Leaderboard

Based on the thread title, I thought this thread was about Eagle pilots.

They probably don't have running water - do you really think they have any concept of how an aircraft mishap investigation works?

It sounds like you have a pretty balanced view, but the Air Force of late does not. I'll give you an example: As I've stated publicly, I am of the opinion that women should not be in combat roles. I also let the f-bomb drop from time to time. I'm sure some women at work have heard me say it, although definitely not directed at them. During the last SAPR training we received, we were briefed that cursing creates a "hostile sexual work environment", which is a form of sexual harassment. See what they did there? Men who don't agree with woman in combat + dropping the F-bomb = Sexual harassers who degrade women because they doesn't feel they're equal. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I curse, drink, sing fighter pilots songs and raise hell from time to time as generations of fighter pilots have for decades because it goes with the territory. The ideal of the warrior monk is a nice idea, but it just ain't realistic. Warriors will find ways to deal with war as they always have. As for women in combat, my view is that combat effectiveness is more valuable than pandering to the wishes of a very small segment of society (women who want to be in combat roles). I have yet to hear an effective argument for how women in combat units can increase effectiveness. But at the end of the day, the feminist lobby and their friends are interested only in the emasculation of men, and the Air Force continues to find new ways to reach that goal. Regardless of what popular culture says, I believe there is value in men defending and protecting their wives, their children, their country. The idea of a woman being blown apart on a battle field is revolting. What would happen to them in the hands of the enemy is even worse. Where did we go so wrong as a country to believe that women would be elevated by putting them in foxholes?

Scoobs, list credentials or shut the fuck up.

The Chaplains are owned by their church first, the military second. Their contract reads that way. If, at any time they are ordered to do something their church does not agree with, the church can pull them from the service. Consider them "on loan" to the military by their respective faiths. They can follow that faith without fear of retribution. Several baptist chaplains were pulled from the service in the 50's for being told to marry interracial couples. It's the right of the church, and it will not be superseded. This is a non-issue, Brick.

Hmmm... let's see, we had a CSAF and a SecAF fired because they thought F-22s were more important than UAVs. We have current UAV pilots bailing ASAFP when their ADSC is up (anecdotal, but 5 of 8 guys in my UPT class in 38s who ended up 11F got stuck in UAVs and all 5 are no longer on AD pulling chalks the first day they could). We have a POTUS who has no interest in being anywhere near the Middle East, but sure does love putting hellfire's up the asses of bad guys who live there. Guys who fly planes with 3 or more engines are not only making the owners of ALL ATP's and Higher Power wonder why everyone is talking about a bad economy... they are also making their MAF Sq CC's lives miserable by dropping papers before they can get to the first vowel of the words "Creech or Cannon". Yeah, if I were you I'd be betting on those orders to Eglin for F-35 school instead of a UAV after signing that paperwork... good luck with that! BTW... those who are now eligible for the bonus started UPT just months after 9/11. If you told all those who spent a year or two as an 11F and ended up non-vol'd to Creech for the next 6-9 yrs that was going to happen do you think they would have all been jumping at the chance to take that pilot slot? You're right, nobody knows what will happen in the next few years... but I'll bet you $225,000 that you won't hear the CSAF or AFPC anytime soon saying, "Thank God that mess is over... F-22s and F-35s for everyone!!!"

Pay the man.

You've apparently never been to Kyrgyzstan.

I moved to a new assignment in the Spring of 2007 to a Base that was remodeling it's base housing, so the wait list to live on Base was over a year. Because of that fact the rental market in the area was essentially non-existent (other than living in a double wide... not joking). There were about 25 of us who PCS'd in around the same time with the only option being buying a house or commuting over an hour each way to work. I would have loved to have been able to rent a house, but I wasn't about to put my family in a neighborhood full or crack houses and rotating meth labs. 2 or 3 guys did short sales since, but aside from that the rest of us are landlords paying about $500 a month out of pocket because none of us qualified for HAP, etc. I know scores and scores of guys in this exact same boat... not sure I'd be throwing stones at the new guy here!

Baseops is educational as well as featuring breasts...

I don't think the chaplain is required to marry anyone. If they don't want to do the ceremony they suggest other options such as going to legal and getting a justice of the peace wedding.

Brick is retired, and I thank him for his service. He has a different opinion on the matter and I say he's more than able to share it here. I'm sure he welcomes the spirited debate. There are a lot more issues and problems the country is facing, and I would argue that gays serving and gay marriage and the like is not one of those problems. The liberals cheering for 'Liberty and Justice' are liars as they want neither Liberty and/or Justice for all.

scoobs, ssshhhh.

No. The freedom to oppress others with your religion? Yes.

Perhaps some of the issues will be satisfied by the "home of record" process the military has. So, if one half of a gay marriage dies then the state with "home of record" would deal will issues related to the marriage. Assuming, of course, that the home of record is the state which conducted the gay marriage.

Exactly--hypocrites on both sides of the argument.

Yes. What's more absurd is considering current 11f manning vs cockpits/future MWSs, limited releases for school (because of too few 11Fs), that you will fill a desk for 9 consecutive years. After a few years, I'm getting used to this PCS thing and the uncertainty involved. Holy shlt, he's right! Almost as bad as signing up for service for 11+ years right out of college, except now I get paid like a doctor. and for 225k I may just accept their apology. No one is silly enough to find anything new in your rant. We are well aware of the uncertainty in military service - 9 year commitment or one VML cycle. As always, the decision is made based on family/personal reasons. The extra money can pay for a couple college degrees, give momma the kitchen she wants, or buy a couple years worth of cheap booze/fast women. Only a few examples of personal reasons and the money is in the decision matrix. On the other hand, no one is twisting my arm to stay in (aside from a nice new incentive). There’s something to be said for the family time that comes with a civilian job. BL, I try to imagine what consequences my decision will have when I’m of retirement age. I’ve yet to hear a retired fighter pilot say “I wish I would have punched at the end of my initial commitment”. I have heard guys who punch say they love what they’re doing after the military. I guess I’ll have to make a decision based on what’s available to me and my family, and try to weed out the chaff from the ‘misery loves company’ crowd.

As a straight dude and an adult, I would have no problem sharing a room with a gay dude. If something he was doing made me uncomfortable, I would tell him and politely ask him to stop. After that, it goes up the chain just like any other work conflict.

Shack. I personally think the government should be kept out of marriage contracts. I do think it is fully appropriate for the government to grant a Domestic Partnership License or to certify a Domestic Partnership Contract between any consenting adults who wish to form a government recognized family. Marriage, on the other hand, is a thing of religion. Allow the religions to define marriage as the wish and perform marriages under that construct. In some religions it could be the standard nuclear family. In others, it could be the aforementioned four brothers. My real fear is that social changes, which result in government/political changes, will then result in the persecution of religions who hold to traditional beliefs and political pressure to change them. I say keep government and religion separate and let individual citizens choose the religion they wish to be a part of, along with its standards.

I might have said something to him in private. I have a real problem with being corrected for the position of my sunglasses in public, so I think I would give him that respect.

You make a good point. I'm thinking 3-5 years before marriage is further redefined to include plurality. After all, there are many existing plural relationships that are not currently provided equal protection and benefits under the law. They would be if legitimized through contractual marriage. ETA: Bonus, it is even biblical.

Here's a crazy idea...maybe AFPC should consider adjusting officer promotion rates based on AFSC to shape the force to what is needed.

Doubt it, the same reason a dude wouldn't want to report it ("I wasn't strong enough to stop it") is why it wouldn't play well in the media. Men getting raped in the American mind is associated with prison "bitches." Counter to that women getting raped plays into the inability of men to protect our women. The lack of media attention has more to do with ratings and attention than any political agenda in my estimation. I tend to think the media is less of a political mastermind and more of an attention whore.

This doesn't further the agenda of the left, therefore it's not what gets the most attention. Pretty simple really.

The key is the last part of my statement "and that they can say and do whatever they want because of that belief." One of my coworkers told me that it was against his religious beliefs for women to be in the workplace in general. As long as he doesn't target or disrespect women because of that belief, I've got no issues with it. Personally, I enjoy having dual-incomes, I like that my wife has goals and a career, I enjoy being able to buy nice things. That doesn't work for everyone. The point is, I'm not going to treat anyone I work with differently because of their own personal beliefs, on anything. Where I draw the line is with people that DO play grab ass and make harassing comments because they don't feel that their female co-workers are their equal, and/or don't belong. I'm sure most of the people on this board have seen that at some point in their career. Not wanting women in combat roles is perfectly fine, so long as you don't treat women like shit because of that belief. Most people have no problem handling that balance. Some don't, and those people make life a lot harder for everyone.

I think by the end of this week it won't make much of a difference--my money is going on that SCOTUS will strike down DOMA as unConstituional. Huggy'a argument about dead people is a foolish one (hard to have a relationship with a person who is not a person)...but the argument about multiple wives, marrying your siblings, etc still stands as a valid argument. IMO the church and whatever non-govt organization that is allowed to perform marriages should get out of the contract business and the State should get out of marriage business. States should enforce legal contracts, regardless of what combination of people want to enter into the contract. After that we can get rid of all the silly 'benefits' rules that the State and Federal to govt extend to people who are in these contracts. That way people can 'marry' whoever they want, anybody can enter into legal contracts for whatever reason (ie sharing a bank account, child custody issues, etc), and then I don't have to pay to support or not support various different lifestyles, regardless of whether of not I agree with them. Problem solved.

It's been quoted before, "Liberty for Me, but not for Thee". I have no doubt that transgenders will be allowed to serve in 20-30 years, if not sooner. All it takes is a President and a majority of politicians willing to push an agenda, and there you have it--and then it's here to stay. I don't have a problem with gay folks serving but at the same time then I just don't understand why dudes/chicks can't bunk together downrange and why I can't date the enlisted finance chick. Oh well.

Reposted from the WTF thread...more appropriate here: I agree that his sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of anyone serving is irrelevant. The problem I have is how we not only identify, but glorify a group of people based on any "sexual" orientation, yet we seem to have a problem with "sexuality" of the heterosexual kind in the workplace in DoD. So, homosexuals come to work identifying themselves as "homosexual," we call it diversity and tolerance. If I, a flaming male lesbian, were to come to work bragging about how much I love women, they call it sexual harassment or inappropriate talk in the workplace. With all the news in the media today about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, why is anyone's "sexuality" being celebrated as if it is ok to say "I love cock" in the workplace. Gay people are (mostly) only identifiable because they tell you they are gay. Why is that ok, but it is not ok for me to celebrate my love of boobies by telling people at work?? THAT double standard is what I have a problem with....

Happy Friday everybody.