HeloDude

If you reference my earlier posts, I clearly say how I didn't support the war attacks under Obama and I don't support them under Trump. I will praise Trump when his decisions extend me more personal liberty and call him out when does not, same as I did for Obama. You and others clearly don't do the same as one can easily see on the Presidential thread where it appears Trump has not done anything positive.

Good advice...so why are you so worried and concerned with Trump supporters?

So you're making the point about Obama sometimes attacking Syria without Congressional and sometimes not attacking Syria because he did not Congressional approval? How about instead you just admit that Obama did the same thing Bush did, and now Trump is doing the same thing Obama did...

Are you suggesting that Obama never dropped bombs in Syria? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy For the record, I wasn't a fan of Obama's air strikes and I'm not a fan of Trump's air strikes.

Would you rather him post a link from another biased "news" source such as CNN, NY Times, Wash Post, MSNBC, ABC, etc? They're all biased, so why are you only against Fox News?

See my post above--Trump is no more/no less a moron than his predecessors. Yet the bias we all have shows one guy to be a genius and one guy to be a moron...just depends on your point of view who is who.

Yep, you're not biased at all LOL. Allow me to let you in on a little secret: The current president is no more or less of a moron than his predecessor, his predecessor's predecessor, his predecessor's predecessor's predecessor, etc. I know you don't like Trump, but I'll let you determine the level of moron he and others before him have risen to.

Fox News is biased? Wait...I agree with you. As is CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, WSJ, Wash Post, NY Times, etc. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source these days...and I don't think it has ever existed. Today it's just much more apparent due to the extreme polarization on all sides of the political and philosophical spectrums. Not to mention that each "news" outlet needs to write stories/report on what their readers want to see, because if not, they quickly go somewhere else. So anyone who makes fun of Fox News without likewise making fun of all the other news outlets (and vice versa) only goes to show that person's own bias. That all being said, in terms of money, viewership, etc do you think there are more people following "news" sources biased more to the left or biased more to the right?

Well it's not like this issue has been in the news lately lol...

But you are against gun control laws of any kind, so it's cool.

No worries man--yes, this was referring to the 90s when the AF took in quite a few Army RW pilots to fly 53's, 60's, and Huey's, and they did just fine.

Since when do Army RW pilots coming over to be AF RW pilots go through IFF? This post was concerning UPT-H...

I appreciate you admitting that you don't know what you're talking about with regards to this issue. The reason for the change in the mid-90s was to rationalize the cost of the new T-6 acquisition during the drawdown of the 90s: More students needed during FW phase 2 without increasing the overall quantity of pilot graduates per year.

No--my logic is that the AF did for decades and it worked out just fine. Or do you know something I don't?

Because this didn't happen before the early/mid 90s... And the AF also didn't bring in quite a few Army RW pilots in the 90s that ended up doing just fine.

They could have had that headline for 99.99999% of the schools that day.

Here's what we know: 1) The AF has publicly stated that they want more women/minorities in the officer/pilot corps, which mathematically equates to fewer white males. 2) The AF has publicly stated that they have been looking at ways to promote more women/minorities, which mathematically equates to wanting fewer whites males being promoted. 3) The Air Force has publicly stated that we have a "pilot crisis", yet they are not putting all their resources behind retention and/or recruiting people solely based off merit, as they are now focusing at least some recruitment efforts specifically on women/minorities. If there's a "crisis" why is the AF then focusing on anything but retention and recruiting the best people you can get, regardless of gender/skin color? 4) Systemstic racism/sexism does not exist in the AF when it comes to recruiting/training pilots and covert racism/sexism in the AF to keep women/minorities from becoming pilots is few and far between, and when alleged is taken very seriously and if proven is dealt with quickly and harshly. This goes for promotion as well. So again, if we're in a "pilot crisis", why is the Air Force focusing on anything but promoting/retaining our best (regardless of gender/skin color) and recruiting the best/most qualified (regardless of gender/skin color)? I suppose if one believes that having greater diversity of gender/skin color by itself is more important than just merit, then I suppose you'll support the initiatives started by SecAF James/Gen Welsh and continued now by SecAF Wilson/Gen Goldfien. I have flown/served with many outstanding women/non-white males, and I would hate to believe that they were selected by anything other than their merit...they would probably hate to believe it as well. They were able to figure out how to go to the Academy/join ROTC/apply to OTS and become pilots, so as I mentioned, I don't think there's a program to keep women/minorities from becoming pilots. So that's where I'm at with this issue--perhaps you can answer the question in the paragraph above and explain to me in a way I can understand where I am going wrong. Right now, all I understand is that the AF wants to recruit/promote more women/minorities...instead of solely basing it by merit. Which is a shame, because over the last 10-15 years we've recruited/trained some pretty damn good awesome people who were women, minorities, and yes of course, white males...

I'm honestly wondering why this stuff surprises any of you. In 2015 the SecAF said she wanted programs to recruit/promote more women and minorities. Goldfein was her Vice Chief of Staff at this time...did we just think things would change when he became Chief of Staff? Or perhaps you're surprised this is happening under Trump and SecAF Wilson? Not me...the upper level GOs/civilians have been picked and put in place years ago because they buy into this way of thinking. More people (i.e. pilots) getting out just means the AF/DoD can bring in more people they want to see (apparently women and minorities) as well as more easily promote the people they want to see at the higher ranks. The AF is willing to spend more money on these initiatives instead of using that money/begging Congress to pay current pilots (who are mostly white males) to stay in. It's hard to be a conspiracy theorist when you can read the words they're saying. Air Force secretary announces bold moves to boost women, minorities https://www.tampabaydefensealliance.com/news/air-force-secretary-announces-bold-moves-boost-women-minorities

Yet a cake company can't afford to not sell a cake to an extremely small segment of the population? Totally agree on your last sentence.

The same reason why Dick's doesn't want more business...it's not like they're approving of school shootings, they would just profit from gun sales.

Just more reason to purchase online/use an FFL. Same firearm, much better price...

Chief of Safety is designed to be a Sq CC/DO or a former Sq CC. The AF did this on purpose because they wanted someone who wouldn't go ROAD running the Safety program/have someone who is a peer with the flying Sq CCs. AFI91-202 2.1.1.1. Active duty military COS will be selected from a current or previous Squadron Commander/Director of Operations/Chief of Safety list; or be a former Squadron Commander. MAJCOM/CV or above has waiver authority for this requirement. (T-2)

^^Fair enough! Then again, that's what we were told in Oct 2016. We will definitely find out!

Would you like to provide your opinion as to why? You (like the rest of us) aren't shying away from providing an opinion on nearly everything else.

Don't ask...I have no doubt that they could.