ViperMan
-
Posts
648 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by 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.
-
On 4/2/2022 at 4:15 AM, TreeA10 said:
I don't think complaining about a biased media helps but I'm going to keep complaining anyway. Over the last 4-5 years, Think of the very long list of "bombshells," "the walls are closing in," and "the beginning of the end" declarations based on "anonymous," "off the record," or "sources inside say" information that were total fabrications yet the media slobbered over those stories endlessly. No facts, no problem. Yet, any story that contains factual credible information that might shed light on the corrupt dealings of their own party (yes, most media works for the democrat party) gets ignored.
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.
-
10 hours ago, Blue said:
Because Russia's invasion wasn't "unprovoked." We've been "poking the bear" by advocating for Ukrainian entrance to NATO, along with our covert support of revolutions in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014. None of that is an excuse for Putin to invade another sovereign country of course, but shows that the invasion was anything but "unprovoked."
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.
Quote"But once again, the ability of countries to choose their foreign policy and their alliances voluntarily is written into the UN Charter. It's written into the 1975 Helsinki Act. It's written into the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe. And it's written into the 1997 NATO Russia Founding Act. Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Moscow signed the UN Charter, it signed the Helsinki Final Act in 75. It signed the Charter of Paris in 1990. It signed the NATO Russia Founding Act, which puts no limits on NATO expansion and Boris Yeltsin's signature is on that. And so, you know, Peter, international obligations and freedom and the defensive freedom are on one side and Vladimir Putin and his gangster regime and his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is on the other side."
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.
On 3/26/2022 at 3:37 PM, Sprkt69 said:You mean like how everyone deals with China?
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.
-
3
-
-
50 minutes ago, uninformed said:
“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power," so is this how WWIII begins...crazy Joe going off script. His handlers must have just crapped themselves when they heard that come out his mouth. My guess is Joe will not be seen out in public much for a while.
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.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, Scooter14 said:
It’s amazing to me how relevant the book still is as it relates to life in the military and the stifling bureaucracy that surrounds us. I can take examples from the book/movie and directly compare to situations that I have lived through.
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)
Quote"No such private nights of ecstacy or hushed-up drinking and sex orgies ever occurred. They might have occurred if either General Dreedle or General Peckham had once evinced an interest in taking part in orgies with him, but neither ever did, and the colonel was certainly not going to waste his time and energy making love to beautiful women unless there was something it it for him."
-
2
-
-
55 minutes ago, Scooter14 said:
Captain Major! Yes! One of my favorite scenes from the original…The book killed me...seems like I need to watch the movie.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:
“Working” was defined as causing the populations to rise up. I agree NK is dark at night. Does that mean sanctions are working or does that mean civilians are miserable?
I get it. Everyone disagrees with me, and that’s fine. I offer a perspective for consideration so that we think carefully and choose to do things deliberately. Laughing at hungry civilians is for pussies, not warriors.
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.
-
1
-
-
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 $$$.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:
Copy the idea. Has this particular method of pressuring a dictator ever worked? It didn’t on Saddam, and it didn’t on Ghadafi. Or Milosevek. It’s not working in Iran or N Korea. When you target civilians for suffering, all it really does is hurt civilians. If you have a counter example I’m game to hear it.
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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:
I think it’s a terrible idea to hurt Russia’s economy and their people just because we don’t like what Putin is doing. Mass punishment doesn’t work on me or you or anyone. Human beings hate that shit.
i’m not sure what specific military effect we want to achieve by turning off some grandmother‘s credit card, or what we expect Russian civilians to do, but I’m not going to chuckle at starving civilians standing in food lines. They are innocent.
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.
-
2
-
1
-
6
-
-
2 hours ago, dream big said:
The hyenas on the green new deal squad have more influence and cojones than this current POTUS.
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.
-
1 hour ago, BFM this said:
Could have been better ♟️
For all the Snowden defenders:
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2022-02/16/content_78051824.htm
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.
👍
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:
Kid, you need to go back to strategy and international relations class there. At a most basic level, it can't be a lawful military strike unless the strike originates from, and is entirely conducted by Ukrainians. If they do it, I'm all for it. However, if a nuclear power assassinates (that's the word we use when discussing the intentional targeting a nation's leader by another non-belligerent nation) the leader of another nuclear power, all rational and reasoned arguments concerning the likely response are out the window.
Beyond that, such a strike, regardless of it's success, by any of the non-belligerents in this event would only serve to validate all of Putin's propaganda. That then gives him (if he survives) or his replacement all the more validation for expanding what they would see as defensive and necessary combat operations...perhaps, though unlikely, with nuclear weapons. No possible win with an overt decapitation strike in this case.
Chess, not checkers.
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.
-
21 hours ago, nsplayr said:
Ok tough guy yea let’s assassinate the head of state of a nuclear power…any other brilliant ideas?
And trust me, I’m fully in the “F Russia” camp 🇺🇦💪
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.
17 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:After watching this invasion, filtering out the trolls that are on Reddit/Twitter misinformation, I’m convinced that absent help from China and not lobbing nukes, Russia would severely get their asses beat by the U.S. in a conventional war. Their training is obviously shit and it sends a message that Russian commanders have such little faith in their conscript troops that they follow them around with mobile crematoriums once they’re killed.
This. Though I will say, Russia is likely not fighting with everything they have.
-
37 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:
Hellfire the President of a sovereign nation that has more nuclear weapons than we do?
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, bennynova said:
We have different vaccines than most of the world.
we also don’t let drs prescribe certain medicines that might help. Ivermectin, for one.
these things might account for a 20x morality rate.
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?
-
3 hours ago, Negatory said:
Hey @ViperMan, your quotes for me from 25 Dec onwards were trying to make it seem like I was insinuating the death rate of omicron was gonna be be 5-15% for certain portions of the population. Just wondering why you misrepresented my actual points on this forum? Is this a perception error because you aren’t actually reading what I’m saying? Or is it an execution error in that you’re arguing fallaciously?
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...
On 12/30/2021 at 12:05 PM, Prozac said:Wearing a mask on an airplane for instance. While I may find it slightly annoying, the real and yes, perceived, effects of wearing one are a small inconvenience if it means the airline industry can remain whole. Even if you believe it’s mostly theater, potting a piece of cloth over your face for a couple hours is a pretty “easy” measure.
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.
-
1
-
1 hour ago, di1630 said:
If you sell back a month of leave you get base pay for that.
If you retire, you can sell back that month for base pay amount plus you’ll get retirement.
For me, the $4500 retirement pay out earns my BAH/BAS/Flight pay
So retiring = sell back is usually worth more money.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.
-
2 hours ago, Prozac said:
I think Viper and many others have built up a perfect foil in their heads and when someone like you or I present any dissenting opinion, they like to place us in that slot. The truth is most people on all sides of the issue have nuanced views that make it hard to put them into two easy categories: “anti vax” or “fear porn monger”. @ViperMan, fwiw, I will continue to base my decisions and opinions on the advice of medical experts, despite your apparent impeccable credentials as an aviation god, therefore unquestionable expert in medicine, finance, legal advice, and any other subject you choose to pontificate upon. You sir, are going to fit right in with the crusty airline captain crowd someday.
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.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:
Mandatory retirement date. You stay on til the final date, and sell the remaining leave as opposed to taking terminal. Probably only advisable if you don’t have a job lined up you can start while on terminal.
Ok, there's an instance you actually DO get more money.
-
Just now, Bigred said:
If you work up to the day you get out, you get BAS + BAH + Base Pay + any special pays and THEN get paid for 60 days of base pay when you get out. If you take it as terminal you get out without that 60 days of buyback.
Each situation is unique, especially if you have a follow on job, but for a 12 year O-4, that could be an approximately $16,000 extra you get when you get out.
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?
-
1 minute ago, di1630 said:
Base pay + retirement pay beats base pay + bah/bas/flight pay.
If you aren’t going to get a pension…you are correct.
I need my DD214 as quick as possible so selling it makes sense for time and money,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.
The Next President is...
in Squadron Bar
Posted
For real? Like no shit?
*If* this is the case, there needs to be a massive come to Jesus with regard to how our media apparatus functions. That's already true, but this should make it obvious for everyone, regardless of which side of the isle you're on.