HeloDude

This and he also signed a 'DREAM Act' yesterday to benefit illegals in NJ. If I want to vote for a liberal, I'll just vote for Hillary instead...which means in 2016 if he's the nominee then I'll vote Libertarian like I did in 2012. We have the best politicians money can buy!

Thank you for your service and making the ultimate sacrifice. We will miss all of you.

Glad you think so--wish more and more people would agree. We have people on this anonymous board who won't even answer tough questions. Not sure what you mean by 'western society' (checked out France lately?), but I agree otherwise. And this is where you lost me. Like Vertigo said, if there's no protection of challenging unConstitutional laws, then you further the threat and act of tyranny. Rosa Parks 'broke the law' by refusing to sit in the back of the bus--so you supported the punishing of her for doing so? Or do you just believe we should rely on the judiciary?...the same judiciary structure that supported the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent? Where do you personally draw the line? I'm not asking when/where 'you' will personally take a stand, but what is the line for you when it comes to others defying unConstitutional laws and taking a stand? So standing up to unConstitutional laws is equated to 'falling on your to prove a point'? You make it sound like there's no real and true benefit to taking a stand against a government not following their own law of the land. For the record, I'm not calling you, the guy down the street, myself, etc a bad person for not standing up for things such as Rosa Parks or Snowden did (and yes, I'm using their names together)...but when you outright support their punishment then you're nearly just as guilty. We're not all made the same, as we all have different lives, different levels of courage, but we should all have an idea of when we're all ready to stand up and take a stand, even if that means a potential negative consequence for doing so.

I wonder if he would have went to Sen Paul, Sen Wyden (a Dem, who believe it or not, cares about this as well), Rep Massie, or Rep Amash...if that would have turned out better with getting essentially the same result? Then again, when a few Sen's or Rep's in Congress start making these types of claims, the establishment of both parties start calling them 'whackos' and conspiracy theorists. Snowden releasing the information the way he did gave little doubt to what the NSA is actually doing. So I'm part of the camp that believes the ends did justify the means. And Snowden is paying a price for it...

My compliments to her surgeon.

I think I read in the recent PSDM that if you were commissioned after Jul 2012 (?) then you are not eligible, which would affect most UPT studs I would imagine? Good question on the late rated part...my guess is that unless you have something in your record (UIF, etc) that you'll be fine.

Maybe since then they have 'fixed the glitch', so it'll just work itself out naturally.

Maybe I'm being naive for thinking this...but this time I have a feeling that they won't pull the whole 'turned down for VSP but still subject to the RIF' deal. During the RIF a few years ago, there wasn't a published matrix showing AFSC's and year groups that were affected (at least I never saw one?). Though I'm sure AFPC will always screw up even their own processes, this time they have shown their cards with the matrix. Last time the VSP was 'open to anyone' and then we saw what happened that time, and this time they're telling fighter, helo, and RPA guys to not even bother because they're not affected. It will be even more obvious this time around if AFPC pulls their bait and switch bullshit...and I'll try to give Gen Welsh more credit than Swartz. I'm usually much more of a pesimist (more like a reaslist) but I'd be willing to bet that if you're turned down for VSP, you won't even be subject to the RIF. We'll find out here in a few months.

Haha...no. But you keep supporting a dude's claim that he is something he is not, and then challenge me when I call him out. The dude originally asked if he could where a camera, and people told him what the reg says...if he chooses to violate the regs, then it's on him if he gets caught. Either way, he deserves to hear what the regs are and to also be given the advice that acting like you're a pilot before you even get to UPT is not a smart mentality to have. So you tell me--where am I going wrong?

Yeah, I don't think you were being sarcastic, but whatever helps you sleep better at night. Those dudes in the link I attached didn't think they would get caught either. But hey, it's not my career, so whatever. Pretty confident the kid doesn't have a FM-8 if he is in UPT, at least not one saying he is a pilot, though I have heard non-pilots call themselves drivers, and I don't care either way as they're good dudes and important crew members. If he wants to tell us that he's a prior 130 NAV or enlisted crew member, then I'll hear the argument. His remarks though don't support that idea. Are you a poser as well? Do you know Joe1234?

Doesn't work so well when you can't get to it or when you're incapacitated. Here's an interesting read for you... http://www.torch.aetc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120305-102.pdf

Post #57 in the Force Shaping Thread:

Here's the problem: Though I stand by my earlier remarks that the Snowden release is good because it has people discussing the issue, allowing more people to see the truth and have less trust in their government, etc...I will concede to Serious that more than likely not much will be done to significantly change how the federal government does their business. Obama said he would have the most 'transparent' administration ever, so if this is what constitutes transparent, then I think we're in serious trouble. Many on the left (as shown via NYT) is applauding what Snowden did and therefore (I'm assuming) wants these practices to stop. Yet Obama and the Dems will not stop it, and the GOP, especially the establishment types (Rep King, Sen McCain types,) will not vote to stop it either--hence we get the same Patriot Act BS. The only somewhat legitimate candidate for one of the two party's nomination in 2016 that I could see reducing the NSA scope (at least on the domestic side) to a degree is Rand Paul, as I don't see Hillary or Christie changing much of how things are done in DC. And if I were a betting man, I would say that Christie will get the GOP nomination, and unless things go horribly for the economy and/or Obamacare, that Hillary will win in 2016. So my prognosis: Expect more of the same with only small changes. This is why I am voting more and more Libertarian...on the big issues the two parties are pretty close to being the same.

Lame and weak...I interpret your response as you being afraid to answer the question. I've had shitty commanders do a better job in dodging questions. Too bad we would have never had known if it wasn't for Snowden. The NSA Director flat out lied to the Senate when they asked him if this was going on. You're far too trusting when it comes to your government.

Nothing has been changed? Are you unaware that people are now discussing the issue where not much was being discussed before the leak? Is this not going to be an issue in the upcoming 2014 and 2016 election? Has there not been Congressional hearing on the issue? That's not what I asked you. You either didn't read what I wrote or you're dodging the question...so what you say: Do you believe it's always criminal to take actions to support and defend The Constitution...even if the actions go against standing law? I'll also raise you with another question: Do you believe what the NSA is doing (as from what we know from Snowden) to be Constitutional?

So do you believe it's always criminal to take actions to support and defend The Constitution...even if the actions go against standing law? I am under the impression that the NSA violates The Constitution in how they gather information. But please, answer my question.

How is what Vertigo said "Liberal douchebagism"? I might not agree with how Snowden released the information, but I fully agree with Vertigo (by reading through his sarcastic remarks) in that the 4th Amendment is definitely worth protecting and that from what Snowden has done, we have learned a great deal about how our government wants to restrict our freedoms even further vs protecting those freedoms. Just out of curiosity--do you (and this can be answered by anybody) agree with the end result of what Snowden did or do you believe that the law should never be broken, even to protect and defend The Constitution?

Sorry man, wasn't an attack on you--just clarifying my original remarks.

Making a joke about sleeves being rolled up in the squadron bar and telling a kid that he shouldn't go around claiming to be something he is not, isn't quite the same thing. If the kid wants to tell his future IP's that he's a 'C-130 Driver' then he should go for it...and someone pleae use a Go Pro to record the event as I'd love to watch the response. In the end, what do I care if a kid makes an ass out of himself? Some of us are trying to teach him a thing or two about going through UPT and what to do/what not to do, but it's his life. I've been a school house IP and in charge of student training and have damn near seen it all. IP's are a lot more willing to work harder with a guy who doesn't feel 'entitled'...and I'll argue a lot harder to the commander for additional rides when I believe the guy is a good dude, is working his ass off, and doesn't believe he is entitled to anything. Of course I'm open for someone to explain how I'm incorrect or 'doing it wrong'.

Not following...

My thoughts as well. If you like watching movies to see how they develop and the character development, then it's definitely a cool movie with an interesting story line. If you're the kind who goes to a movie and wants it all up front and right away, then you'll probably be bored.

Careful, some of the folks on here will yell at you for violating the AFI's.

Are you running for Congress or something? I'm not denying that you worked hard for your opportunity and that you will continue to work hard, but here's a tip: Don't call yourself a 'C130Driver' until you have, at the minimum, flown a 130, and preferably have a FM8 that says you are Q-1 in your furure 130 crew position. That I believe is why people are calling you entitled...you're calling yourself something that you are not. Unless of course you're a prior 130 Nav or enlisted 130 crewmber? It comes down to mentality, and if you think we're being rough on you on BO, this is nothing compared to UPT. Take it or leave it.

The Air Force has never been a fair organization...and that is realized pretty early on, at least for the rated types. Does this mean that all the UPT studs get to take their checkrides only when the weather is clear and a million? I'm all for not tolerating harassment (and I'm not talking about the stupid wife in a bikini photo bullshit), but seriously, someone is going to have to explain to me what all this stuff means. How will this change anything from what we were doing this past year?

So today I was looking at the enlisted force shaping matrix and noticed that it specifies certain aircrew members in which VSP/RIF is not eligible even though certain ranks in that specific AFSC are eligible. For example, 1A9's are eligible, however, it listed the exception of CV-22 enlisted aircrew members, and specifically said they were ineligible for the VSP/RIF program. I didn't see any of the same caveats on the officer matrix. Does this mean that all 11S aircraft communities (in VSP/RIF affected year groups) have at least 1 overage/opportunity for an aircrew guy to VSP/RIF? From what limited info I have, I find it hard to believe that the CV's are overmanned, even with the cuts. Edited to get rid of the multiple posts.