

Yeah, well given how the AFPC folks responded back when the AFI had two conflicting notes (always pick the note that kept the member in sts), I'm pretty sure that now if it it came down to the AFI vs "a guy at the porch told me" there is a 0.0% Pk of being let out of an ADSC. I won't believe it until there is a written change to the reg.

If anyone wants to re-hack your cyber awareness training.

Am I the only one that thinks we need (and could have more immediate impact with) a cyber force more at this point?

We’re still planning to sell these bastards the F-35? We should get out of Incirlik and work our damndest to get them removed from NATO. That prick leading their country is nothing but an Islamofascist. If we let them touch an F-35, they’ll have Russia and China closely examining it in short order.

Allow me to break it down. From the 1980s to about the mid 2000s... Army aviators wore a green flight suit. Air Force aviators wore a green flight suit. Soldiers wore the woodland camouflage BDUs. Airmen wore the woodland camouflage BDUs. ....and everything was ok. Then we went through a shit storm of uniform changes and ended up with the disasters that were the ABU, ACU and I’ll even throw the Navy blue shipwreck in for good measure. Now, starting on 1 Oct 2018 Army Aviators wear A2CUs. Air Force aviators wear either green flight suits or A2CUs. Soldiers will wear OCPs. Airmen will wear OCPs. ....and everything will be OK.

...oh the things I can't say because I'm NATO right now...

Joint Base Balad, Iraq SNCO: Sir, your mustache is out of regs. Capt (F-16/Guard): And you're fat, which means you are out of regs as well. Immense laughter erupts from gaggle of F-16 pilots. Next day, everyone was required to shave their mustaches by the Gp/CC. Man..this story was epic.

Define fighter pilot...