Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/20/2021 in all areas

  1. I would say that I'm of the opinion that your comment is misplaced, not well thought out, unprofessional and poorly timed. But we can discuss it in the future when we actually have some facts about what happened, rather than hashing out opinions and speculation before we even know the names of those involved... people we share the uniform with... in this tragic and unfortunate mishap.
    7 points
  2. Now I hope he sues the shit out of the major "news" networks.
    7 points
  3. Not Guilty on all counts. I guess you can defend yourself when someone is beating you in the head with a skateboard.
    6 points
  4. I've tried answering that question for a long time. Since the Kavanaugh hearings. The voters' mindset I get, they just believed the lie they were told. But the people in that picture know they are lying. Why? I think it's because this has become the religion of the progressives. The dogma of power hierarchies and systemic oppression (that old friend, Marx), the original sin of slavery, and the requirement that you proclaim your faith despite what your lying eyes see. There are hymns (SJW vocabulary like antiracism, unconscious bias, systemic racism, white rage, whiteness, privilege), prophets and priests (Ta- Nehisi Coates, Ibram Kendi, Robin DiAngelo), tithing (political campaign donations), confession... The list goes on. And just how the Catholic Church reacted horribly to the enlightenment, and nearly every scientific discovery that even remotely challenged the church's narrative, the progressives *hate* anything that threatens the "perfect word" of their God: the evil and racist nature of the American system, in which there is no justice for the oppressed. That's why they hated Rittenhouse so much, and it's especially why they hated the Darren Wilson case so much, and why they completely ignored the Eric DeValkenaere case. The first case attacks the purity of the cause. If Kyle was justified, then that night in Kenosha really was a riot, not "mostly peaceful protesting" for black rights. The second case reminds us that cops are more likely to be killed by black people than black people are likely to be killed by cops. There are very few actual cases of cops killing unarmed black people on which to build this vision of wide-spread sport-hunting by the police of minorities; Michael Brown was a martyr turned villain. And the last case proves that there is infact justice for minorities in America. Once you accept that the people driving the progressive movement know the narrative they are promoting is false, it becomes a lot easier to predict the behavior. The things you focus on and ignore when protecting a lie are different than when protecting the truth. Gaslighting, straw men, ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, false equivalency... All tactics to distract from a weak position. They have committed to the fundamental notion that America is broken and needs to be radically changed. Build back better, right? They want the "new America" but lack the justification, considering the wild success of the American experiment for *all* citizens. So they are just making it up. Now that they are committed, and their power is tied to that cause, what choice do they have?
    4 points
  5. I don’t understand how anyone with an ounce of fairness could oppose this verdict. Justifiable self-defense has rarely been this easy or clean to determine.
    4 points
  6. When did the burden of justifying mandates fall on the mandated? Vaccination does not stop the spread of Covid. I wish it did, but it does not. In light of this unfortunate news, the case for mandates fails. The virus is too transmissible and the vaccine is too short-lived. And contrary to 18 months of catastrophism, there are no longer wide-scale hospital overloads beyond what hospitals usually operate at. People shouldn't have to resort to religious or medical excuses to avoid doing something they don't want to do when it doesn't even serve the greater good. Vaccinating protects yourself. It does not offer long- or medium-term protection to others. You are either ignorant of the science or subconsciously turning this into a disciplinary fight. Because I said so...
    4 points
  7. I think Joe and Kamaltoe called him a "white supremacist" as well. I'd sue them too.
    3 points
  8. Good question and not the easiest problem to solve. Disclaimer: I declined command with prejudice two years ago so this a is topic that I have fairly strong feelings about. Second hand info, so take it FWIW, but I've been told that our MAJCOM/CC has stated that AF leadership is fairly concerned about this. Long term projections/trends aren't good; supposedly there's a real possibility that there won't be enough qualified O-5/6s in the coming years to fill all the required command billets. At any given point AFSOC has about 110 or so O-6s; about 3 years ago there was an O-6 blood bath where 42 of them punched in the same year, was a rude wakeup call. From what I can tell there's another big wave of O-6 retirements currently under way. I honestly don't know why AFSOC was surprised this happened, we're coming into the era where you have people who've been at war for their entire career. Once you make O-6 you're a company man and your control over your future is often times much diminished, and in the last couple years your chances of an undesirable 365 increased dramatically (admittedly this risk is probably diminished now). I'd agree with your pitch that there is and probably needs to be a middle ground. I personally know several guys in the last two years who made O-6 and still retired prior to getting 3 years TIG. If the AF tries to push guys/gals into commands they don't want, I'm of the personal opinion it'll be a lose/lose for everyone involved. The people in question will most likely just retire so we'll lose the talent, or they'll stay and do a job they don't want, which means they people they're leading could suffer. In my small corner of the AF: 1. I think we could do a better job about being open with guys/gals about what their future looks like if they're on the command track. AFSOC does a horrible job IMO giving guys on the command track feedback on the DT results/discussions. Almost everyone is in the dark until if/when they get a hiring phone call. That makes it very difficult to prog out family life or have any idea about what your future holds. 2. I think we could also open up DO and CC slots to more non-school selects/line guys (not just top 10-15% people). I know plenty of bros in the ops units that would've made great commanders and would've been interested in serving in that role but never got the looks or opportunity cause they weren't put on that path as a Captain. This would serve to widen the command gene pool and not limit senior leaders' choices for command billets to careerist twats. One of the better CCs I've had was one of these guys, always a line dude, no school or jt staff and was a great commander during a challenging year for the squadron. 3. I believe keeping productive O-6s that decline command would be win for the AF and for those individuals. I worked with/around a decent amount of worthless/not smart/downright cockbaggish O-6s during my time on staff. Every guy on here has probably seen things come out of at least the MAJCOM that were uninformed/bad policy/caused issued at the ops units. Letting good O-6s go to staff lets those guys/gals continue to serve and leverages their experience where it could have positive effects at the squadron level. Standing by spears/thoughts.
    2 points
  9. Address the reasons why few want to command?
    2 points
  10. MCO mentioned towards the end of the linked post a desire to steer conservations back toward AF-type stuff. As such, and on the topic of command, last year's O6 command board had ~40% of eligibles opt out from competing for command. Rumor is that the policy of "all in" will return. So for the crowd, which is worse for the AF: Selecting your group/wing commanders from a much smaller pool (nearly half as small) that results from letting people opt out from competing Or, forcing Colonels to compete and, if selected, take command unless they retire under the policy of "all in"? I think there can be a middle ground. If I were CSAF, I would want as big a pool of candidates as possible, but knowing that there is an O6 shortage, especially among rated officers, I would institute a policy to allow commander-selects to decline as long as there was a mutually beneficial assignment besides command to keep from bleeding talent. Thoughts?
    2 points
  11. So tired of this. This week sucks for the Red Bulls, and that was true prior to today. Prayers for all involved. But let’s keep cutting training and delaying acquisitions of new stuff…seems to be working.
    2 points
  12. Let me rephrase what you just said. "I soundly reject anything you have to say because I really just don't care, but I'm sorry if sound like an ass hole!" Mmmmm, are you really sorry? Or do you just not want people thinking you're an asshole? By the way, I never said military service was transactional, rather, the intrinsic benefit provided by the military to greater society is transactional.
    2 points
  13. Don't call them that, please. I know what you are trying to convey, but this war is going to be won through a split in the Democratic party, where the more temperate liberals cast out the progressive/socialist/Marxist radicals. That split is going to take *a lot* of dialog between conservatives and liberals. "Woketarded shitlibs" does nothing but shut off the listening part of the brain for anyone who remotely identifies as liberal. It's a free country, so do what you want, but realize you are exacerbating the problem and empowering actual "Woketarded shitlibs" by using childish language that they will use to keep the rational liberals on their team.
    2 points
  14. It is crazy to know that the selects are probably (mostly) selected at this moment. Been trying to apply for 4+ years now and finally got my app in so I’m grateful to be in the pool. Good luck to everyone!
    1 point
  15. Good question, also valid! I’d say that there are broadly two separate groups, 1.) the anti-vaxx, who truly do not want any vaccine, ever. I respect their opinions. If I was worried about risk of disease from that person I could just go get the vaccine for the disease they could be carrying and boom I should be good. If we can let Jahovas witnesses refuse blood (which some may see as self loathing or unjustified martyrdom), then we ought to respect people’s choice to not be vaccinated. 2.) those who are anti-fetal cells. There are actual many alternative vaccine products that were not developed through the use of fetal cells. Some people use sites like this to consult before getting a vaccine: https://cogforlife.org/. Also the use of fetal cells is not limited to vaccines so some will especially try to avoid products lands by Pepsi, nestle and others. If you have knowledge the cells were used as a necessary step to develop the product and you believe that is immoral, ought you not try to avoid that product? Also I think using anti-vaxx is a disingenuous term to describe those who don’t want the CV19 vax, because it suggests that all vaccines have equal merit, which is absolutely not true. The CV19 vax in novel with new technology, and has no long term data. I think each vaccine should be evaluated on its own merits- so being “anti-vax” has many shades I guess. i understand life is short and time is limited, but some of the people who don’t want the vaccine, haven’t written off all present and future injections to “ I just accept the military is going to shoot us up with a bunch of stuff.“ (I understand why people say this, you can’t do a deep dive into every new thing in the modern world.) However, Some people have, what I believe to be, legitimate concerns about safety and effectiveness. But our arguments fall on ears of people who “accept the military is going to shoot us up with a bunch of stuff”. So no argument made gains any traction. It doesn’t register because they already made their choice about all injections. Question for you, is there any vaccine product that you wouldn’t take if the AF told you? How many boosters on will you take? Thanks for your civility👍🏼
    1 point
  16. They (the political/activist class) are not ignoring reality, they are attempting to redefine it. It's the well-meaning liberals who fall for the lie who are ignoring reality. For now.
    1 point
  17. That’s fair. But are you now an anti vaxxer in general? As in don’t vaccinate your kids with any of those vaccines and take the risk? Just curious if everyone is becoming what they made fun of 2 years ago using the same arguments they made fun of 2 years ago because it’s normal now. I’m actually not judging if you are, it’s just interesting how this is going. I’m pro vaccine personally but also pro self determination in most cases. I just accept the military is going to shoot us up with a bunch of stuff.
    1 point
  18. Fully expect the Justice Department to bring civil rights violation charges against Kyle Rittenhouse in order to get a second bite at the Apple.
    1 point
  19. I bet 99% of the people “boycotting” fetal cell developed vaccines are still comfortable taking Aspirin, Advil, and Tylenol. It’s hypocrisy at its finest. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    1 point
  20. Safe? Based on what clinically sound studies? We've chased this squirrel before. This crash program did produce something that helps. It is not a "vaccine." Effective? If you get the shot, you can still transmit the virus. If you get the shot, you can still catch the virus and get sick. At a not insignificant percentage either. Best tool? Maybe. But too many other avenues of research/treatment have been shut down arbitrarily for me to accept the efficacy on blind faith and gubmint say-so. The draconian 'mandate' isn't helping their case and makes me dig in my heels. Especially given all the political exceptions - USPS, illegal aliens, attending 'peaceful protests,' etc, etc. This virus is either so deadly to all of the US or it's not. The counters produced thus far are either ways to defeat the virus or they are not. Exceptions literally and figuratively weaken the argument for a vaccinated population. The FDA, yesterday, asked a federal court to grant it permission to answer FOIA requests in 2076. Yes, I'm skeptical. I also do not want to lose the freedom of choice argument currently underway. Otherwise, we all will continue to lose our freedoms. As we have doing at an alarming rate since at least 2001. All in the interests of "safety."
    1 point
  21. Definitely hopeful....looks like the woketarded shitlibs are losings their appeal........silver lining for sure...wonder if some ' courageous woketards' on this forum will tell us all how wokery and diversity and 'peaceful but firey protests' will 'save democracy'.....
    1 point
  22. But the lib tards are all set to fry the one that stopped their riot.
    1 point
  23. The city doesn't have to burn. If a few hundred Kyles showed up to protect it we would see which side the .gov is on. Sad thing is the riot that started this was perpetuated by leftist media lies. And leftist media lies are going to cause more riots after the verdict.
    1 point
  24. Careful, I postulated that a few pages ago and Waingro apoplectically shit his pants.
    1 point
  25. More 'peaceful protests' either way......
    1 point
  26. Interesting takes and just saw all this. The most interesting part to me is the implication that asking guys to do their job is some active duty shit that the guard wouldn’t tolerate and it’s all about airline PIC time. Uhh…I’ve been in a TFI unit (fighter) and ANG dudes are absolutely not like that. I’ve seen those dudes fly in weather that AD guys would cancel 99/100 times. And canceling an airline flight because you don’t feel like it with no extenuating circumstances besides your gut when you’re legal to go? Good luck with that.
    1 point
  27. I've cancelled a few times when wx was technically legal to fly, both as the Flight Lead and the OPS SUP said go, and as the OPS SUP when the Flight leads were willing to go. There have been plenty of times where it's much more prudent to not fly that day. Realize you may have to do some explaining, but I've never once been threatened with loss of quals. Even if I had, it wouldn't have changed my mind, especially for a daily CT line....lol make me a wingman only (twoop!). If you said you'd have to "report it to the DO," I'd say sure thing, let's walk down there right now....hell, get the SQ/CC and OG if you want, I don't really care. Once you've been a FL/AC/OPS SUP for a while, you start to learn what really matters and what doesn't. I'm all for going out and getting some good experience/lessons learned, but there are plenty of times where, even if the weather is technically legal, the gain does not outweigh the loss/potential risk. It gets even easier when you have the option to cancel and go fly that mission in a sim.
    1 point
  28. Well, leadership recently ordered a crew at Tinker to fly a mission that by the book was legal but in reality was stupidly non-sensible. To me that's the role of the AC. If you're go/no-go factors as an AC are simply whether or not its legal by the book to take off or land, than we are paying you too much. Fuck the Nav can look in a book and tell you if you have the mins or not. I would say the guy at the TMO desk could do it but I don't think they've ever cracked and AFI in their life so I won't go there. Anyway, the AC is there when by all accounts you should be allowed to do something, but for whatever extenuating circumstances or factors that guidance doesnt capture, its just a really stupid idea.
    1 point
  29. Almost 2 years to the day we lost two bros on a formation landing at END. I guess we have to lose ppl before we can cut syllabus items that are is irrelevant in the CAF.
    -2 points
  30. I’ll take that as directed at me. I see your point of view & I understand where you’re coming from. Try and understand mine: I, and many others are equally confused as to how a person who is willing to give their life to this country, and make all of the other sacrifices that come with military life, is not willing to accept a vaccine that is safe, effective, and the best tool we have (at the moment) to fight a disease that has killed almost three quarters of a million Americans. I know you aren’t selfish. I know that for most of you, military service is not just a “transactional relationship” (as alluded to by some of the more hardcore libertarian types here), but is truly service before self. But I soundly reject 99% of the objections out there. Religious objections, worries about long term side effects, efficacy arguments, and almost all the other “objections” simply don’t hold water. Getting a vaccination (and yes, probably at least a couple boosters) is the single most effective thing you can do to fight COVID. Regardless, I know you and most who serve are not selfish…..far from it, and I apologize for coming across as a self righteous asshole.
    -3 points
  31. Did you raise the "murdered baby" argument for any of the other vaccines you got in the military? MMR, varicella, and hepatitis A vaccines were all developed using fetal cell lines.
    -3 points
×
×
  • Create New...