tac airlifter

What do you mean?

All of the leftist arguments for “common sense Gun control” are disproved by their selective enforcement of current laws. They love talking universal background checks, but can’t endorse legally pursuing a guy who committed a felony by lying on his background check.

I’m not implying anything, just seeking to understand your views. I note that instead of answering, you assumed an implication to my question and then called it wrong. Ok. Since your original argument was based on moral superiority (“Being vaccinated shows I give half a fuck about others”) I thought you’d have consistency of thought or application. I don’t require convincing on the efficacy of vaccines writ large, nor do I need a reminder that in the military I’m going to follow orders. I’m pro vaccine and have a three page shot record. I’m merely curious at all the (inconsistent) moral posturing and discouragement of convincing good-faith debate... all of which is antithetical to a healthy society. Maybe I’m having a hard time forgetting the “experts” were unanimous in concluding we needed a war in Iraq to stop their WMD program. Look man, I’m not trying to be a dick but one thing I’ve learned is that if an idea is good, it will withstand intellectual scrutiny. And that lesson has made me generally distrustful of people who want to skip all debate and go straight to execution.

To fully persuade me of your perspective, please share your opinion on abortion and euthanasia. Philosophical consistency is highly convincing.

That makes sense. However that’s in line with Tucker’s opinion (although his presentation was caustic). He criticized GOs by name who champion efforts to prioritize diversity at the expense of lethality. So I was confused why you were critical of Tucker while also agreeing with the meat of his point. It’s challenging to isolate ideas for discussion from the personalities & styles which present those ideas.

I’m confused by your post. Are you for or against the new policy of ignoring flying experience as a factor used in selecting USAF pilots?

Exactly right. If the vaccine works, let’s ease restrictions for those who have it. If it doesn’t work, why would we force it on anyone? people would trust the experts more if their guidance had any consistency or logic.

Dude I totally agree that less time out of the jet is good. No issues with the new policy allowing pregnant members to fly. My “splitting hairs” is just for accuracies sake.

Yes I am aware. Now that I’ve answered your question, kindly answer mine: Did I ask about training lines, or did I ask about combat lines? recommend you read the original question from arg, which specifies combat lines, then read the reply, which indicates pregnant women can fly those aforementioned combat lines. Hence my inquiry.

Are you saying women can deploy and fly combat missions while pregnant?

But 51% has. Interesting times ahead.

Not directly related to your post but I wanted to point out that as all deployed locations move away from the reflective belt insanity of last decade, there has been no epidemic of people being hit by cars. No passengers mowed down by fuel trucks on the flight line, no one hit by a car walking to chow. In fact it looks like the entire justification for the authoritarian reflective belt polices and enforcement is total bunk. Time has proven that generation of leadership as completely wrong in their risk assessment. Every O-6 who sent chiefs hunting aircrew without reflective belts really was a total moron like we all thought; safeguarding us from a theoretical but overblown threat, and making life miserable for no good reason at all. It was all bullshit from the get go, and they were all idiots at implementation. One day we’ll look back at this mask phase with the same conclusion. Why can’t smarter people lead?

He’s full of shit.

And then I will. I’m hoping that formal approval will be coupled with formally eased restrictions on vaccinated personnel. just for fun:

No thanks, I’ll pass on the experimental vaccine until ordered to take it.

I think he might know a guy.

Trading a Ferrari for a Miata makes a lot of sense if: - you’re sick of the timeline required to train specialized drivers - you are a mustang driver jealous that everyone wants the Ferrari - you tire of payments on a car that wins races because no one cares anymore about winning races

I’m guessing mandatory by April.

Yikes!

I don’t get it.

In AFSOC, IDE is not required for selection on the EAGLE list but the vast majority of command hires are IDE in-res graduates. Like, 99%. Bode, if command is an itch you have to scratch professionally then I encourage you to attend IDE and make senior raters aware you are interested in command. Command lists are the first cut, but hiring is always a smaller group. As others have mentioned, my experience is decisions have zero transparency and are entirely the luck of who chooses you. Control what you can control: your pedigree and your attitude. Ops command seems more competitive, but perhaps it’s because there are fewer. Good luck!

That works fine, until the legitimacy of elections are suspect. Whether true or not, the perception of election fraud will grievously damage our system.

Somebody does, otherwise they’d leave it alone.

This post exemplifies the real crisis in our country: an inability to talk to each other. Your first paragraph is filled with assumptions you believe to be facts. Your second paragraph is also assumptions masquerading as fact. The foundation of a functioning democratic society is disagreements are civil and resolved by good faith conversations. That means listening to the other side and asking yourself “could they be right? Can I understand their viewpoint? How can I convince them of mine?” You’re right about one thing: we don’t have much left to talk about if “talking” just means I’m brow beat with your opinions. How do you think the country hold together when convincing conversations cease and power is used to force those you disagree with to obey?