HeloDude

The money is all yours...I'll pass. Maybe the Saudis will hire you...to do whatever it is that you do.

It will pass...might be a fairly close vote in the House, but there are enough establishment GOP'ers to offset the ones that will vote no, and then they'll call it 'bipartisan'. Senate won't be as close and will pass 75-25ish. I'm am curious to see how each specific member votes though...especially the ones that say we have no authority to attack a nation if they pose no risk in national security. This is where Rand Paul sets himself away from the others in the establishment.

It's definitely amateur hour over at the WH. My hope is that they treat it like a death penalty...and just put it off for several years, maybe even forever.

I didn't see Jordan on that list of yours...

Got it--thanks.

Billionaire? I might be able to look past the fact that she was once a dude...wait a minute--pre-op or post-op?

It happens.

Fortunately I'm pretty confident that this will never get put up for a vote in the House, at least not while the GOP is in control. Even though the establishment GOP is all about being 'Democratic-lite' these days, fortunately enough of them realize that it would be political suicide right now for them to allow more gun control bills to go forward. Though in some ways I wouldn't mind seeing who votes 'yay' and 'nay' on such a bill. I did a quick search and am confused: Does the $5 this article mentions the current federal tax charged for doing any sort of FFL transfer/background check? And if so, I'm guessing then the article suggests that these Congressmen would want to raise that to $100...so instead of a $25 FFL transfer fee, my shop would have to charge me $125 for the same process? Yeah, I'm sure this will help their cause of passing 'universal background checks'. What's sad is that I have no doubt that when the Dems get control of the entire government again that they'll have a heyday passing all these bills. I guess we're lucky they didn't touch gun control (via the legislature process) when the Dems had a super majority in 09-10.

I just read the description on Amazon...seems interesting. As I always say, "when in doubt, follow the money." So here's a question: Will Obama go to Congress to get the 'ok' before (if) he bombs? And if he does, what will the vote look like? Personally I'm curious to see how guys like Cruz and Rand Paul vote...along with some of the big 'anti-war' libs.

I can't believe that there are actually a few guys on here who support even some sort of military action. Usually it takes the United States 25-30 years to forget why it's a bad idea to get involved in another country's pile of dog shit. I guess it's the age of high speed electronics--we just impatient and can't wait that long!

...as always, I'll believe it when I see it. Just getting the NVG compatible cockpits would be a win.

...but yet much less than the life in prison plea-deal that the Ft Lewis Army NCO is getting life for murdering all those Afghans. Unfortunately in a trial it goes down to what the prosecution thinks they can get vs what they believe should happen. I think Mannning definitely got what he deserved. He could have written various left wing Congressmen who I'm sure would have wanted to hear what he knew...but compromising classified info just to leak to some foreign national is a no-no.

...that's 'Miss' Chelsea Manning to you.

Now when I went to IP school years ago, one of the many things the old graybeards taught me was 'to be an effective instructor, you have to establish credibility'. If you don't, people will question your techniques, abilities, philosophy, etc. You do this by holding the correct qualification (ie IP), by sharing with your students what you have done in the past, and most importantly, by knowing your shit and being able to effectively teach what you know. I definitely learned this early on when teaching/advising the Iraqis as a relatively young guy instructing Iraqi pilots who were much older, who had been flying much longer than I have, and in quite a few instances, had more hours than I did at the time. Fortunately, I was able to establish some credibility early on, humble myself around those guys, and soon enough was able to see some positive results. Hell, a quick 6.9 second google search shows that the Weapons School even states "Taking the mantra, "humble, approachable and credible"..." Just because I am knowledgable about different airframes, can speak somewhat intelligibly about their ops, etc doesn't mean that I have credibility in that community. That being said, if I'm an aircrew member in that community (especially an instructor/evaluator), then I'll have some credibility in what I'm saying. Here at BO, a bunch of rated guys talk about rated ops--if it's a specific bomber issue, a Bone/Buff guy will have a lot more credibility than me. If it's an overall airmanship issue, then I think all seasoned rated guys here can adequately add to the discussion. So right now, when you add your opinion on flying/ops matters, I give you low credibility and thus don't give much weight to your opinion...after all how do I know if it's informed or not? And before somebody mentions 'well, we can pretend to be whoever we want online'...people have been sniffed out before for posing. Don't worry dude, it's cool--I'm sure there's plenty of other folks out there who would be interested in hearing your thoughts. But for me, there's a reason I'm not cool with a student in med tech assistant school diagnosing me with an illness.

Nice post man. You make a lot of solid points, but to be fair, there are always two sides to the story when both parties involved don't agree in the beginning. I'm not saying that your argument is any more or less correct, just saying that Big Blue has their reasons for wanting ACC to keep the CSAR birds/mission, some of those reasons you correctly pointed out. And if you asked someone from ACC or HAF, they would probably tell you that AFSOC/SOCOM has 'additional' motives for wanting to take over the mission as well. ...unless CRH source selection gets bumped again, my guess is it will be earlier than that.

Interesting find. I was pretty excited until I logged on via AAFES and started playing with around with different kinds of ammo purchases. I was able to determine that this deal (which is just a different coupon code that is automatically applied when logging in via AAFES) is only worth it when you are making an expensive enough purchase to get the shipping to be free...and usually they already have those coupon codes. I've purchased a decent amount (ammo, ammo cans, etc) from SG over the last 1-2 years and the tricks are to watch for the deals they have, then to use your membership (it's $30/year but quickly pays for itself if you make a few purchases), and then finally make the purchase when there's a sweet coupon deal to be attached (ie $15 off when spending more than $125, free shipping over $50, etc). You literally have to play around with the different codes to make sure you're getting the best option. Once you have all 3 at the same time, that's when you can make a pretty nice score. Here's a current deal on WPA (wolf) 7.62 x 39 ammo. If you are a club member it's only $55/240 rounds and you can order multiples (for some reason it's cheaper using the 240 rd option than the 500/1000 rd option?). If you use the code SG3923 then you can save $15 if you spend more than $125, and it also then comes with a $15 gift card. Overall a pretty sweet deal, especially if you had to renew your club membership because it was coming due, in which case they threw in even more discounts/gift cards. All in all, I basically was able to get this down to 19¢/round, and that was the final price shipped (not including the $35 in gift cards on top of that price). I miss the days when they had 5.45 1080rd round spam cans for $130 and then a coupon on top of it. https://www.sportsman...tsmansGuide.com

So you make a comment about pilots in regards to what different kinds of aircraft they fly, but then when asked what aircraft you yourself fly, you refuse to answer? ...noted.

This is odd...AF PA rarely seems to release names in a mishap if they're not deceased.

New way to store your firearms? https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/18/sitting-on-a-secret-this-sofa-has-a-gun-safe-and-bullet-proof-cushions-too/

Agreed. I'll vote Libertarian again before I vote for Christie. Now, Rand Paul, though I think he could be much more of a true Libertarian (he's a Conservative with some Libertarian leanings), I'll vote for him because I believe it would be a large step in the right direction. Make no mistake about it though, the NRA is going to be behind whichever GOP candidate wins the nomination, and this is just one of the ways they can say they were behind Christie from the beginning if indeed he does get to take on Hillary in 2016.

In other news... Kind of looks like the NRA is already jumping on GOP establishment bandwagon just in case Christie is the 16' GOP nominee. Ugh--the guy signed new gun control bills and the NRA sees this as a victory. The establishment always takes care of the establishment. https://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/8/new-jersey-governor-christie-vetoes-major-anti-gun-bills-and-gun-owners-secure-a-significant-and-rare-victory.aspx#.UhF76Fc3LQ0.facebook

Shooting the .357 out of little J-frame snubbie is brutal. My hands are average and my they get a little sore after 50 rounds of +p. If she can handle +p, I'm sure you'll both determine its a fine round for self defense. It is a good idea to either practice reloads with speed strips or speed loaders though as 5 rounds isn't nearly as much compared to most autos.

Here's the problem--they chose a State in a sea of Blue! NH is being infiltrated by folks from MA and the other liberal States. It would have been better had they chosen a State such as WY, SD, MT, ID... When NH elects Sen Shaheen, then they're far from Libertarian. At least Sen Ayotte didn't vote for any of the gun control bills.

Amen, Colonel! Shame what has happened to NH, they truly once were the bastion for Liberty.

You missed the point. You're not allowed to have your hands in your pocket, and you're not allowed to discriminate against gender (ie tell a woman they can't/shouldn't serve in certain career fields if they're legally allowed to do so) because it goes against the AFI. But saying you don't believe/agree with gay marriage has nothing to do with the military as you don't have to be married/not married to do a job in the military...marriage is a lifestyle choice, pure and simple. If I loved to watch porn and gamble in Nevada but a First Shirt said he didn't agree with people watching pornography or gambling, then it's just his opinion, same as this situation as I read it (within the last 2 months I have personally heard an O-6 tell his folks that it's not good to watch pornography). Smoking is also a lifestyle choice--we are free to smoke, but there are several programs to help you stop doing it. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to discriminate against smokers, but you can have your opinion in that you don't think it's a healthy lifestyle choice (as the Air Force tells us). This is all PC bullshit, plain and simple. I'm still waiting though for dudes to be able to wear earrings and nail polish while in uniform--I mean if chicks can do it, why can't we? In other news...unless AF Crimes got it wrong, this article makes it sound that the '10 days of leave for gays to get married' is indeed going to happen.