Leaderboard

Man-Love Thursday isn't until tomorrow. Hate to break the news to you, but McChrystal's policy in Afghanistan was a failure. He risked American lives to protect Afghans that 1) didn't support our being there and 2) were not willing to defend their own country in the first place. He didn't push the ANA or the Afghan government enough to protect their own people. He didn't put them into their own fight. If they're not willing to fight for their country, why should we? That shithole of a country isn't worth one more American life wasted on it. Now he wants to disarm Americans. Fuck him.

Well we have officially hit rock bottom... https://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/01/08/bad-news-poll-finds-congress-less-popular-than-nickelback/ When asked if they have a higher opinion of either Congress or a series of unpleasant or disliked things, voters said they had a higher opinion of root canals (32 for Congress and 56 for the dental procedure), NFL replacement refs (29-56), head lice (19-67), the rock band Nickelback (32-39), colonoscopies (31-58), Washington DC political pundits (34- 37), carnies (31-39), traffic jams (34-56), cockroaches (43-45), Donald Trump (42-44), France (37-46), Genghis Khan (37-41), used-car salesmen (32-57), and Brussels sprouts (23-69) than Congress. Congress did manage to beat out telemarketers (45-35), John Edwards (45-29), the Kardashians (49-36), lobbyists (48-30), North Korea (61-26), the ebola virus (53-25), Lindsay Lohan (45-41), Fidel Castro (54-32), playground bullies (43-38), meth labs (60- 21), communism (57-23), and gonorrhea (53-28).

You honestly believe these efforts are going to reduce the suicide rate in the military or the mass shooting incidents? The same beliefs fueled the previous Assault Weapons Ban, and guess what, it has ZERO effect! As for "it's not aimed to taking away everyone's firearms," then why is that exactly what the Democrats are proposing? I sure as fuck didn't shoot a bunch of kids, movie-goers or soldiers as Ft Hood; but all those incidents are being used as reasons why firearm ownership needs to be restricted. Forget holding the individuals who commit such acts accountable, plan the inanimate object used; or is that concept too irrational for you?

Gen Welsh will be begging for these "Iron Majors" about a year from now when he sees how his pilot force is dangerously losing experience. I personally know at least a dozen guys from my community that have 3 or 7 day opted in just the last 3-4 months on assignments... all IPs or EPs... because they can! CSAF has to look no further than his current Wing Commanders and recent crop of selected O-7s if he wants to look for who is to blame for that. These are the same folks who were the 2 BPZ O-5 Sq CC/DOs in 2003-2007 timeframe that were beating down the crew force that was on perpetual TDY/Deployment status with "you need to get your SOS in Cor, you need your Masters, you need to volunteer to run the OG Christmas Party" crap. At least these clowns did one good thing by helping the economy because business is thriving at Higher Power and All ATP's these days.

Well written in some regards, but off the mark on a quite a few others... For one, claiming that "Most guns kept in the home will never be used for self-defense. They are, in fact, more likely to be used by an unstable person to threaten family members or to commit suicide" is bullshit. Where is he getting these "facts?!?" He fails to source his claim, probably because he has no data to support it. Secondly, "Ordinary altercations can become needlessly deadly in the presence of a weapon" is bullshit as well. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, and the same baseless arguments were used when states were considering issuing concealed carry permits. States that have allowed concealed carry have reported NO increase in gun-related crimes; in reality it has led to even lower crime rates. Again, another unsubstantiated claim. Thirdly, he fails to address the number of instances where an armed citizen thwarted a criminal act such as the Colorado mall shooting. He also fails to address the fact that many of these mass shooters commit suicide at the first sign of armed resistance (in Sandy Hook it was when he heard the police sirens). Fourthly, like many journalists, he erroneously uses the term "gun show loophole," which in reality does not exist. Many states allow private sales of firearms without going through a FFL. Licensed dealers must complete a 4473 on every sale be it at a gun show, a store or via the Internet. That is not required by many states for an exchange between two individuals, whether it is at a gun show or in someone's garage. There are no different restrictions based on location, just who is involved in the transaction. I expect someone who is trying to write intelligently on a subject do some basic research beforehand. Lastly, the author acts as if everyone carrying weapons are "legions of untrained, delusional vigilantes producing their weapons at a pin drop and firing indiscriminately into a crowd." I complete more training in a year than most of the patrol officers in this city. He minimizes the deterrence the possibility of an armed defender has on some criminals, which has been the driving point for 44 states to allow some sort of open carry.

M2 do you really believe the intent is to take guns from the military? I am a member of the NRA (Which supports this legislation by the way), and rabidly support gun ownership rights, but given everything that has occurred I am realistic to know something is going to change. I don't think taking Assault Weapons or banning high capacity mags (I just bought more), is going to solve the problem, but addressing mental illness and access to weapons seems to be a logical step we have to take. I would have to read the entire legislation and hope their were hurdles to make sure it was not improperly used, but finding a way to keep a weapon away from someone who is determined to harm their self or others seems a reasonable thing.

Are you active duty? On active flying status? If so, then you need to contact your flight medicine clinic and apply for permission to proceed, at which time they will 'vet' your eye center and tell if you if you can proceed or not. If you are anything but an FC I pilot, they will probably say yes. If you proceed on your own dime for whatever reason without USAFSAM permission to proceed, they will not be happy. I don't see why anybody would do that though, since it is essentially free (small ADSC) to get it done. If you are a civilian and thinking about pilot training, I highly suggest using a US based center. During your physical, they will go over all of your documentation thoroughly. Although they are competent physicians over there in Taiwan, often times the language barrier and sheer distance from the homeland causes documentation problems, which will turn into a problem with your physical. Also see below: The PRK vs LASIX debate for AF flying duty is too in depth to go into here. The AF still prefers PRK for pilots in most cases for a variety of reasons. I recommend that all flyers and flying applicants obtain a personal consultation with a service specific flight surgeon to obtain the latest recommendation on which one to obtain, how to proceed, etc.

I say we have a spending problem relative to our level of taxation, absolutely. Hard to argue with that. When you cut taxes for a decade and then all agree to make 99% of those cuts permanent you can't continue to offer the same or a higher level of government services. I voted for a combination of discretionary cuts where they make sense, reforms to big programs to bend the cost curves, and higher taxes in some cases. I hope that's what we get when all those ideals go through the D.C. sausage-making machine known as Congress.

I'll second Spaceman Spiff up there. A LOT of dudes lose their pilot slots along the way for lots of reasons, some of which is in their control, some of which are out of their control. I had a buddy who failed his FC1 because he missed the color vision test by 1 too many questions. He even said he saw the 'correct' number on the last slide right after he blurted the wrong answer. Was he color blind? Probably. Was he so color blind that he had ever been aware of it before the FC1? Probably not. I knew a few other people who got washed out at Brooks for issues they weren't even aware of beforehand (I know it's WPAFB now). Shit happens. I know a couple dudes who ended up as civil engineers because they would get uncontrollably airsick and I knew a couple guys who washed out of IFS, hated their newly assigned AFSC, and then realized that this isn't the best economy for a sociology degree. You really only get one shot at college and if you waste it on a degree that won't get you a job, then you're betting however much college cost ($50-100k and 4-5 years?) on a solid flight medical and successful completion of IFS, a year of UPT, and whatever follow on training you have. I'm not trying to be a downer, but the reality of it is that you'd be really smart to have a Plan B, C, D, and maybe E in case Plan A doesn't work out. Nobody counts on failing or getting washed out, but they do anyway. On the flip side though, if you know EEs are getting screwed over and you're a first semester junior in EE, you might wanna pay a visit to your school counselor and then your cadre to see if you can switch to Aero or Mech or something and still graduate on time.

No I fucking won't!

I protest several gay-rights groups holding of dicks - doesn't mean anyone should give a rat's ass.

This one speaks for itself. The WTF isn't for the article, but for the fact that things are actually this bad.

I know of two that were hired. Kind of like your mom would be an easy crossflow from a Dyson vacuum. EDIT: