HeloDude

Since when does a Big Mac cost $5!?? I need to lay off the peyote.

Didn't they already make this movie a few years ago?

In my experience, local businesses can rarely match the prices of online gun stores. Why pay more?

I think you have quite a bit in common with your fellow senior officers, just as I do with CGO's/FGO's who are actually into hacking the mission, mentoring young officers and enlisted, and willing to do what is necessary for legitimate reasons. You want me to go deploy tomorrow to hack the mission?...let me know, and I'll be packed up and ready to go, no BS there. I'm personally tired of the hypocrisy in the Air Force...maybe that's just my personality, but it's something that was instilled in me a long time ago--to not just 'go along to get along'. I have seen the hypocrisy from my first years as a qualified dude in the squadron, to right now at my current staff job. I have also seem some great leaders...mostly when I've been deployed, but at home as well. I have seen a commander go out to dinner with a couple of his 'favorite' young Captains who him and his wife were friends with (literally caught them by randomly showing up with a date to the same restaurant)...funny, those couple Captains were always the ones getting picked for upgrade first, highest strats (I was the Exec, so I saw this with my own eyes), getting pushed harder for the assignments they wanted, etc. Their leadership and flying skills were average to above average, but again, they were the ones typically picked for awards, etc. Yeah, I'm sure an IG complaint would have done wonders...that commander would have had an excuse for every one of his actions. Again, unless it's blatant, then it's a 'he said vs she said'...oh, and this commander has friends out there who could be my next commander, so... I have seen guys get called out for doing something 'wrong' when flying, only to bring the AFI's to the DO/CC to show them that they in fact didn't do anything in wrong...and then subsequently had that the DO/CC say 'well...maybe it was legal, but...'. I personally did this on two occasions, and fortunately I was correct both times. I have seen commanders utterly surprised when not one of the evaluators (both pilots and the E's) recommend their shining star for the next upgrade to evaluator. Think they might have just been a little 'out of touch'? Funny, the commander still pushed that person for the upgrade, the next job outside the squadron to get pushed, etc. I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. You can only pee on my leg and tell me it's raining so often before I smell the piss and realize what's really going on. When a sharp dude gets the highest strat, gets picked up for school on his O-4 board, etc then I'm not at all jealous, actually, I'm happy that the 'system' is at least somewhat working the way it should be. And for the record, I could give 2 shits about saying 'so to speak' (that's a stupid fighter thing anyway), saying 69 all the time, etc. But I do hate the witch hunt and the hypocrisy...you know, that same hypocrisy you show when saying Wilkerson assaulted someone. The same hypocrisy of saying that a picture of a dude's wife in a vacation bikini pic is unprofessional/sexual, etc but then don't have a problem with the AF PA on af.mil sites showing girls in body building pics wearing bikini's. I've said it before and I'll say it again--this is the way the system is and I get it. It's hard to prove that a commander or O-6 did what he did (ie lower strats, not picked for an upgrade, etc) because you challenged them a policy--why?...because this business is subjective as hell. If you're not one of the 20% chosen ones (you know, the guys you love who will agree with anything you say) then you're better off to just doing your best and not rocking the boat. You may call that cowardice...but I call that reality. I'll fall on my sword when I just can't take it anymore or when I'm near the end and I don't feel they can fck with me much anymore. But I refuse to drink the koolaid and be a cheerleader for the nonsense. I have had young Lt's ask me about certain rules, policies that I though was utter nonsense and I tell them is to make sure they understand such rule and policy and that this is what we're to do and follow. I won't though start cheering about how great of a policy or rule I think it is and how it's making us a better force, blah blah blah. BL: I'll keep on doing what I know is right and taking care of my own guys as much as I can--I'm not 'chasing' rank. Sorry for the TLDR type post. Rant Off.

I would tell them that they can make an IG complaint and/or contact their Congressman. I also suggest to them that they can always go to talk to the ADC for just about any legal question they have and that they are far more the experts in the legal realm than I am. As for telling the young guys that most likely very little will get done unless it's extremely blatant or is a 'flavor of the month' type complaint?...no, I do not. They have their peers and mentors for that...not that it's much of a secret these days as you can see from posts in the other threads. Again, you don't see how 'singling out someone for their race/saying Wilkerson assaulted someone' is a bad thing, and you're part of this larger process. Like I said, you're part of the higher echelon club, I, and most others here, are not.

Nonjudicial punishment falls underneath Article 15 of the UCMJ...which must be accepted by the offender. If the offender doesn't accept the terms of the punishment of his CC under Article 15 then they move to a trial. In a trial, the burden of proof is still on the prosecution. By all means, someone please correct me if I am wrong. I agree on the rest of what you wrote though...the Air Force can sink your career and make your life a living hell whenever they want, and you have very little recourse outside of filing an IG complaint (good luck with that) and writing your Congressman (which may or may not do anything). Very few people challenge the system because even if you win, you still kind of lose...and when you lose, then you really lose bad. Senior officers know this, and those same senior officers know that we know this too. Guys like Liquid and their shining prodigies are part of the club...the rest of us, not so much. We're just the help and they just throw us an occasional bone or two to keep us in line.

SW MP-15 OR is on sale at 'Sportsmans Outdoor Superstore' for $700 (fee shipping) for military. Then of course you get your $100 SW rebate on top of this. I know AR's right now aren't hard at all to get, but this price is super hard to beat at $600. http://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/products2.cfm/ID/72176

This is exactly why I can't take you seriously. This wasn't some 'study', this was an actual product produced by the Pentagon to be used to train EO's in how to reduce/deal with workplace discrimination. But yet, you don't see that this is discriminatory! You're either a person who assumes that 100% of what comes out of the Pentagon is perfect...or you're a huge liberal who truly buys into the fact that 'white, Christian, heterosexual males' truly do receive many 'unearned advantages'. Do you know my background good sir? Do you know if I have received 'unearned advantages'...or do you just assume this because the Pentagon said so, and because of what my skin color is, what gender I like to bang, and what I do on my Sundays? If the Pentagon came out and said 'black women, who also happen to be homosexual and atheist' have unearned advantages and largely get to where they are because of affirmative action policies'...would this be ok to you? That's essentially what this article says about whites, just the reverse. I do believe racism exists and there are issues that EO handles everyday...I never said anything to the contrary. But it seems that you don't have a problem with one group being singled out unfairly.

I do appreciate this response (no sarcasm there). But why aren't you sure he doesn't need to lead in our Air Force? Because he got drunk and beat up? When this happens to women the authorities call them victims...not sure what you're calling Krusinkski, but it doesn't sound like you're referring to him as a victim. Is it all about public perception and the response from politicians that give guys their next star? I don't know whether he is a good leader or not, but it appears that somebody with a little rank thought he was fairly decent the day before this happened...why can't we withhold judgement until all the facts come out? I know you said somewhat the same thing, but if you don't know, then why don't you default to him being a good leader before this all happened...and also now that he has been acquitted of all the charges brought against him? I'm not so sure you support the decisions of commanders when they base their decision on facts...a couple weeks ago you said: Wilkerson was cleared of the conviction, thus was no longer an offender. But yet you seem to like to use him as an example of someone who did something wrong (unless you're only speaking to his marital affair...in which case I think you'd have a problem with quite a few people in the military). What's funny is that the Air Force wide SAPR training day a few months back (whatever it was called) had pictures of Wilkerson and Krusinkski on a base PPT slide along with the convicted MTI's...but yet, these 2 dudes have now been cleared of any sexual assault charges. It seems to be me like you're screwed the second you're suspected or charged with a crime...and then when you get cleared, you're not 'really' cleared. Guilty until proven innocent.

To give you the benefit of the doubt in that you are being sincere (maybe you are in this case, who knows), here it goes: Do you think it's acceptable for the DoD to put out a training manual (to EO types), that says: "Simply put, a healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian male receives many unearned advantages of social privilege, whereas a black, homosexual, atheist female in poor health receives many unearned disadvantages of social privilege,” or... “Whites are the empowered group,”..."“White males represent the haves as compared to the have-nots.” Do you think this doesn't degrade males who so happen to be white, Christian, and heterosexual? Do you think this is a good way for the Pentagon to train their Equal Opportunity personnel in the military? Do you think putting out this official manual makes us a stronger and more professional force? Now what's funny is that when this article first came out, I clicked on the link for the manual and was able to pull it up...but now, not so much. It's called reverse discrimination, and all you have to do is turn on the news and read a few articles (or hell, listen to AG Holder) and it becomes obvious that this is supported at the higher levels.

Exactly. I wasn't really expecting a legitimate response anyway. Kind of surprised I got this much of one.

Exactly!! ...however, it is perfectly acceptable to degrade "White, Christian, heterosexual males". http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/pentagon-manual-white-christian-heterosexual-males/

You don't recover from that because the Air Force will go out of their way to keep up with public perception and also do whatever the politicians tell the senior officers to do. In the Air Force (and probably the other branches as well), you're guilty until proven innocent. I would like to hear Liquid's thoughts on this...and that is a legitimate/sincere request.

Pretty good deal on bulk .22LR ammo at MidwayUSA. 5550 rds for $253 and reasonable shipping--delivered mid Jan. http://www.midwayusa.com/product/829351/winchester-ammunition-22-long-rifle-36-grain-plated-lead-hollow-point-case-of-5550-10-boxes-of-555?cm_cat=CheckoutConfirm&cm_pla=BOProductDescrip

The problem wasn't with the messaging, the problem is with the piece of crap, over-reaching legislation that was passed 100% on a party line vote. The Dems barely got it through, and that was with having to lie about what it would do...if they had told the truth then it very well might have not gotten through the way it did, or even at all. And if you think Obamacare is just going to negatively affect 4-5% of people then you're just as wrong as you were 4 years ago when you bought into all the other lies. Rates are going to continue to rise because of what the law has deemed plans must cover...and when the employee mandate kicks in next year, you'll see the next wave of shit hitting the fan. I can't understand why people believed that this bill was going to reduce costs for most people--it covers more in the new mandated plans and gives subsidies to people who don't make enough money. So either other people's premiums must go up, employers must pay more, and/or taxes must go up. The Dems didn't reduce any costs, they just shifted who pays for these costs. The insurance companies will make more money because it's more business for them, but at an increased cost in premiums and higher deductibles for the people. Part of me thinks this will blow up so bad that the Dems will pay severely for it...but the other part of me thinks that they will spin it in such a way to blame the GOP, the insurance companies, etc and will take very little of a hit (if at all) because the American public is too stupid enough to see what is going on here. It's just another several nails into the coffin of the Republic.

I'm not 100% down with the Fair Tax in its current form, but I believe it's the right direction. The problem with the flat tax is that if you make your money underneath the table then you don't pay any direct federal income taxes. Nearly everybody buys something these days in which a sales tax is charged (or could be charged as in the case with purchasing something online and out of State)...why not roll all the federal taxes at the corporate and income level to the last place the good or service is transferred?

I don't think you worded your statement the way you wanted to...but I think I understand what you were intending to say. So do you hold the guy who attempts to reduce his net federal income taxes paid to as close to $0 in a higher regard compared to the person who can find a way to get his net taxes paid to be ($1) or greater (ie gets even more net money from the gov't)? If it's legal, I don't blame either one, and I definitely don't blame one more than the other. They're both trying to work the system the best way they can in order to maximize their gains/minimize their losses. All things being equal, do you fault the homeowner more than the person who rents?...the homeowner gets to reduce their taxable income with property taxes, interest paid, etc and the renter gets nothing other than a standard deduction (assuming no other itemized deductions). Yes, I know there is more risk in buying a house vs renting, that buying a house helps growth, etc...but again, all things being the same, the renter is paying more in taxes. The problem is the SYSTEM. As much as I'm a staunch Libertarian, I am not an anarchist. We need to have some form of government at the federal and State/local level with our Constitution and thus some system of collecting revenue to pay for what The Constitution outlines that the federal government will provide. The problem in DC is the spending and the way revenue is collected as it is very unfair and full of loopholes and exceptions. Reduce the spending considerably and adopt something closer to the Fair Tax. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I think it's smart on their part...rich people do the same thing in terms of trying to pay as little taxes as possible without hurting their bottom line. The problem is with the bill, not what they are doing to minimize their pain. That being said, on the other hand, philosophically this does point out the hypocrisy of those on the left--they are all about giving away free stuff and having a more socialist utopia, but when it comes to them opening up their pocket books more, many of them try to escape the pain. Yet another reason the federal government needs to scrap the entire income tax system and move to a national sales tax that affects damn near everybody. Make it a flat 15% or whatever federal sales tax on everything people buy and there you go, everybody is paying for all the crap and rich people are still going to pay a shitload more. You can even work out a system where certain food items, clothing at goodwill, basic utilities less than $100/month, cars less than $2K, etc are all exempt. Be a whole lot better than the crap system we have now.

This is totally not a waste of time. I'm looking forward to the mock trials of someone for drinking and driving, molesting a child, robbing a bank, giving classified information to a foreign national, cheating on your spouse...I'm sure I'm missing some other ones. Just think--if they build this into basic training and all the commissioning programs then we won't have any more problems ever again. Whoever came up with this idea is a genius...definitely deserves an award and should be promoted ASAP.

It comes down to what most of the other guys are saying: That we don't know where the line is, because at any point, that line can change. We're being told that gender, sexuality, and ethnicity don't matter...yet we have special months 'celebrating' (whatever word people want to use) all these differences that supposedly don't matter anymore. I'm being told that things that don't make us a better warfighter don't belong at work, yet we do things all the time that don't make us a better warfighter. And when we mention these silly issues on here that don't make any sense, for the most part we hear 'well, man up, and change things yourself'...if that's the case, why even have commander call and request feedback from the lower levels? It also comes down to the hypocrisy of all these issues. It comes down to the fact that a picture of a woman in a bikini on a work desk is 'glorifying sex, sexually offensive, whatever' but yet af.mil sites having girls in bikinis is totally acceptable, because, well, that's the AF doing it, so it's ok. I'm told that if I say one thing and do something different around the enlisted troops that I am a bad leader (which I would agree), but yet the AF (ran by senior officers) does it all the time...again, what's up with the pictures on the af.mil site? And for the record, I could care less about any pictures as I don't keep any personal pictures at work--never have, never will. But when Big Blue is making such a big deal about something, then they should check their own backyard first. If I would at least have someone with some high rank say to me 'Yea, it's hypocrisy, but that's just the way it is'...then I'll at least somewhat accept that answer because it's an honest one. But when you won't call out the hypocrisy yourself, then I call that being a 'company' man--not sure what else to call it. I'm not saying that you are setting the policies that conflict with one another, but at the same time you don't seem to have an issue with any of it...at least not on here anyway. And when there is a legitimate story that once again highlights the AF's hypocrisy (that I linked), we don't get a long answer from you to why 'this is the way things are right now and the ways things need to be' like you have done with all the sexual offensive examples, but rather we hear crickets. 90% of us on here may just totally 'not get it' when it comes to the way things are actually done and why they are done...but I do know this--perception is reality and it does affect things at the lower level. If you still think I'm completely wrong then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Noted... This about sums up everything the guys have been saying in this thread. In reality, senior officers don't want to be challenged and don't want to be put in a situation where they have to potentially disagree with their bosses and what they are being told to do. It confirms what many of us have been seeing over the years.

You're definitely a 'company' man! They say jump and you say how high...and then I'm sure try to jump even higher. I'm in the military and I have to adhere to the polices, guidance, and regulations--got it. What I don't have to do is be a cheerleader for the parts that are nonsense. I'll pass on on the 'special month' lunches because like you said, it doesn't make me a better warfighter. As Nsplayr correctly pointed out...the military is kind of like a dictatorship. That being said, I don't have to believe in all the propaganda and allow myself to be indoctrinated. ETA: Liquid, you still haven't commented on this article...why not? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/pentagon-manual-white-christian-heterosexual-males/

As a Libertarian, tell me what you think he is doing well/right? And tell me where he has messed up during his 5 years in his presidency? (and just for clarification, what his administration does, good or bad, also falls underneath him). The floor is yours.

Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month also has nothing (repeat NOTHING) to do with defending the nation, killing people, or executing the mission...but yet you guys at the Pentagon have hard-on's for all these 'special' months. Now why is that? I'm sure if we got rid of those special months that the Air Force would move right along and execute its mission. And I'm sure (like you said) nobody would be talking it about 3 years from now...and do you know why? Because nobody talks about it now! It wastes resources, but yet, someone has to set up events, write a PA article about it, and promote the month. I know you're getting crapped on from just about everyone on here (including me) but I would appreciate a response to my questions in earlier posts. You're trying to explain the directive of the CSAF, and in doing so, I want to know if watching Seinfeld while pulling alert is allowed? If we can listen to FM radio at work (maybe during unit PT sessions) even though there are sexually offensive songs on the radio? Why can't guys sleep in the same pods with girls (non-married) downrange or use the same cadillacs? Why are bikini pictures, posters of girls with guns, etc considered offensive today and not last year? Was 90% of the General Officers knowingly and willingly supporting sexual harassment several years ago by allowing all this to happen?...even at the point of allowing AAFES to bring in NFL cheerleaders? Why is it not sexually offensive or inappropriate to allow service members to march in a civilian gay pride parade supported by the DoD? Why are the pictures RTB posted of girls in bikinis still available for view on a DoD website? By the way, the chick on the 6th picture looks pretty damn hot. Unless a brand new Lt or A1C was actively involved in a deployable unit (ops, mx, etc), that said new Lt/A1C would barely understand the gravity of the situation of that we're still at war and we have good dudes fighting downrange. 7-8 years ago that's mostly what CC calls were all about...now it's about all this other crap. In a lot of ways, you senior officers 'can't see the forest for the trees'.