ViperMan

Pretty sure the answer is yes. You can't be "put" on orders in order to take leave, but if you're on an order, you're allowed to use it. LES = Leave and Earnings Statement. Some other nuances: I don't think you accrue leave (or other benes) if you're on an order of less than 31 days.

Don't click on (or otherwise use) those sources. They get some money (somehow) when you do. Refuse to use them and visit others. Vote with your dollars. That's the best min effort / max impact thing you can do to help kill the beast.

Dude, this invasion is the definition of totally premeditated and unprovoked - there is no middle ground here. Provoking something necessarily involves you doing something illegitimate. Ukraine determining their own destiny is fully legitimate. "NATO expansion" is a pretext to BS foreign policy goals Russia has long held. So regardless of the total lack of moral logic required to suggest that a country executing their own ambitions is justification for a hostile invasion, you've got Russia who has knowingly, and legally, signed agreements that have disallowed nothing the West has done. So this notion that NATO expansion is somehow responsible or culpable for Russia's current actions is fully hollow. Worth about eight minutes of your time from this mark. For real? Sorry, did I miss the major news story that China has invaded a sovereign country (unprovokedly) and is shelling civilians in a criminal manner? I get China ain't our friend, but this comparison exemplifies "specious." Call me when China starts dropping cluster munitions in Taipai...I'll get on board with your theme.

No fan of Joe, but what's the alternative? To legitimize Putin and his ilk by dealing with him and in doing so tacitly approve of his actions? That'll just engender even worse. It's clear to me that Putin does have to go. The "West" cannot afford to deal with him in really any capacity after this adventure. Not sure what that means, but there is plenty short of WWIII which that can mean. For starters, we really should offer to be Europe's energy guarantor and take real and visible steps towards that end. Putin thinks the current sanctions are biting? Wait until he (and his people) realizes he's getting cut off from his largest market.

That's the exact feeling I had upon first reading. I was struck by how similar it all was to my "modern" experience and how its absurdism was present in my own experience. A passage (in reference to Colonel Cathcart)

The book killed me...seems like I need to watch the movie.

Ok that's cool, we're all working with our own set of terms. Yeah, so they haven't worked according to that metric. That said, sanctions never work overnight, and I think characterizing something that is supposed to work over time as a failure until the moment it works is an unfair judgement to make. I give NK a 0.0% (repeating, of course) chance of being a world-leading nation in the next 100 years under their current regime. Civilians being miserable is a necessary but insufficient condition for sanctions to work in many cases - this one included. And right now, they are acceptable collateral damage. As are their bank accounts, iPhones, and pantries. I quite literally could not care. I hope it motivates them to ask the all-important question: "WTAF?" And finally, anyone's attitude about what is and isn't funny or appropriate is a relative judgement. In light of millions of people being illegally and criminally displaced from their homes and being hungry, yeah, I think that would be a shitty thing to laugh at. Looking at some poor Russian who can no longer get cheese from Italy because his government is *ucked, is funny. And I will laugh at it.

Just noticed this today myself and have set a reminder for Dec '22 to get myself set up with some other bank that offers the 2% unlimited cash back reward (the best I've been able to find). This was literally the only thing USAA had over and above all other banks out there. Now, they don't. They can waive bye-bye to my direct deposit $$$.

Hmmm, lemme check. Ghadafi? Dead. Saddam? Dead. Slobodan Milosevic? Dead. So yeah, maybe sanctions don't "work", but if I was a dictator, it would seem to me that sanctions are a pit stop that the West puts me in for a few months or years before I wind up getting killed by someone they support. And to your comment that it's not working in Iran or NK, I will disagree by simply saying you're wrong - without evidence - because I can. Look at a map of SK vs NK when they're lit at night...I'd say they're working.

It's not necessarily about punishment per se. Though it will be punishing, to be sure. It has multi-pronged effects that are more important. Namely, no one in Russia will be able to avoid figuring out WTF is going on since their money is now worth less than shit. It will cause their government many problems at home. It will limit the ability of the Russian military to make war, because as we all know, it's not lift and thrust that makes airplanes fly, it's money. It will cause massive rift within the Russian power brokerage. It will amplify distrust of the government. It will sow doubt among those who actually trust Putin. It will diminish their future ability to modernize their war machine. In short, it will do all manner of objectively good things. So yeah, sorry your average Ivan is getting it in the pants, but when you compare that to what's happening to your average Ukrainian, that pain inflicted against the Russian populace is meaningless. Fuck 'em.

I'm a pretty big naysayer of this current administration, but what they've done so far with Javelins and tough sanctions (what they've been able to do), has been commendable. Russia's economy is getting absolutely crushed, and there is still a lot more that we can do. And we should. Putin should be relegated to permanent pariah status. https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=RUB&to=USD&view=1M

Could have been better ♟️ For all the Snowden defenders: https://nypost.com/2020/11/02/edward-snowden-shows-his-true-colors-by-applying-for-russian-citizenship/ http://www.china.org.cn/world/2022-02/16/content_78051824.htm https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/02/11/nothing-more-grotesque-media-pushing-war-says-edward-snowden Quick recap: 2013: Snowden steals secrets from the NSA. Goes to hide in Russia for "sanctuary" until he can get a fair trial or some such. 2014: Russia invades eastern Ukraine. 2021/2: Snowden downplays potential for war in Ukraine. 2022: Russia full-scale attacks Ukraine. 👍

I'm good with the Ukrainians doing it 👍 - then it's belligerent vs belligerent. Doesn't have to be us, and you're right - it shouldn't be. Either way, I think that what is conventionally accepted as gospel - that nuclear powers will fight each other with nukes - is 1950s cold war thinking. Putin is throwing his d*ck around in Europe and we are caught with our pants down. He is obviously playing by a different set of rules now, and he'll continue to outmaneuver us if we hold fast to this notion (fear) that he's got a legit itchy nuclear trigger finger. He doesn't, and thinking that orients itself around that "fact" is doomed to lose.

No, not really. Not besides just starting a long and grinding slog that's going to kill and maim a bunch of people who don't deserve to be killed or maimed. I'm just suggesting that there is a much, much, higher bar for using nukes than people seem to think exists around here - especially against another nuclear state! If Putin got legitimately splattered, there would be hell to pay, but nukes coming out? Pffffft. Scoff. No one gets to put that cat back in the bag, and everyone knows it. Also, assassinate is the wrong word. MLK, JFK, and Abe Lincoln were assassinated. If Putin was killed in a lawful military strike, that's that. This. Though I will say, Russia is likely not fighting with everything they have.

Yeah. "President" and "sovereign nation" may not be the most illuminating phrases to characterize Putin and what he's doing at this point. I dunno, but IMO he is clearly WAY over the line here, into instant war criminal status. And I think both us and them are past the point of counting our nukes. We both have the ability to annihilate each other, and I personally *highly* doubt they would risk total war over one guy - even their "president" - who last time I checked was an autocrat who was suppressing political opposition in his country. I think dropping one dude as a message would maybe give their leadership chain enough of a shake up they'd be given the opportunity to back off. Clearly we will be fighting nuclear powers in the future. It stands to reason we should figure out good ways to do it.

Here me out on this one. We should hellfire Putin. Send them a *uck of a message. Shake things up. Call their remaining leadership's bluff on further escalation. Put them on notice that they are criminals and are legal targets.

So our vaccines are worse, then? I've been reliably told that we have the best vaccines and boosters. Because COVID is killing us at 20x that of South Korea and Japan...that not strange?

What's up @Negatory. I guess it's a perception error, but you honestly came across like that. So, no, I'm not trying to misrepresent you. In our discussion (back then) it was pretty clear to me that what was being implied was that there was going to be mass death right around the corner. I stated that I did not buy that BS for a variety of reasons. Also, you could have, you know, responded with what you actually meant four days ago if I "misrepresented" you. Instead you waited until now to figure out that's not what you meant back then??? You can see how I'm (still) confused. How about you explain what you meant by 15% (or 30% as you quoted), and what this other pretext was. In any case, I'm not arguing fallaciously, and you are welcome to clarify. If you had been context switching between Omicron infecting a million people a day and then back to vanilla COVID morting 5-15%, then I missed the fact that there were two separate and distinct points being made - so yeah, that's my perception problem. But I will admit that I went back and read the stuff from just prior to Christmas, and it is not clear that you were talking about two different bugs. That said, you did recognize that the data showed Omicron was highly infectious, but not as deadly - so I'll take that one. Anyway, here's the big picture I take away from our previous conversation after having been removed from it for a while: There is one group (you, et al) who are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the PTB re: COVID measures. There's another group (includes me) who is done with the charade and all things "unserious." I mean you have people that are fine with measures being taken that were known (or thought) to be ineffective simply as a means to "do" something (I'm one who thinks masks have a limited personal effect; zero societal effect). Many people, including me, think forcing people to do things for show is anti-American. That's where I'm coming from. And besides that philosophical point, I'll say it's worth a moment's consideration to think about the implication of having the perception that something works, even though it actually doesn't, and then implementing it as policy. Do you think those types of misconceptions will lead people to take more or less appropriate risks? What will then be the actual real-world outcome of that policy? More or less infection? Seems clear to me what the answer is, but yet... Others accept at face value that "COVID" is "killing" 20x more Americans than in other nations. Apparently you need to be some kind of "expert" to notice that is an odd thing and to raise it as a question. Or perhaps this, the fact that in California (of all places) they held the Super Bowl mostly mask-less (https://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2022/02/face-masks-were-handed-out-at-the-super-bowl-but-few-fans-wore-them.html). Where was the enforcement? Why was this acceptable? My bet is that it was cool because there was a lot of money involved in it for CA. I would like to be a fly on the wall during some of the conversations between NFL executives and the CA government (https://www.wtok.com/2022/01/05/nfl-looks-contingency-sites-super-bowl-amid-covid-19/). Anyway, it was these sorts of arguments that were (and still are) being made. My point now is the same as what it was then: This is now mostly about signaling/control, Omicron wasn't (isn't) going to kill everyone, and it's time to stop panicking and go back to (actual) normal. Stop the fear-based arguments and justifications for normalizing restrictions, lack of freedom, and unquestioned acceptance of authority. We are creating a generation of young children who are scared shitless of COVID though they are not at risk whatsoever, and are going to grow up more neurotic than they already were going to be.

Alright, I'm tracking. So if you have 30 days to sell and retire on 1 Mar (for instance), you're saying you'll collect your base pay ($9,000) and get your retirement pay ($4,500) collecting $13,500 in total? for example? At the end of your second month (30 Apr) retired you'd have collected $18,000. Ok I'm tracking this gameplan now. I wasn't before. By my math, if you take the leave (starting 1 Mar), you'll go on terminal, collect $9,000 + ~$1,500 (BAH) + ~$300 (BAS) + $1,000 (Flight pay) = $11,800 and then one month later you'd get that first retirement check (~ $4,500) and come out at around $16,300 so you're short about $1,700 - given a hypothetical (lowish) BAH rate. That said, something everyone who is approaching retirement should be familiar with is exactly how retired pay is calculated. If you stay active that extra month, you're not only bumping one of your lowest months of pay off the bottom and replacing it with one at your highest pay, you are also getting a multiplier bonus - which I don't think everyone is necessarily aware of. So when you retire with exactly 20 years of service your multiplier is .5000. When you retire with 20 years and 1 month, your multiplier is .5 + 2.5 * ( 1 month / 1200) = .5021. With 20 years and 2 months, it's .5042. I think most people think you need to trip another full year of service to collect another 2.5%. With this in mind, if you're a Lt Col at 17 years in Jan of 2020, your retired pay would wind up as $4,732.13. If you retire with 20 + 1 mo, it becomes $4,766.99 (+$34.85); with 20 + 2 it becomes $4,801.97 (+$69.83). Eventually, in about 4 years, you make that original $1,700 back and then have more retired pay forever. Choose your adventure. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1401 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1409

Nope. Just trying to have a reasoned debate/discussion using fact, reason, and logic to best understand and orient myself in this new world we find ourselves in. All while navigating heaps of disinformation spread by those who know better and those who are equipped to know better.

Ok, there's an instance you actually DO get more money.

I get that, but the day you work until is the day you work until. If you work until that day you get paid all of your normal compensation. If you then sell back 60 days of leave you get your base pay (you lose some pay). If you start terminal leave on that day, instead, you get all of that PLUS BAH/BAS. So you get more money by NOT selling it back. What am I missing?

That distinction doesn't make a difference, though. You can't get base pay + retirement pay because you can't get retirement pay until you're retired... If you separate (not getting a pension) you can start your job, so New Job + Mil Job > New Job + Mil Job - BAS - BAH. I guess if you need a fist full of dollars now it makes sense, but that's the only condition where it could make a difference. The end sum would always be greater if you stay on AD longer and collect everything you're entitled to.

@Clark Griswold this one? I've never been impressed with her or Stephanopoulos. But I'm not sure what I find more concerning, what she said or the fact that very little besides her jaw moves anymore...too much plastic. Way too much.

Mkay. I'm glad you never said it directly. I suppose you're unfamiliar with the concepts of implication or multiplication. You did strongly suggest those numbers, however, with the 5-15% death rate you quoted numerous times. Sooooo, 5-15% of 1.0M people per week is 50K - 150K. Since approx 16% of people in the US are over 70 yrs old, that means we should have seen approx 8K - 24K people (only those older than 70!) dying every week. We didn't see that. And many of us knew we weren't going to see that. And the actions our government took during those early weeks of January reflect their knowledge that we weren't going to see that, either. Some on this board are overly disturbed by others' lack of faith. Your numbers were and are wrong. So sure, you can state under oath that you didn't say it, but you said it. Anyway. The point is some of us knew this wasn't going to be as big a problem. Many others were running around freaking out and imploring everyone to share in their panic. I just felt like it was worth invalidating some of the previous BS on this thread a little bit more neatly now that we do know for sure.