TreeA10

Just had to pass it to see what was in it. The audacity of those that voted for the law that are now acting upset with the law, should be thrown out of office for general stupidity.

Woman runs over boyfriend 3 times for McDonald's Tennessee woman upset boyfriend wanted to go to a different restaurant, police say Published On: Nov 04 2013 10:30:07 AM EST Police in Tennessee say a woman ran over her boyfriend three times after he refused to go to McDonald's with her. Crystal Greer Brooks, 33, of Kingsport was apparently upset that her boyfriend wanted to eat at a different restaurant, police told the Kingsport Times-News. Officers were called to West Carters Valley Road shortly after midnight last Wednesday. They found Brooks' boyfriend with abrasions to his arms and back. His clothing "appeared torn, consistent with being dragged on the pavement," the Times-News reported. He told police Brooks forced him over to the side of the road, then got in his pickup truck and ran him over -- three times. Brooks has been charged with aggravated assault.

As a former Safety guy, I'm not sure the guys in that office are driving the boat. My guess would be higher ups that either want to do some CYA or control the data to shape the report to their liking. IIRC, the 4 star could change causal factors to just about anything before the report is sent out to the masses. The AF Safety Center could put the causal factors back where they belong but the report is filed and never sent back out afterward. Other than that, it makes no sense to not take advantage of the mistakes of others to prevent mistakes in the future.

I think Mr. Twain would also apply this to TV and internet news. “If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.” ― Mark Twain

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. No judgement or skills required, it makes a lot of noise and gives the impression to those you work for that you are actually doing something.

No, it matters because RETIRED generals who are not worried about maintaining their jobs are speaking up. Same reason it is a good thing to speak to young officers and enlisted guys about how things are going because they usually will speak their minds.

Runners World - offensive. Got it. According to the strict interpretation of Sharia law, men might go on a rape fest (not sure if they sing rape songs while actually committing the act but I will look into that) if they view so much as an ankle or wrist or the form of an arm or leg. Not actually viewing said arm or leg but just the form, hence the all encompassing clothing. So, Liquid, what is acceptable? Give me a definition of what I can see or what can be shown. Now, you keep saying leave this stuff at home but my understanding is that military members are in the military 24/7 and therefore subject to the UCMJ even off base, off duty, etc. So which is it? Is this material acceptable or not? I think you are trying to go down a road of policing behavior that will stir up far more hate and discontent than problem solve. Side story. Best line ever from a flight atttendant. I am riding the jumpseat of a 777 from Chicago to Dallas enjoying the conversation with a pair of Captains flying this thing when a flight attendant comes up and sits down in the other jumpseat. She is very, very attractive. Mediterranean features, great figure. She starts complaining about the status of her love life and the inability to find that special person. She says to the guy in the right seat, "Married?" Gets a yep. Looks to the guy in the left seat, "Married?" Another yep. Looks at me, "Married?" I say yes. After a heavy sigh, she says, "I'm just looking for man who likes to eat Italian...and if he's hungry, I can cook, too." Stunned silence was best description of the flight deck environment. Oddly enough, the jet did not spin violently out of control, the cockpit did not burst into flames, the crew found DFW and actually landed on the correct runway with the gear down. Going down the road towards Warrior Monk status is not going to make the military a better fighting force because not everybody wants to be a Warrior Monk. I'm not sure what world you live in but somehow you want our military members to completely disregard everything they see, hear, or read that is circulated in the public realm or at least be able to flip some type of internal switch so that this world they live in for a MAJORITY of their lives, vs the 8 hour work day, does not rear its deemed offensive head (Can I say head?). You can get the military you want but you are going to need a whole lot of crosses to crucify those that do not meet your criteria.

If you apply the technique of substitution to this, it gets far more outrageous. Instead of white, male, christian, use another ethnicity, sex, or religion. You would hear a cacophony of righteous indignation over the application of racial stereotypes, institutionally approved discrimination, and hate speech. There would be marches, Congressional investigations, and Al Sharpton on the Pentagon steps with a megaphone. The far scarier aspect of this is that the command structure approved, published, and instituted this program which tells me that the Pentagon sees no problem with this. UFB.

I was thinking exactly that. SImilar to when the CINC addressed cases of sexual harassment/assault thus putting undo command influence on legal proceedings that is immediately used by the accused as a defense. I'm all for innocent until proven guilty but I'm not for the guilty going free due to commander sponsored stupidity. Again, the AF has enough problems without idiots inventing more.

Pawnman, you have already failed, dude. Don't even leave the briefing room. I detect a noticeable lack of fabulosity in your line-up. No rainbow in your coalition, so to speak. If you can up your diversity accounting, your mission will be a successful even if your bombs only prove that gravity works because you don't hit squat or get shot down enroute. Consider a "two-fer." A gay female with transgender issues might be all that is needed to make your plan a winner. Regarding the idiot and the bikini picture. The problem is crusaders like Liquid who are driving the bus that somehow think we can isolate ourselves from our society at large. Reminds me of that movie "The Village" where people were unhappy with the way the world was going so they built a large wall and sealed themselves off from the rest of humanity. That actually might work at Cannon but the rest the AF deals with societal interactions involving commonly accepted topics, images, words on television, radio, internet, magazines, books, parties, beaches, malls, or just walking down the street that are now deemed offensive by a few inside the AF. Unfortunately, this is going to continue because there is no scale. Any offense is deemed valid. A Supreme Court justice, when writing about hard core pornography wrote, "I know it when I see it and the motion picture in this case is not it." Nobody is willing to stand up and say "This is not offense worthy, thanks for your input." Instead, we have people inventing problems (black eye or bikini picture) and getting animated over the response or lack thereof to the invented issue. No doubt the AF has real problems. Defining the problem is the first step. If your definition of the problem iincludes "Everybody else's generally accepted behavior on the planet", then I think you are going to have a real hard time fixing your problem.

Thought I heard the F-35 guys were going to be using a HANS device like used in NASCAR due to the helmet weight.

If it is AF policy to not display such items and this person intentionally displays such an item, is this person guilty of violation of AF policy? What other rules are okay to violate to see if someone calls you on it? Speeding? Altitude restrictions? Financial fraud? I don't think this is should be an acceptable technique for the evaluation of AF guidance.

This is not being taught at the Weapons school....yet. Apparently, for better mission effectiveness in the future, you can't push to the target until you have fullfilled certain quotas guaranteeing a diverse package. (Can I still say package or has that gone on the "do not say" list, also?) http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362539/pentagons-chief-personnel-and-readiness-officer-diversity-and-inclusion-critical

Who was the rocket surgeon that spent money on this test? For half the price in $1 and $20 increments, you could have gone to Vegas and completed this study. Not sure how the AF is going to remove this genetic defect out of everybody but I expect some of you guys will hear about it in the near future. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/29/body-shape-objectification-technology/3287287/

If that is what is happening in AMC, it is an absolute pile of chickenshit. Nobody ever goes out and flies a perfect ride every time. Just does not happen. If the guy could get safely to and from the target, handle an IFE, and fly an approach in order to get another jet and go out and kill more bad guys, he was good to go. Throwing down Q-3s from Mt. Olympus is an even higher level of chickenshit. UFB. Micromanagement at its worse.

Hey, here is some good news, pages of regulation regarding governing the healthcare of Americans has topped 11.5 MILLION pages. Healthcare for all will certainly be better now. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/11588500-words-obamacare-regs-30x-long-law

No. In my years as an evaluator I've had guys commit some interesting errors like report initial at 500 feet, forget to reset an altimeter (WTF is an A-10 guy doing above FL180??), get lost and attempt to fly over KRDU, take me IFR in a pop, and a plethora of other weird stuff. Those all resulted in downgrades and were debriefed appropriately. The only Q-3 was a great dude on a Single engine approach that over finessed the approach and forgot the gear. Hard to overlook that one as a "momentary deviation but correcting" when I had to make a call to remind him on a 2 mile final.

A boomer can Q3 a pilot?

I am sure this chart explains where to find the answer. Seriously, what could possibly go wrong? http://www.jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8e6dbf03-ca4a-44be-9de4-a100c43fb5c8

I am not an expert and did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. A detail I've heard regarding this catastrophe of a plan is Caddilac plans are defined as health care plans with a total value over $10K for singles or $27K for families and the compaines providing those plans will have to pay a 40% tax on those plans starting in 2017/18-ish. I'm guessing this is going to generate a whole lot more WTF?? moments as companies drop plans and opt to pay the fine/tax/alms/penance to the Government.

Maybe the house should pass a spending bill expressly to service the debt. Once again the Senate will not take it but it will certainly be another difficult position for the Democrats to justify.

Interesting question. My wife and I were discussing this last night. I'm not sure how bad you think the economy might get but whatever you decide on has to be considered to be of value to both parties if you want to exchange it for goods or services with another person. For instance, going full Mad Max here in the U.S., a chicken might be more desirable to another person than a wad of Krona. Gold is always a universal crowd pleaser.

Yeah, but do we build a wall at the Red River to keep all the troublemakers out?

Potential flight attendant in the making.

Then it will lead to horsepower limits. No more than 4 cylinder, 1.2 liter max with speed governor set to 55mph with a kill switch enabled and controlled by the NSA. For the children........