brabus

What a turbo douche. Wow.

@ViperMan Valid points again, but devils advocate is using that logic he goes into WAY more debt early in life, betting on the premise his hypothetical future wife and/or kids will need his GI bill for a degree. I know how well my “in 20 years this is where my life will be” thoughts worked out - probably similar to everyone else! The hypothetical scenario is certainly realistic, but is it worth the gamble and taking on a shitload of debt right now? I don’t think there’s a right answer, but it is a large point to consider. Also depends on one’s view of college in general or what they think their future kids are “entitled to.” Some of us max out 529s and encourage our kids to go to college, some of us think college is mostly a for max profit bullshit scheme and useless outside of specific career tracks where it’s a hard requirement. If one is in the latter group, who cares about saving the GI Bill for kids.

@ViperMan All valid points, but that assumes he needs to use his GI Bill for a degree. My take from reading above (unless I’m misunderstanding what Wikz wrote) is he’s currently working on a degree (assuming he’s using TA). That means he’ll eventually have a degree without ever having to crack open the GI bill. I have two degrees (both bullshit FWIW), and haven’t touched the GI Bill. TA is a great deal. If my kids don’t use the GI Bill (at this point I think that’s fairly likely), I’m probably using it to go learn gunsmithing, welding at a pro level, etc. There are many ways to effectively use the GI Bill beyond traditional college.

@wikz If you’re good with commercial flying being your career (even if you never get hired to fly ANG), then the plan is decent. Personally I would use GI bill towards ratings, as it sounds like it’s not necessary to use it towards the degree you’re currently working on (is that correct?) keep in mind major airlines will require turbine time (and usually PIC turbine), so you will likely have to either move on from CFI-ing to fly for a local commercial company who flies turbines, or you’re doing two jobs simultaneously. Either way, it’s going to be bumpy road of low pay (relatively) for a while, but if you truly enjoy aviation (and teaching when you get to that point) it’ll be a fun journey and you’ll be somewhere you really want to be soon enough (199th, HA, etc.) Sure beats the hell out of sitting behind a desk every day!

@ClearedHot You’re WAY off the path and massively misrepresenting anything I’d personally consider. Moving on…

Obviously you and @ClearedHot have let your imaginations run away to the extreme with my musings. That subject is a full blown, separate discussion, and I was trying to minimize the thread derail. Obviously there’d have to be carve outs for those groups (and more). The main point is if you’re a lazy ass bag who has no reason to not work, but chooses to produce zero for society while freeloading off taxpayers/your parents, you shouldn’t have a say. You need to have some skin in the game before you get a say (excluding carve out groups). More nuanced than that, but that’s the gist.

I agree. Just saying it is not invalid to say the vast majority of women are not going to handle combat in the way men can. That’s not sexist, it’s a biological-driven fact. I’ve also flown with good female pilots and have a positive view of them.

Point of order - financial status has nothing to do with my proposition, having a job does. If you don’t work/pay taxes, I’m fine with you not having a say. Get a job at McDs if you want to vote, not too much to ask. Also to get ahead of the follow up question, it’s reasonable that your spouse can vote if you work (gender neutral statement). If you’re 20 and living in your parents basement without a job, you don’t get to vote.

I did, twice. The one guy (not the main pastor) said he would support the repeal. The other guy (not the main pastor) gave an interesting take on one vote per household, which is in line with our representative form of gov. Interesting thought, not saying I support it, would have to think on that more. The interviewer was also very hostile towards them and tried to put words in their mouth constantly (shocking), and those “words” are being portrayed in media as the dudes’ words without any context/what their responses to correct those words were. On a quick voting tangent, I do think we need to put some better guardrails up. I’m not talking 19A repeal or only “white male landowners,” but things like you have to pay taxes and pay mortgage or rent could be good requirements (in addition to passing a basic civics test). Personally I think everything you quoted from Hegseth regarding dads vs moms and women in combat roles has merit. He’s not wrong about men and women being equally important humans, but with different strengths and roles. The real question is if he truly doesn’t support women even being in finance, ARMS, AFE, etc. That does not make sense, but he has not directly stated that - someone should ask him at a press conference.

Can’t find anything that supports that claim. He is opposed to combat roles and other certain areas (e.g. no women on subs). I watched the interview and searched around (but if I missed it in my googling, let me know).

Keep in mind you'll need 250 hrs for a commercial, which is going to cost a shitload, especially in Hawaii. Additional hours may be required for a specific company’s mins. I would go down this road only if professional flying outside the AF is a desirable career. Doing all of that just to boost your ANG app or UPT performance (I watched CFIs do great and horribly in UPT) is not a great reason by itself. Definitely get your PPL and continue to learn, just make sure you only go into a shitload of flight training debt for logical reasons.

Never in 19 years have I seen a fam/incentive/PA rider not get full seat/equip training/briefing. I’m sure this person got the full training/brief, they just fucked up.

Are they better? Yes. Does it take some getting used to/practice, also yes. Do what Busdriver suggested. Best practice suggestion I have is, in addition to finding the front sight first (then you also find the dot), make sure you are bringing the gun to your eyes and not your eyes to the gun (e.g. hunching or manipulating your neck/head to alighn your eyes to the sight). With some practice, you’ll not even notice the iron sights.

Seen a few who should never have made it out of B course (across multiple units) - the end result was appropriate, but the timeline was way too long in every case. The delay in my opinion is always at the commander level, not with the patches and other “line IPs.” To be fair though, in this day and age with everything being litigated/“I was discriminated against!” claims, commanders do need to “build a case” before FEB-ing someone.

https://bit.ly/4mGCPIY Gun buy back in Texas?! This isn’t Australia or some commie state like CA/NY, WTF is going on down there!

Every gun is different - buy several boxes of different ammo and see which one your particular gun likes best (function and accuracy). Takes a little more effort, but recommend writing down notes as you go so you can make an objective decision. Part of the fun, enjoy the range time!

Had a CA telling SEA stories from the 80s - if those statute of limitations expired, then so can yours! Though I still recommend avoiding them with your employer’s CVR in the mix.

That’s 100% valid! Could be. Sucks for them if true.

@ClearedHot Copy, but so far you’ve referenced an article (which specifically stated SAF disapproved the applications) and a Facebook post. Scouring the internet so far has revealed: ”In the Aug. 4 memo, Brian Scarlett, performing the duties of the assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs, wrote that, “after careful consideration of the individual applications,” he was “disapproving” TERA requests” “An earlier memo, sent in May by Gwendolyn R. Defilippi, acting assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs, said transgender service members with 15 to 18 years of service could request Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA)” ”roughly a dozen transgender troops with between 15 and 18 years of military service were “prematurely notified” that their TERA applications were approved” “An Air Force spokesperson said a subset of applications were "prematurely approved." Last two communicate to me lower level leadership fucked up and notified before the answer was final. To the Facebook post accuracy - maybe the guy did have Sep orders (final, not draft), but without producing evidence, I’m not taking that individual at their word on a SM post. Will happily acknowledge bonafide evidence if it surfaces. That all said above, I do think it sucks for them and letting it go may have been a better option for the admin (just like releasing the Epstein files and let the chips fall where they may). In the end though, nobody in the AF forced significant mental health issues on these people, nor is there any logical argument that their specific mental issues are service related. So logically, it doesn’t make much sense to approve TERA (take the emotions out of it).

I don’t think it is what happened, at least using this article as a source. TERA approval authority is SAF (in this case). I understand this piece of journalism says at one point they “were initially approved,” but nobody below SAF has approval authority. I bet their misspeak/the truth is the members’ apps for TERA were concurred with at lower levels, but ultimately denied by SAF. Just like someone’s Palace Chase app being denied. They took their shot and didn’t get the outcome they wanted - sucks for them, but nothing wrong with it. Bottom line: Unless SAF approved TERA apps, then rescinded approval later on, there is no bullshit going on. So far, I’ve seen nothing that indicates SAF approved them ever. But, I agree it is bullshit if that is actually what happened (so far, no evidence of that…)

So generally TERA has been an option for anyone 15+ YOS for any reason? What is the rate of app approval? I don’t know much about TERA obviously.

So DoD did offer them all TERA, they signed the agreement, and then DoD said “nevermind?” That is BS if true.

Why should they get retirement when they’ve done less than 18 yrs? They haven’t performed the requisite amount of service and therefore haven’t earned it. And they’re not getting medically discharged, so that angle is N/A. Those 18+ YOS are getting it, which again isn’t earned, but good for them; I won’t hate the player and don’t blame them for getting it. I imagine there are some dipshit leaders who stupidly made promises they couldn’t back up, but that’s not the DoD’s fault.