Fuzz

Golden quote from the AF.mil news site: 12/5/2012 12:01:40 PM ET Have we reached the point where the AF CoS has to order Wing Commanders to commandThen again when was the last time one of them was in the dorms on a Friday night vs. hanging out with the flight crews in a squadron bar or the O Club Sgt Snorkle, USA

Major props to that Admiral.

Better dust up on that MOPP 4 and NBC procedures: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gEvLHlO-YtaysJDlKAoQC-lkZXow?docId=CNG.c19a448143681e6e4aeace3a0218a1cb.141 Syria mixing chemicals for sarin gas: US official (AFP) – 1 day ago WASHINGTON — Syria has begun mixing chemicals that can be used to make deadly sarin gas, a US official told AFP Monday, amid fears that President Bashar al-Assad's forces could attack rebels with chemical weapons. "We've picked up several indications which lead us to believe that they're combining chemical precursors," the official said, on condition of anonymity, adding that the operation was apparently aimed at making sarin. Earlier, CNN said that Washington believed that Assad's regime was considering the feasibility of putting sarin into artillery shells for use in a limited chemical strike against opposition soldiers, the report said. US officials stressed to the news channel that they did not believe that Assad had made a final decision on mounting such a strike. Sarin, used in two terror attacks in Japan in the 1990s, is a man-made nerve agent which can cause convulsions, respiratory failure and death. The intelligence appeared to explain a series of fresh warnings issued by Washington that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad government would cross a "red line" and invite unspecified US action.

I've heard a couple of reserve guys (mainly heavies) talk abt a chief pilot.

Source? Not that I will anyway (especially due to Finance screw up), but curious because I'm TDY enroute for the first, so this would be nice to know.

Looks like a very successful day

Girl, 8, bitten by dolphin at SeaWorld: http://www.clickorla...kz/-/index.html Eight-year-old Jillian Thomas was having the time of her life, getting up close and personal with dolphins, her favorite animal. As her mom and dad captured her feeding the dolphins on camera she picked up the tray of fish to say she was done, and that's when a dolphin leapt out of the water after the tray and instead got Jillian's arm. The dolphin closed its jaws on the 8-year-old's arm and pulled her toward the pool before letting go. Sometimes I think people shouldn't be allowed to have kids: "We think that attraction at SeaWorld is dangerous and it was traumatic for us to go through that event," said Jamie Thomas. (the dad) Apparently it wasn't too dangerous to allow your kids in there in the first place

I'm not advocating hiding serious medical issues, that can get people killed, however had a buddy almost black out in a UPT due to what was most likely dehydration and complained about a headache afterwards (no surprise there), yet in describing the severity of the headache he mentioned "migraine". The Doc promptly DNIF'd him sent him to a neurologist who said no migraines ever, yet a year later he is still fighting the medical process to get back into training. All I'm saying is don't give the docs there is quick kill because you said something stupid.

Keeping our government from becoming insolvent???

No I don't, I think it was the final feather in the cap, but I think we are missing the forest for the trees. So back to my second question: So what exactly do you proposed the GOP does to control spending, its not like we have passed a budget in the last four years. The debt ceiling has become the defacto budget for current operation of the government, failure to raise the ceiling only forces the government to live within its means. The debt, interest and SS/Medicare/ect. will all still be paid, unfortunately not much else will be so we (military members and all the other federal workers) will be SOL.

If you read the rest of the article its not because of the debt limit alone, it is mostly due to long term increase in the debt and the governments failure to deal with the major issues like entitlements. " Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated sovereign peers" So yes they didn't like the debt ceiling being used, but they more so didn't like the ever growing projected debt of the U.S. government.

+3 If there was EVER a time to think before you speak and STFU, it is when you are there.

Well there goes my night, awesome sight.

Where do you get your stuff from Media Matters? "Lowering the nation’s rating to one notch below AAA, the credit rating company said “political brinkmanship” in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government’s ability to manage its finances “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” It said the bipartisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings “fell short” of what was necessary to tame the nation’s debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings in the future." http://www.washingto...eIxI_story.html So what exactly do you proposed the GOP does to control spending, its not like we have passed a budget in the last four years. The debt ceiling has become the defacto budget for current operation of the government, failure to raise the ceiling only forces the government to live within its means. The debt, interest and SS/Medicare/ect. will all still be paid, unfortunately not much else will be so we (military members and all the other federal workers) will be SOL.

Damn reading comprehension fail, post deleted.

Link from AF times: http://www.airforcetimes.com/mobile/news/2012/11/air-force-blues-monday-rule-rescinded-112912w

My point was the democrats are trying to "help the poor" as you have argued many times how does this help them? I'm not against it, I just remember the president saying that we shouldn't be cutting spending on education, yet what it this?

Still doesn't answer my question? What happened to the inequality and making things fair, what about the working mom going to school at night or going back for their masters?

Nsplyr, please spin this for me as good thing, I'm very interested, because I thought the democrats wanted to reduce inequality through government programs??? http://www.examiner.com/article/college-students-learn-of-obama-s-secret-pell-grant-cuts "Sorry, college students. President Obama has cut your access to Pell Grants by 33%; he just forgot to mention it before Election Day. During the recent campaign, President Obama claimed credit for increasing funding to the Pell Grant program, which provides college funds, free from repayment, to millions of students. However, an email sent out Tuesday to some Dallas college students is revealing a detail the President forgot to mention: the time a student can receive a Pell Grant has been cut, by as much as three years. With Pell Grants for the fall semester now dispersed, colleges are informing students of their options, bringing the cuts to light."

I say anything more than what the taxes are now is exorbitant. Poster child for higher taxes and a hypocrite: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/watch-what-warren-buffett-does-not-what-he-says_664022.html?page=2 "Early in his career, Buffett invested heavily—almost one third of his early fund's capital—in Sanborn Map, a company that mapped utility lines and such. But he soon grew frustrated with the company's leadership, which "operated more like a club than a business," and which refused to return greater dividends to investors. So Buffett amassed more and more stock, and with control of the company finally in hand he pressed the board of directors to split the company in two (one for the mapping business, and one to hold the company's other outsized investments). Finally, the board capitulated. But with victory finally at hand, Buffett nearly scuttled the deal because of ... taxes. As Schroeder recounts, quoting Buffett, one director proposed that the company just cleanly break the company, despite the tax consequences—"let's just swallow the tax," he suggested. To which Buffett replied (as he recounted to Schroeder): And I said, 'Wait a minute. Let's -- "Let's" is a contraction. It means "let us." But who is this us? If everyone around the table wants to do it per capita, that's fine, but if you want to do it in a ratio of shares owned, and you get ten shares' worth of tax and I get twenty-four thousand shares' worth, forget it.' Buffett was willing to walk away from a deal because the taxes would have taken too much of a bite out of it. Fortunately for him, the board gave in and allowed him to structure the deal that he liked, saving him from his own Norquistian response."

The post office

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707029/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html "In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs. This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election." NsPlyr, let me ask you a question on the subject of inequality. Wouldn't raising taxes on the very rich actually create more inequality? I mean the wealthy will leave or hire an army of CPAs to find the loopholes in the new tax system, and they already have considerable wealth amassed so yes their future incomes will shrink but in the big picture how hurt will their lifestyles actually change? They will continue to be very wealthy. Now for someone like you and me who maybe one day get out of the AF and start a successful company, that company will only grow so big before is gets pummeled with all the taxes, and people will also invest less if they know the taxes are going to be exorbitant. So wouldn't that really create more inequality, the rich stay rich and the middle class and poor never be able to reach that level?

Yeah I think this will fix things (not): In suicide epidemic, military wrestles with prosecuting troops who attempt it http://www.mcclatchy...y-wrestles.html

Why? They get rich off it and when it collapses they aren't crippled by it, like you and me would be. They own the companies so they only way they are out of a job is if the company folds. I remember visiting Hearst Castle as a kid (which was started in 1919 and finished in 1957), we were walking through what could best be described as a treasure room (collections of all sorts of antiques and historical items) when the tour guide remarked, "Hearst used to have a very large collection of Ancient Egyptian artwork and antiques but sold it during the Great Depression". Yep the Great Depression certainly kicked him in the balls, he lost his Egyptian collection, but still managed to continue building Hearst Castle and live very well.

How about we get rid of it? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/ranchers-farmers-brace-for-death-tax-impact/?intcmp=trending "But according to the American Farm Bureau, up to 97 percent of American farms and ranches will be subject to an estate tax where the exemption is set at $1 million."