HeloDude

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.

She was for gun rights...before she was against them. I've heard something similar to this from years past. Great poster!

Over/under if there will be one this year? Maybe for certain AFSC's? Here's what I've also been wondering...if you're a 2001/2002/2003 year group pilot who completed their 10-year commitment recently/or will do so soon in the next 6-9 months, even if you're in an AFSC that is accepting VSP/subject to a possible RIF, the AF can't allow too many 11M's, 11B's, etc to put in for separation if they're only asking for a few to get out. For example, if the Air Force needs to get rid of 4 KC-135 pilots from the 2002 YG, and they have 20 guys apply for VSP--even if they accept 4 of them for VSP, the other 16 can still apply for normal separation as their commitment will be over. In that example, if the AF needs at least some of those other 16 guys to stay in, will they then still offer the bonus? What about fighter, helo, and RPA guys where there is not VSP?...I know for a fact that some of these guys want to get out regardless. Also, I have a funny feeling that the 99-01' YG guys who didn't accept the bonus will be considered low hanging fruit to be RIF's if they don't apply for VSP. Thoughts?

Exactly...though I don't think there are 500 million registered voters.

Even if what you say is true (debatable), check out the re-election statistics for incumbents seeking re-election in the House. It all comes back to the people. We (as in the vast majority of the population) are the problem and the politicians are just the large symptom.

Continued from my rant in the RIF and Retirement Cuts threads: And for everybody else, Congressmen and Senators are politicians, pure and simple. There's a reason a vast majority of them will follow their party line and then blame their vote on something else...our very own 'Congressman' just did this a couple days ago. Politicians are concerned about retaining their seats, and their party politics and personal ideology sometimes conflict with their priority of retaining their seats, though the 3 are fairly interconnected. This unfortunately is nothing new...though it seems to be getting worse in recent years (though I'm sure it's cyclical to a certain degree). Chang said it correctly (unfortunately)--we serve our senior officers and they serve our politicians, pure and simple. Liquid has more or less said the same thing. I do not feel we are truly here to support and defend The Constitution...and if someone can show me otherwise, then I'd love to hear the argument (when have we picked The Constituition over our politicians?...or have our politicians always followed The Constitution?). Our elected President, whoever it is at the time, can do whatever he (or a future she) desires with our military and if the other politicians do not desire or have the strength to stop him/her, then we do what we're told, regardless of what The Constitution says...so to backpedal slightly, our politicians follow The Constitution when it suits them, on both sides of the aisle (ie structure of the Congress, etc). We have referes who are the federal judges (most notably SCOTUS) but the majority of them are almost as ideological as the politicians...hence why we have a lot of 5-4 decisions, typically following the same ideological trend of what President nominated them. It took me a while to fully understand and accept all of this, and though it made me sad, it provided some clarity to a highly dysfunctional situation. This all being said, we as military members do a pretty good job at breaking things when our politicians tell us to do so, and it can be effectively argued at times that by doing so, we have kept citizens safer. So if you're upset with how Congressman voted, don't be. The country (which includes us) have allowed the politicians to do what they're doing. Our problem in this country stem from the people, not the politicians. If I missed the boat, then I welcome someone to set me straight.

1) Would it ever be appropriate to hold it against somebody for volunteering for an approved AF program to get volunteers to separate? 2). Please define what a 'team player' is for me. Go to the Liberty/Constitution thread for the rest of my rant on what's going on...

This is totally different than the last VSP/RIF from 2-3 years ago. That time, in the very beginning, Big Blue only said it would affect certain year groups and did not say anything specifically in the beginning with regards to specific AFSC's and year groups. Also, all the info that has currently been released says that anyone 'elgible' for a VSP/RIF (or Force Shaping/early retirement) will be officially notified in January. So if you're not notified that you could be eligible for one of the programs and you then are later RIF'd, then I think this would be bigger than the AF later coming back and saying 'oops'. It would be like holding a promotion board without you knowing you were competing in that board.

Both

My bet says yes. The only guys who have been able to take the 1/2 upfront option in recent years have been 11F's, and they're ineligible anyway. So I bet you can apply and if selected, your bonus only paid you out for those additional years you served past your original commitment.

First off, I voted for Gary Johnson and some other Libertarian candidates as well. Second, I agree that the vast majority of folks will still vote for the memebers of one of the 2 establishment parties. But I asked YOU what YOU suggest people do about it? Because, by the way, you said all politicians, so in that case, you believe nobody will be honest and do what they say they'll do. So again, I ask you, what do you suggest as a remedy?

He's two scotches down and spelling was never one of my strong suits.

1) I'm willing to bet a bottle of scotch that the force shaping goes through on some level even with the recent budget deal as we were told today that Gen Welch is doing the Force Management in order for the force to be ready for FY2023 (however the verbiage the went). 2) It was specifically said today (after someone asked the specific question) at the base Force Management mass brief that the Air Force will not necessarily accept all VSP applicants for a specific AFSC/year group in order to not have a RIF for that specific AFSC/year group. Translation: If the Air Force gets 7 VSP applicants for 5 required eduction cuts for a certain AFSC/year group and all 7 are guys that the AF doesn't want to let go, then the AF have the option of dealer's choice, ie--they can disapprove all 7 and elect to go to a later RIF to get the kind of guys they want out of the Air Force in that specific AFSC/year group. The Air Force...where the points don't matter and they get to change the rules as they go.