HeloDude

I'd also like to hear the details. And if it's true, then perhaps he was only trying to follow in the footsteps of these two...

Dale Mathews We miss you man!

If someone is trying to preach/convert you, and you don't want anything to do with it, then I totally get your annoyance and for wanting to be left alone in that arena. If you don't want politicians making laws/policy based on their religion, then I totally get it as well (I don't want that either). Outside of those two points, why do you care so much? I've already proven to you that religion by itself doesn't make someone less successful, doesn't by itself cause more crime, doesnt by itself make a country more weak or less prosperous, etc. Likewise I have never said that religion is necessary to be successful, have less crime, etc. So once again, why do you care so much? I might think it's silly for someone to spend hundreds of dollars an hour to talk to someone about their feelings, but hey, that's their time and money.

Are you suggesting that the US was not a 'religious' country in the late 1800's and early/mid 1900's? My point being that I can remember learning that the US experienced quite a bit of prosperity during that time...if religion is so bad, then how did this happen? The problem with you and Mark1 isn't that you make the argument that religion isn't needed for success, prosperity, etc (I never said that it was), however, you continue to make arguments that, by itself, religion hinders this properity and success...and history does not agree with you. Again, you guys are anti-religion and think people adhering to religious guidelines are stupid. No problem, that's your opinion. But you discount the facts of what has actually been done by people, who happen to adhere to a certain faith, which makes your entire irrelevant in my opinion.

Again, that's just you opinion. And of course it's perfectly your right to have it, but it doesn't change that it is still an opinion. Regardless of your opinion, are you suggesting that good has never come out of people because they were trying to follow the guidelines of their religion? Are you also suggesting that people can not see past their own religious views, say in the field of science? Many scientists, including Father George Lemaitre would have disagreed with you (just one example). I think you are just so against religion that your bias overwhelms you from seeing what positives have come from people trying to follow a certain set of guidelines adhering to their faith. And just in case you want to point all the horrible things that people have also done in the name of religion (which are valid points), I would point to Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung as examples of atheists not doing the best things in their life (Timothy McVeigh being a very recent example). As for progressive vs non-progressive...when you stop defending progressive ideology/actions (the religion issue is not one of them by the way), then I'll stop calling you a progressive.

Personally I'm more concerned about violent crime, but there is nothing invalid with your point. Or with the point that I'm more likely to be murdered in Massachusetts than in Utah. I'm also more likely to be murdered in California than I am in Texas. But seriously, explain to me again how more religious equates to more crime? I've never understood why non-religious people had a problem with religious people. If they don't care, then, wait for it...why care?

So now we're comparing city by city? His entire argument was to compare states to states. Massachusetts' violent crime rate is just over 400/100K people while Utah is just over 200/100K people (per FBI crime stats in 2013 listed below). So using his arguement style, statistically the non-religious of MA are 2x more than likely to commit a violence crime against me if I visit compared to the religious (mostly Mormon) folks in UT. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/4tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_4_crime_in_the_united_states_by_region_geographic_division_and_state_2012-2013.xls And according Gallup, Utah has the most frequent church attendance: https://www.gallup.com/poll/181601/frequent-church-attendance-highest-utah-lowest-vermont.aspx As for our progressive friend, Mark1, I agree that all of these arguments are silly as I'm not aware that 'religious affiliation' is reported when someone commits a crime. However, racial status is, and it's overwhelmingly that a black or hispanic person is more likley to commit a crime than a white person is...and Asians are less likely than whites (all that Asian privilege I suppose). So yes, I'm no fan of the south in that it sucks for many reasons--petsonally I never want to live there again outside the AF, mainly due to the summer weather. But the main reason the south has a higher crime rate is because of the south's percentage of population that is made up of minorities and which demographics have higher percentages of being more likely to commit a crime. Religion has nothing to do with it. I have a feeling that North Dakota is more religious than California, yet which one has a higher crime rate? Then don't follow religion, problem solved. And if you don't like politicians making laws/policy based on religion (I know I don't), then vote Libertarian. Progressives also love to use religion to gain support for their progressives policies, more government welfare is one example. I can't stand statists, regardless of which ideology they support. Just like those on the right who want to ban gay marriage, prostitution, etc all because of 'religion'. I could care what religion a person does or does not subscribe to, just stay out of my life.

Yeah...Utah just sucks for business and jobs these days. Definitely not a healthy state either. Oh and their crime?--through the roof!

I would imagine that unless you had extenuating circumstances (ie your wife was dying of cancer), then I don't see the AF letting you out of a commitment, especially if it's to fill a 'must fill' deployment. It's funny you ask this because I personally know a good dude (prior WO) who had taken the old long term bonus that took him past 20 YAS and when he tried to drop retirement paperwork at 20 and pay back/not collect his unearned portion of the bonus, the AF said no and instead...he got hit with a 365 to the CAOC. Grant it, this is anecdotal, but I think this recent example can give you an idea of where the AF stands on this issue. I can't believe I'm quoting Chang right now, but he was correct when he said that the $25K/yr bonus (even the large bonus now) is a "drop in the bucket" and worth it to the AF to not have to worry about someone dropping papers at some random time. For the younger guys on here, take heed: If you're not fairly confident that you want to stay in for a bonus commitment, then don't take the bonus. Sorry man. Good luck with the deployment if it happens.

If people/groups want to pay him $15K to speak, who can blame him for charging/taking it?--he's no longer in the military. Now if he would turn down speaking to let's say, a civil air patrol function because they couldn't pay him, then I agree that's showing some poor class. In the end, it's his story, and as long as he's not divulging classified info or straight up lying/hurting people, then who cares? I wouldn't pay to hear him speak but that's just me. People in the know are aware of his story and his mistakes/buffoonery...in the end, the guy still did what over 90% of the country never has done or will do. In today's society/culture, there are a lot more things fvcking up this country than Scott O'Grady.

Google is your friend...literally took me less than a minute to find. Page 48 of the AFI (page 64 in the PDF). Good luck! https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-3003/afi36-3003.pdf

What do you expect when you have a federal government that spends over $3.6 TRILLION in just one year? With that kind of money you're going to have many different groups trying to influence how that money is collected and spent. The problem ultimately isn't the lobbyists, PAC's, etc...it's the legislsting/spending done by our politicians, and their desire to pick winners and losers. And to go even further, the problem stems from the American people for putting these politicians in office. Hell, Hillary is trying to tell future voters that there's too much money in politics, yet she is a key part of that group that loves involving money with politics. In the end, the only legitimate solution will stem from the eventual result of all the spending: Complete economic collapse and then perhaps we can start over.

But don't worry...the federal government would never use its great military power to turn on its own citizens... https://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/

You can always trust the government to tell you the truth...

And the best kept secret continues...

Probably disgusted...but definitely not surprised, especially today. https://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/04/us-usa-airforce-diversity-idUSKBN0M02CF20150304

That's easy...I learned it in my staff job. WAR: Weekly Activity Report

Guys, this is just the beginning. Progressives don't stop.

Him being selected for Vice Chief most likely means that he won't be selected to be the next Chief when Welsh retires, unfortunately.

However, these are both. Disgraceful. Good to know that I look unprofessional if I roll my sleeves up a little bit...

You can't get any more specific than going on AFPC mypers and checking out the recent psdm on the bonus/ARP. Everything you need to know is right there. In a nutshell, if memory serves, if you have more than 16 years of total military service by the time your original UPT commitment ends then you are not eligible. I don't have the psdm in front of me right now, so double check to make sure I'm not wrong.

I was told that it started well before UPT. That their commissioning sources knew that they would all be this awesome and worked with AFPC and AETC early on to ensure they would all be in this same incredible class. Some said it would be too crazy to work...but it did.

Me and a lot of my buds all started within 3+ months of our EAD. So if the AF needs me to serve an extra 3 months past 20 to get an extra $75-100K for something I was going to do anyway, then why not? As someone who has little to no desire to fly after the AF (whether rotary or fixed wing), I appreciate the guys who are getting out and the AF having to throw more money at the rest of us to try and solve their problem. This also should make it a 'little' bit easier when competing for O-5...but who knows. As for all the guys serving their commitment and wanting to punch for the airlines, I wish them the best of luck and thank them for their courage and service. If my goal was to fly for the airlines then there's no way in hell I would stay in past the 11-12 years.

No problem man.

Negative. It starts when you went on AO's...first day you started UPT. Ask your HARM.