HeloDude

Huey's and 60's out of Rucker...no way! Haha

Is it 'too fast' in general, or just 'too fast' this year for guys who just recently got selected for promotion to Major? Because it's the same timeline for X year group vs 1st look at IDE as it was for me several years ago...just under 10 years total time in service when applying for your first look.

So I'm always intrigued by the new innovations in the world of firearms, and this is the latest one to somewhat peak my interest. Apparently Franklin Armory has developed a trigger for the AR-15 that will also fire a round when the trigger is released. Here are two videos (second one is somewhat cheesy) from their YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijOcT1u5eJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TAhsoTJ6ps

But sadly you will need a permit to openly carry a pistol in Texas.

That's what happens when their state residents elect progressive politicians.

I seriously doubt it. If Paul Ryan and the GOP are smart (which often times they are not), this won't even make it to a vote, much less ever have a chance of passing in the House. As for this bill itself--I thought progressives just wanted background checks?

I seem to remember a "shall" in the Second Amendment to The Constitution...and that "shall" seems to get ignored quite a bit.

Why the in hell would you want to picture that?

Looks like the Army made the right choice. From the evidence/testimony that has been discussed/released in the media, I don't see how he doesn't get convicted of desertion. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/14/army-says-bergdahl-face-court-martial-desertion/77304602/

This. Oh well, my kids will have a much easier time getting a good job with respect to competing against these self entitled weaklings.

The only actor/actress I refuse to watch is Jane Fonda, for obvious reasons. The other progressive Hollywood types I just use for my own entertainment at a pretty cheap price. Personally, I blame the stupid people that care what these silly actors actually think (outside the entertainment industry--ie politics) vs blaming the actors themselves. And go see Bridge of Spies...excellent movie.

Wait...are you suggesting that terrorists can come into this country illegally (but stay here as illegal immigrants, because it's cool now) and plan/carry out attacks? How can this be?

Einhorn is Finkle...Finkle is Einhorn...Einhorn is a... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLi9Xa9EK-c

You bet man--and good on you for helping them out. Also, you can tell him that out of all the prior Army rotor wing pilots who crossed over to fly helos in the AF (who I have known and I have known quite a few), not one of them said they regretted their decision.

No problem. IMO it's silly for the active duty AF to take a prior Army rotor wing pilot and not send him to an AF rotary wing platform. The AF helo community (both Huey's and 60's) are undermanned (no rotary wing pilots were subject to the RIF a couple years ago), so why take an older Army pilot, put him through a year of UPT, then put them in a fixed wing platform, all when they go can go straight to Kirtland for helo MWS training? This is the same reason a helo pilot in the AF will rarely be given a fixed wing cross flow, and vice versa to why a fixed wing pilot won't be sent to Rucker/Kirtland for training. It just doesn't make financial sense when you're already a trained asset--UPT, MWS quals, etc are expensive. Also, an Army rotary wing pilot is more likely to upgrade quicker in an AF Huey/60 vs whatever platform they get out of UPT. My advice if he wants to fly fixed wing is for him is to find a Guard/Reserve unit willing to give him one of their UPT slots.

A waiver for this guy to become an AF rotary wing pilot? I'm pretty sure no (UPT type) age waiver is needed since he doesn't have to go through UPT. Full disclosure--I'm just going off what my Former Army Guy buddies told me many years ago.

This wasn't an oversight, it was by design. Or have the progressives abandoned their campaign of telling us that there is a 'war on women'?

This has nothing to do with having a truck or not, but has everthtying to do with villainizing a certain group of people (ie males in this case). Again, why didn't this 'training' show anything as to it is bad if wives blow money on clothes, furniture that is not needed, etc?

You're buying into their nonsense and not seeing it for what it is. It has to do with vilifying a certain culture (ie males, specifically white males), the stereotypes associated with it (ie a big truck), etc. I know plenty of guys whose wives are the ones blowing through money on silliness causing financial problems...yet that was not included as an example. Since when is making poor financial decisions a 'male problem'? Anytime you see anything with 'male privilege' or 'white privilege' just know that there's a progressive ideology being pushed.

Yep--standard ops. Progressive politicians will tell you how important our public schools are, how we can make them great, how they just need more money, blah blah blah...but the vast majority will never send their children to these schools. Another issue is 'climate change'...it's so dangerous and so horrible, yet progressive politicians and elites will have huge (and often multiple) houses using far much more energy than a typical American. They also travel more, are more likely to take private jets, etc...yet it is my fault for driving a 4 cylinder car to work. Judge people on their own actions and you'll usually learn their true intentions.

Don't let it happen again. But in all seriousness, don't live in a state or city ran by progressives.

You sound surprised...this isn't a secret: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9_5KQC7k8Lc

Wait...are you suggesting that the information/examples provided are legit?

For all you guys who own trucks, according to the U.S. military, you are using your male privelege to promote violence in your family and have an abusive relationship. https://www.med.navy.mil/sites/nmcp/Patients/SocialWork/Documents/Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault/PowerAndControlWheel.pdf

I definitely agree it's all about the money and power (the vast majority of politics is), but I disagree that anything with regards to this issue will change with the next administration. The country is not the same as it was 15 years ago, much less what it was 35 years ago. Also, the Middle East is losing its place when it comes to importance in the world...so not not only has our country changed, but the world, the world economy, etc has changed.