Leaderboard

Vol III for the Kindle out for free on Amazon... https://www.amazon.com/Yellow-Green-Beret-III-Asian-American/dp/1477405755/ref=la_B006H9NFMI_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1356330635&sr=1-2

I've stated on here before that I stopped using USAA because their prices were not competitive in home or car insurance in Colorado Springs, and their customer service was so bad that my wife still gets high blood pressure when they are mentioned. They have a great reputation, but they are not what they were back when my Dad's day.

Two Argentinian A-4s a short distance from HMS Broadsword during the Falklands War

1. I believe our society and courts have changed since 1872 when this was brought up. Don't you? I don't believe our courts today would rule the same as they did 140 years ago. Today's courts would more than likely state that voting is indeed a "privilege and immunity" of being a citizen. 2. Human rights > states rights

Give it up. He doesn't understand the concept of statistics. Just because you can flip a coin 1000 times and get heads every time doesn't mean it's statistically reasonable to say it's going to happen.

They want it to be called marriage because the federal, state, and local governments don't grant all the same rights and privileges to "civil union" couples as they do to married couples. If marriage is only the province of the church, why does the state issue marriage certificates? There is no compulsion for a church to have a ceremony for a gay couple if they feel it isn't congruent with their teachings, just like an atheist will have a tough time getting a Catholic priest to administer the wedding vows.

If you want to marry your brother and he is an adult, go for it. A 12 year old is not a legal adult and cannot enter into a legal contract, which a marriage is. - Very bad argument on your part there, might as well have been bringing up the stupid dog or toaster argument. What if the church is ok with having a gay marriage? What then? Not ALL churches are opposed. So one church can now dictate to another church they can't have a gay marriage there? How about we let the churches that allow gay marriages to do so and the churches opposed to opt out? Who said anything about the State dictating to the church? The church doesn't own the word marriage. Marriage is a man made invention (much like religion in general) and preceded the church by thousands of years.

It is a thread derailment, but I'll bite... As a Libertarin I could give 2 fvcks who people want to fvck. And as for gay marriage, I could care less if 2 dudes or 2 chicks want to marry and thus have a State recognized contract with each other that allows them to see each other in the hospital after an accident, file their taxes together, etc. However, marriage--whether gay or straight is not a 'right' and thus not protected under The Constitution. Marriage is a contract set up by each individual State, so even though I personally don't care if there is gay marriage and would vote for it in a ballot measure, I respect each States' decision. The 10th Amendment allows everything not specifically defined to the federal government to be decided by individual States as long as it's not prohibited by The Consitution. And for all those that bring up "Equal Protection", it's just that--equal protection. So a gay guy can marry a chick in Oklahoma if they want, but I can't marry my brother in Oklahoma or Massachusets. There's also a reason I can't marry a 12 year old if she is willing to, or have multiple wives--equal protection doesn't apply there either unless a State allows it. Back to the 2nd Amendment...pretty clear, especially when your read The Federalist Papers as to what the framers intended. I think we should have a thread on Liberty, Rights, and The Constitution. This would be a perfect place to argue gay marriage...along with all the other crap the federal government is trying to pull on the States and its citizens.

I'm sorry, I might not fully understand your question; MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE AN ALLERGY? Well in case you REALLY do have an allergy (and it does sound like you do)-- Severity is a little subjective and can be vary from Doc to Doc. However it is disqualifying. But it's also waiverable!

As an AD flight doc, I am friends with lots of pilots, and not for the purpose of ruining careers once trust is built. I'm going to stay anonymous, but if you knew me you would know that I fight tooth and nail to keep you flying provided that you are not a risk to yourself or others. Grounding a trained asset is never anything we want to do. Ideally the problem can be fixed (such as with myopia --> glasses or PRK) and a waiver is possible. If your local flight surgeon fights to get you back in the air, and basically puts their reputation on the line and takes responsibility for your medical safety, the higher ups at MAJCOM will listen. Regulations are pretty strict though and there's only so much the peon local FS can do, but the current trend is more aeromedical waivers. Recent decade of operations and pilot shortages may have something to do with it. Of course, if you are an applicant, none of this applies. You are right, the docs really aren't your friend in this case. The AF is risk averse and isn't going to spend alot of money training someone who will have major issues down the road. Don't lie, choose your words carefully, and be respectful. There is no back door to flying. I hope this helps! Flight docs are not jerks, we do not get paid more based on how many careers we ruin. I was a flight doc for a period of time so I could obtain a specialty, and it worked out for me. I enjoyed working with aircrew and hope I saved many more careers than destroyed. We do care about your safety though and take that seriously.

So a couple weeks ago the runway here was closed. The fighter squadron verified some clearances and gave about 69 support people incentive sims. They were UTDs -- cockpit replicators with a flat screen but all the switches and everything work. Some of the bros taught them how to takeoff and land, fly an ILS, whatever. I tried to show them how their job fit into killing North Koreans, and why pilots (in general) are so grumpy when we have to walk over to a building and are turned away for "Training Days" every Tuesday from 1200-1630. Then afterwards, I took them over to a map and said "Here's Kunsan. Here's Osan. Here's Seoul. Here's where the North Koreans have 1000s of pieces of artillery pointed at Seoul. Here's where we are going on night 1 of the war. Here's where the North Koreans have SAMs pointed at us." The look on their faces when I showed to them how to shoot an AMRAAM, then avoid the SAM rings to drop 2 JDAMS and then get themselves and 3 of their best friends home out of harm's way said it all. One of them even said "I had no idea how hard this is, I had no concept of what you guys do. This is amazing." She got it. "What" (nice self naming of yourself, by the way), you should go get some perspective from those pilots you're deploying more than. Go find out what they do every day and what they train to do. If you show genuine interest, I guarantee it any pilot over there will explain it to you. Please figure out how you can do your job better so that they have more time to train to kill the enemy and protect your ability to donate your time on the weekends. If everyone did that, if everyone figured out how their job fits into the machine, then we wouldn't bitch. The problem is when people lose that perspective, lose the idea that their job is not the most important one on base and the world doesn't revolve around you. I'm sure you feel like you work hard, and you probably work long hours, so do we. But it sounds like you need a serious adjustment in perspective. Or don't, and continue to be part of the problem. Caveat: One CAF punk's idea. Got it, no MAF stuff, maybe a MAF dude can offer his opinion too but I don't want to spew some made up bullshit about what the MAF does.