HeloDude

So let me get this straight...the US said they supported democratic elections in Egypt, Mubarak is removed from power, the people have elections, the elected leader is overthrown by the military, Obama and his administration won't call it a coup (though it is), and now their military is being oppressive...and we still give them aid. Sounds about right...I've dated girls less crazy than this.

I wasn't condemning her per se, just stating my opinion that a liberal appointed a liberal (my guess anyway)...then again Hagel isn't a liberal, though he was moderate enough to get through the Senate. How things will exactly go once she is confirmed will have to await to be seen. In the end, unlike Sen Gillibrand and Sen McCaskill who answer to their constituents (barely), the SecAF and the like answer to the POTUS. If they do something he doesn't like then he can fire/replace them as necessary.

A liberal appointed a liberal...and you're surprised? It's like gun control--something like .003% of gun owners kill people which then results in the left screaming for more gun control/less Rights for the 99.997% and in a hurry. I'm sure whatever new policies put in place by our new (oncr confirrmed) SecAF will solve all of our problems with sexual assualt.

http://m.thelocal.se/50214/20130912/ I need to move to Sweeden...

It's always those damn tea-party types... <sarcasm> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/17/Navy-Yard-Shooter-friend-Describes%20Alexis-as-liberal-Obama-fan Oh well, still provides an excuse for the liberals to argue that we need more tyranny and less freedom and liberty.

Thanks. It will be interesting to see if this is the final word on how he got the weopans, and if it is, how dumb it will make the anti-gun crowd look...again. On a related note, it never ceases to amaze me that the military 'trusts' our officers and NCO's so much...just not enough to allow us to be armed while on base at home. I'm sure another Active Shooter CBT will solve everything.

Link?

...like Sen Feinstein. I hear ya man. And I know you're not a supporter of her.

Hmmm...Hassan had those same medals. But yet he was was 'supporting' the fight against the Global War on Terrorism. I'm fairly confident this incident does little to further the gun control debate on the national level. The Presient isn't doing so well right now and I don't think losing another battle on guns helps his approval numbers. Besides, this incident, like the shootings in Chicago, doesn't really help the left's narrative.

I applaud your efforts (along with rest of those on the anti-left crowd) as it is a noble cause...but it's a lost cause. The demographics and overall numbers aren't on your side. It's not just a problem with the State politics as your Senators (and most Reps) are for for more nations gun control too. As for Texas, they'll most likely be in a similar vote in another 15-20 years (who would have thought CO would be passing anti-gun laws 10 years ago?)...again, it's all about demographics and birth rates. I think you mentioned Idaho and Wyoming in an earlier post--I'd stick to one of those or one of the Dakotas.

As I have said before, I cannot feel sorry for anybody who cherishes their Gun Rights and limited government, but yet at the same time voluntarily choses to remain in a liberal State like CA, MD, NY...and coming soon to a theater near you, CO as well. Have you all not been paying attention to what's been going on in the last 20+ years?? It will not get any better, and more than likely will get much worse as the left grows their base which then includes more and more people on the government dole. Throw is amnesty for the illegals and the left's 'transformation' will be near complete as they will be nearly unstoppable to beat at the polls. Question: When does it become 'too uncomfortable'? The legislators have already made things worse for you but yet you and others continue to stay (for those of you living there by choice). Your Senators are supporting stricter gun laws in the Senate and amnesty for illegals--how much longer are you guys willing to stay?

The money is all yours...I'll pass. Maybe the Saudis will hire you...to do whatever it is that you do.

It will pass...might be a fairly close vote in the House, but there are enough establishment GOP'ers to offset the ones that will vote no, and then they'll call it 'bipartisan'. Senate won't be as close and will pass 75-25ish. I'm am curious to see how each specific member votes though...especially the ones that say we have no authority to attack a nation if they pose no risk in national security. This is where Rand Paul sets himself away from the others in the establishment.

It's definitely amateur hour over at the WH. My hope is that they treat it like a death penalty...and just put it off for several years, maybe even forever.

I didn't see Jordan on that list of yours...

Got it--thanks.

Billionaire? I might be able to look past the fact that she was once a dude...wait a minute--pre-op or post-op?

It happens.

Fortunately I'm pretty confident that this will never get put up for a vote in the House, at least not while the GOP is in control. Even though the establishment GOP is all about being 'Democratic-lite' these days, fortunately enough of them realize that it would be political suicide right now for them to allow more gun control bills to go forward. Though in some ways I wouldn't mind seeing who votes 'yay' and 'nay' on such a bill. I did a quick search and am confused: Does the $5 this article mentions the current federal tax charged for doing any sort of FFL transfer/background check? And if so, I'm guessing then the article suggests that these Congressmen would want to raise that to $100...so instead of a $25 FFL transfer fee, my shop would have to charge me $125 for the same process? Yeah, I'm sure this will help their cause of passing 'universal background checks'. What's sad is that I have no doubt that when the Dems get control of the entire government again that they'll have a heyday passing all these bills. I guess we're lucky they didn't touch gun control (via the legislature process) when the Dems had a super majority in 09-10.

I just read the description on Amazon...seems interesting. As I always say, "when in doubt, follow the money." So here's a question: Will Obama go to Congress to get the 'ok' before (if) he bombs? And if he does, what will the vote look like? Personally I'm curious to see how guys like Cruz and Rand Paul vote...along with some of the big 'anti-war' libs.

I can't believe that there are actually a few guys on here who support even some sort of military action. Usually it takes the United States 25-30 years to forget why it's a bad idea to get involved in another country's pile of dog shit. I guess it's the age of high speed electronics--we just impatient and can't wait that long!

...as always, I'll believe it when I see it. Just getting the NVG compatible cockpits would be a win.

...but yet much less than the life in prison plea-deal that the Ft Lewis Army NCO is getting life for murdering all those Afghans. Unfortunately in a trial it goes down to what the prosecution thinks they can get vs what they believe should happen. I think Mannning definitely got what he deserved. He could have written various left wing Congressmen who I'm sure would have wanted to hear what he knew...but compromising classified info just to leak to some foreign national is a no-no.

...that's 'Miss' Chelsea Manning to you.

Now when I went to IP school years ago, one of the many things the old graybeards taught me was 'to be an effective instructor, you have to establish credibility'. If you don't, people will question your techniques, abilities, philosophy, etc. You do this by holding the correct qualification (ie IP), by sharing with your students what you have done in the past, and most importantly, by knowing your shit and being able to effectively teach what you know. I definitely learned this early on when teaching/advising the Iraqis as a relatively young guy instructing Iraqi pilots who were much older, who had been flying much longer than I have, and in quite a few instances, had more hours than I did at the time. Fortunately, I was able to establish some credibility early on, humble myself around those guys, and soon enough was able to see some positive results. Hell, a quick 6.9 second google search shows that the Weapons School even states "Taking the mantra, "humble, approachable and credible"..." Just because I am knowledgable about different airframes, can speak somewhat intelligibly about their ops, etc doesn't mean that I have credibility in that community. That being said, if I'm an aircrew member in that community (especially an instructor/evaluator), then I'll have some credibility in what I'm saying. Here at BO, a bunch of rated guys talk about rated ops--if it's a specific bomber issue, a Bone/Buff guy will have a lot more credibility than me. If it's an overall airmanship issue, then I think all seasoned rated guys here can adequately add to the discussion. So right now, when you add your opinion on flying/ops matters, I give you low credibility and thus don't give much weight to your opinion...after all how do I know if it's informed or not? And before somebody mentions 'well, we can pretend to be whoever we want online'...people have been sniffed out before for posing. Don't worry dude, it's cool--I'm sure there's plenty of other folks out there who would be interested in hearing your thoughts. But for me, there's a reason I'm not cool with a student in med tech assistant school diagnosing me with an illness.