Jump to content

Snooter

Super User
  • Posts

    267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Snooter

  1. Lots of focus on people’s monetary decisions but I don’t seem to see any conversation about the trillion dollar f-35 program, or the proverbial “end of year fallout programs.”  Anyone else think we need a new dress uniform?

  2. On 1/24/2019 at 10:11 PM, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said:

    Anyone PC’d from staff? My app went through my CC last Friday. She referred it to AFPC then they sent it to “Wing Commander.” That’s where it still resides in the system. Had my CSS look at the CMS case and it does not give detail to who it actually resides with. Basically, I’m not in any Wg/CC’s chain. It’s not with my senior rater. The Wg/CC at my base does not have it. Anyone dealt with this before?

     

    This is the bureaucracy we all love and hate.  , Try submitting a trouble ticket or find someone with CMS god rights who can find the person and send them an email directly. At one point my AFPC sent my application to a different functional and I had to chase it down and get it sent to the correct place.  Batten down the hatches buddy and good luck...

    • Like 1
  3. 4 hours ago, Standby said:

    So the FAA is removing centerline thrust restrictions for mil pilots (every AF pilot in recent history save for UPT-H) while the Air Force has imposed ADSC sanctions for things like in-unit requals? How much clearer can the writing on the wall get...

    Thanks for posting!

    Beat me to it...

  4. So a guy worth billions of dollars from a car company and a rocket company is putting some of his employees to work by building a mini sub to get a Thai soccer team out of a cave before they die.  What are you doing with your time, besides posting on Baseops?

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  5. 1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

    Ah, yes.  The ol' defensive egg.  Never gets old watching it deploy...

    Man I’m glad I got to this before you read my original response. I said something mean, but you don’t deserve that, you’re just trying to egg on a scenario because that’s what you’ve been taught to do.  I hope you have a good weekend.

  6. 11 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

    No, you originally used an analogy that further reduction of X results in a correlated decrease in Y.  If this were the case anything that is perceived as "bad/harmful" should be eliminated...and this is a childish argument, at best.

    If you want to argue that further government regulation with regards to energy production, etc is better for the environment, regardless of the negative impacts to the economy then I would just say that is purely an opinion of yours and not rooted in factual economic science.  

    What is your solution, do you think there’s even a problem?

  7. 2 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

    Again, learn to make a better argument (one you actually can/want to defend), and you'll get a much better response.

    At least I brought something other than snide remarks and pointed questions.   Hey quick, I think Hannity’s on!

  8. 1 minute ago, HeloDude said:

    Got it--you're for a maximum speed limit of 40mph.  

    I bet you’re the life of the party...

     

    Enjoy your drive, wish I wasn’t in the car with you...

  9. It was a metaphor for climate change, the risk to the environment of continuing to output the amount of Co2 that we have been over the past century as opposed to the risk to the economy of maintaining those industries in their current state is significantly higher.  If you dial it back and go slower ie institute controls (your 40 mph speed limit) you may not prevent all the potential fatalities but you can prevent some if not most.  

  10. 2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

    By your logic/scenario above, cars shouldn't be able to drive faster than 40 mph since people have died in car accidents driving faster than 40.  Or does "mitigating potential risk" not also work in your own given scenario?

    Maybe I was obscure in my example. As it relates to global warming making the argument that science hasn’t proven human Co2 production (speed) is causing global warming (accident) there does seem to be a pretty substantial correlation.  Dial back the Co2 production (speed) and we may prevent or minimize the effects of global warming (accident).   

     

  11. Get in a car and drive 120mph down a country road at night, driving above the speed limit never killed anyone...

     

     

     

     

    Much as it’s trees and blunt force trauma that cause the death in that scenario, similarly some may try and refute that carbon emissions are causing climate change.  Are we really so careless as to not mitigate a potential risk if we have the ability?

  12. 8 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

    Hardly. More like choosing a) bit of a brawler that undoubtedly needs guidance but when push comes to shove, he's down to throw some punches and reshuffle the cards, because "we're America bit$%" vs. b) quiet, professorial type who judges you for the occasional 'Merica. Because in his mind, we're an illegitimate country founded by white racists. 

    That pointless exercise aside, serious question. You think dropping the A-Bomb on Japan was a mistake? Something that we should have to apologize for almost 60 years later, despite rebuilding the country and spending God only knows how much blood and treasure to make them a first-rate regional power?

    The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the A-bomb.  The A-bomb was our middle finger to Russia.

     

    Illegitimate country founded by white racists, got it.  You have a good day...

×
×
  • Create New...