Leaderboard

You don't know what increasing the supply of fossil fuels from non-Russian suppliers would do to impact a military action that is being leveraged with the threat of cutting off natural gas supplies to Europe from Russia? You're a bit in the dark on this one

You really can’t figure out how Keystone factors into this situation and how we shot ourselves in the foot? As for NS2, you seem quite confused: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57180674 Not trying to be a prick but your reply indicates you have opinions without knowledge. Hate Trump all you want, he kept Russia in check when they tested him.

If you’ve got the apnea … the cpap is a life changer. if you’re just after the 50% … it’s got a long tail attached if you’re going to require an faa medical.

We're not a democracy, dude. We're a representative republic. You're advocating against the American system. That's fine, but you're advocating against the most successful system of government in the history of humanity in favor of a historically much less successful system. Evidence and history are not on your side. Of course there is somewhere that direct democracy can and often is implemented... The local level. Again, it's not a quirk of our system, it's the whole damn point. Our system was never designed for uniformity across the states, if that is almost exactly what Democrats are arguing for. And they do so as you have, without acknowledging the reality that you are arguing directly against the intended and established system of this country. Reading your post, it feels like you're explaining things as though we don't understand your perspective. But your perspective is centuries old. The people who started this country did so using a system that intentionally prevented exactly what your advocating for, because they had experienced exactly how catastrophic it can be. There's nothing unique about the principals of governing in 2022. What's changed in the modern world is that even smaller groups of people can exert disproportional influence on the government and thus pervert the will of majorities. And you would make that worse. Put simply, your advocating for rapid change while the founders did everything in their power to put a speed limit on change.

Do I know if he directed or gave approval to close Bagram...nope. Do I suspect he forced them to close the base...yup. Do I know if he was briefed on every part of the plan...nope. Do I suspect he and his political minions had their hands in it, of course, every administration does. Did he say we wouldn't leave Americans behind then lie and set the conditions and timeline for an expedited withdraw...Yup He is the Commander in Chief...not a SINGLE Person has been fired or held accountable for the loss of those 13 Marines.

The solution to a lack of moderation is not to reward a lack of moderation. It's very easy to win 51% of the Senate. It's a lot harder to win 60%, and damn near impossible to win 67%. 75% would take a massive societal shift. Those are good thresholds for the types of changes that requires those thresholds. Our system was literally founded by people who were terrified of mob rule. I'm perpetually amazed by how many people, who like all humans dislike change in their own lives, seem oblivious to the dangers of minimally-supported change. Shortsightedness is the hallmark of liberal thought. Some of the most consequential legislation in history made it past the filibuster, but you think the problems we face today are higher-stakes? That's the second hallmark of liberal thought: every issue is the-most-significant-challenge-we've-ever-faced. But it's all lies. Cynical politicians (who know they are presiding over a fair and functioning society) are manufacturing fear and outrage to fuel their vanity and power. There's no money in peace. And they are going to cause a regression that's going to hurt people while they skitter off to the shadows like the cockroaches they are.

I should have been more precise, "MY" gains have been wiped out (too much tech), or were wiped out until the bounce back on Friday. That being said is your "believe what you want on the other points" a hand waive at the other issues? I choose to believe Biden completely screwed the Afghanistan Withdraw, I guess you disagree. I choose to believe Biden and his massive government plans have caused inflation, I guess you disagree. I choose to believe that Biden stood in front of a camera during the campaign and said "I am going to shutdown the virus." He also said of the pandemic "I am going to end this. Finally, during the last Presidential debate he said "anyone who is responsible for that many deaths should not remain as president of the United States of America." This clown now has MORE deaths during his term than Trump did. I guess you choose not to believe those facts. I don't want a war with Russia and yes it is a very complicated situation that has a long history including a security promise made by the United States if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. I don't know if Trump would have defended Ukraine (from his recent statements saying it is a Europe problem probably not). Regardless, Biden's diminished mental capacity and continued word scramble makes him and us look weak. Good look up his "small incursion" comments...to me it sure sounded like a green light to Putin. Before taking office Biden announced he would end Trump's tariffs on China, and aide had to walk those comments back. Yes I know it is a complicated situation but the mixed messages...When Biden took office he immediately suspended a planned arms sale to Taiwan (and other countries as you are aware). At that point China started ever increasing incursions into Taiwan's airspace. Those incursions are not weekly with large force presentations of 40-50 aircraft strike groups. It took Biden until August to "re-approve" the paused sale. So yes I choose to believe China is doing whatever they want thanks to us looking weak. I choose to believe Biden campaigned on bringing the country back together...he said it multiple times. Looking beyond the record number of Executive Orders he signed. He also has supported ending the filibuster, he opened the borders and has secret flights dumping ILLEGALS into our cities every night, and has supported a lot of far left proposals. Sorry but I choose to believe that is NOT bringing us back together and governing from the middle. I choose to believe he has NOT re-established America on the world stage as he promised. Also, when he calls a reporter a "stupid son of a bitch" I don't think that is restoring dignity to the office of the President. Again, Trump is an ass, a horrible person, but I don't see how the haters simply hand waive the lies, mental decline and failure that is Biden the meat puppet.

I'm considering emailing the address in that link just to confirm I actually need to go since I've already done MFS. I too will post that info if/when I get a response.

Just a final round-up to respond and then I'll let it rest from my end at least. BLUF wall of text, feel free to keep on scrolling. 🇺🇸 Ending the Filibuster in the Senate Ending the filibuster in the Senate is not a recently-held view of mine, and it's derived from the inability of the majority to govern, which to me is anti-democratic (small d democratic). Both parties (or any party or political group!), when being freely and fairly elected by a majority of voters, should have the ability to govern and deliver on the platforms they ran on. As a basic principle, a majority of voters should translate to a majority of elected officials should translate to the power to govern; the U.S. has a variety of systems that thwart that basic premise and I think most of them should change. If I could wave a magic wand I would make the Senate proportionally representative like the House or dramatically reduce its power, I would uncap the size of the House of Representatives, do away with the electoral college, and end lifetime appointment to SCOTUS in favor of 18 year terms that rotate on a predictable and fixed timetable. I would also make voter registration automatic and generally implement measures that make it easier for eligible voters to exercise that right. I'd experiment with with multi-member districts, state-wide proportional representation rather than geographic districts, preference voting and/or ranked choice voting, etc. All to the end of making our political system more small-d democratic and responsive to the voters. Little of that is probably ever gonna happen, but that's where I stand - small d democratic reforms are both good and necessary. Why Would Any Legislator Vote Against Their Party? There absolutely is incentive for the majority party to get minority party members on board. This is observable in many other countries and in previous political eras here at home. Going with regular majority rule also allows more elected leaders to vote their conscious and the will of their constituents rather than getting shoehorned into always feeling pressured to support the national party and powerful leaders legislative leaders like the Speaker and Majority Leader. Few people want to be the deciding vote to kill something the majority of their party supports (a la McCain or Manchin), but if the dam has already broken and the bill is passing anyways, you paradoxically see less strident partisanship and more crossover voting. "Selling" your potential yes vote, even if the majority doesn't strictly need it, for specific policy concessions often works! Even large majorities want to be bigger and more robust and to look more bipartisan. You see this today mostly on federal judicial appointments precisely because the majority rules and the filibuster isn't in play - opposition members will vote to confirm even if they would not have picked that person because they are going to get confirmed anyways. Legislators like to jump on the team and come on in for the big win as the good Colonel says. Gorsuch got three Dem votes despite the Dems really believing that seat was stolen due to Garland not getting a hearing...because he was getting confirmed anyways. If that vote was subject to a filibuster (and it was at first!) Gorsuch was not getting 60 votes, and even after McConnell changed the rules for SCOTUS to seat him, three Democrats still voted to confirm him! True bipartisanship at work! Collins voted against Coney Barrett because her vote was not deciding one way or the other, freeing her up to exhibit a bit of bipartisanship that's important to her image (or vote her conscious depending on how cynical you are). Sotomayor got nine GOP votes and Kagan got five, because they were clearly getting confirmed by the large Dem majorities anyways. Other Random Issues The House of Lords in the UK is pretty complicated but only a small number of its current members (~12%) are hereditary peers. The biggest change took place in 1999 under Blair and more reforms are ongoing. Learn about it here. I can confirm I have read some of the Federalist Papers and subsequent scholarship about them and our primary founding documents. Social science major in college so that was kind of a requirement. Big fan overall with some caveats. At the time I 100% would have been a Federalist compared to what their political opponents wanted to enact. That being said, political systems are not set in stone nor should they be. Modern problems require modern solutions. I'm also probably not as "radical left liberal" as some of y'all probably imagine. I'm more of a neoliberal third-way person that can be convinced to support more leftward policies depending on the details. I believe a strong national defense is paramount (plus it puts food on my table haha!), capitalism is great and the best human system we've come up with so far for advancing technology and eliminating poverty, and I'm frustrated by some of the uber-woke folks on the left pushing losing narratives and policies. I go to church, own guns, send my kid to a private (religious) school and I kill people for a living. If anyone wants to talk big-picture political systems or reform I'd love to offline sometime - I enjoy that more than the horserace and/or the discourse on cable/twitter the older I get. Cheers 🍻

I am sorry but that is just insanity to contemplate, I don't want either side to have that much power. I presume you've read the Constitution, have you read the Federalist Papers? I am not a scholar but from my fumbling attempts to read and understand there is an major theme that pops out. The Framers wanted compromise, discussion, debate and consensus. I dare say the vast majority of folks on here and in both parties are not full on extremists, but the current political environment has both sides trying to rule from the extreme. I am a Republican but I believe in Gay marriage and abortion (yes it is horrific but I will never try to tell a woman what she can do with her body), and many social causes. I don't want the AOC and Bernie Sanders wack jobs passing Marxist policies and I don't want the right wing religious zealots trying to force everyone to attend church and rule by the bible. I completely disagree with Trumps call to end the Filibuster, just like I think it was a HUGE mistake for Harry Reid to invoke the nuclear option. As much as I disliked Clinton I give him great credit for reaching across the aisle to work with Newt Gingrich to pass legislation in the middle. Same with Ronald Reagan and Tip O'neil...neither side fully one and neither side fully lost. Ending the Filibuster is poison if we ever want to get back to the middle in this country.

I cant, in recent memory, recall Republicans threatening to end the filibuster. Regardless, as a centrist, my interest is to keep it. I would not approve of it if either party eliminated it. And people who argue to get rid of it tend to be short sighted. When removing it effectively loses elections for you and the other party takes over, how much will you enjoy having their agenda rammed down your throat? Whats the point of passing laws if they will just go away in 2-4 years? The filibuster is an excellent mechanism to ensure laws that are passed are sustainable and won't simply be overturned every time a new party is popular.

13 dead Marines and a hand waive of both responsibility and compassion by some on this forum. Whatever you think about staying or leave Afghanistan what happened was an absolute abortion and lays squarely at the feet of the Commander in Chief.

After you sign the RIP, your UTM will send it up. Then you'll get an email from AETC saying your LOA has been preloaded into DTS. Then you can accomplish your DTS authorization. You should also get an email from the MFS POC with the instructions. I got mine 9 days from my scheduled physical. My MFS was just moved from this Thursday to next Monday due to the inclement weather rolling in.

When you’re talking about supplying a continent, transportation is absolutely a much bigger issue than production. The infrastructure for export on that scale by ship to Europe has never existed in the United States and likely will not ever exist, unless/until Russian and Middle Eastern oil cease to be available and/or oil prices rise, irreversibly, to a level that those multi-billion dollar investments make sense. You really can turn production off and on rapidly to respond to the market (think Midland/Odessa TX over the last 12 years). Cap the well, ship your leased equipment back to some about-to-be-bankrupt equipment yard, pay a guy to keep people away, and tell your contractors to go work at Home Depot. Everything will still be there when the prices rise again. When you build ships and filling infrastructure for them you’d better be damn sure they’ll be useful and profitable in the long term. If they’re not working at or near capacity, they’re not paying for themselves; if there’s zero throughput, they’re expensive, broken monuments to optimism. We’re exporting primarily to Mexico and Canada not because they’re our best friends, but because there isn’t an ocean of costs (and risk) between producer and consumer. For reference, US exports to the waterborne market have been hitting historic highs year over year for the past half decade, but there’s simply no way to “turn the spigot” to create that infrastructure. (Almost exclusively located on the gulf coast.) It’s reactive to the market, which doesn’t support hundreds of billions of dollars of overhead at current oil prices. US oil tends to be more expensive because of the extraction methods required for large portions of it (something at which we’re still truly world-beating), so expecting that infrastructure to materialize out of the kind hearts of corporations in the very short term would simply price US oil out of the market when Russia’s/(country x’s) pipelines turn on again and the market normalizes. That said (and not saying this in response to anybody’s posts in particular), opposition to domestic pipelines is insane. The product is going to be sent. The nice thing about using pipes is that the product never derails and crashes through buildings or school busses. On the whole, way more environmentally and economically friendly. I’ve got pipes in my house. Work great. The way we replace Russian oil in Europe… that’s a doosie. Break economics? It just isn’t going to happen until Russian oil becomes proportionally more expensive to extract than it is for us to ship. Or! Lay pipe across the Atlantic… no, guys, not the way aircrew usually do.

“Most successful airlift in history” Bro. Get with the narrative. Also the 3rd time in History we’ve used the CRAF. And don’t forget every well thought out plan involves activating the Global Reaction Brigade as a primary plan of action. That’s not State getting in over it’s head and hitting the, “F it! DOD activate!” Button because they dropped the ball. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If only the founding fathers had created a mechanism in which we could continually redefine what was considered constitutional... Also, if you think there's some sacred etched-in-stone tradition regarding balance and proportionality, I recommend you read up on the Apportionment Act(s). Here's a good place to start. I doubt the founder fathers mean for a Wyoming vote to have more weight than a California vote. Or for wild gerrymandering from anyone. But here we are.

It was an externally funded LOA. If I hear a reason for the canx, I’ll pass it on here for sure.

So you would like to go directly against the constitution and the deliberate balance of a not-proportional chamber. Noted.

Just so I understand you correctly… You’re saying that the Dems/progressives would support the GOP getting rid of the filibuster in 2025 if the GOP has the House, the Senate, and the Presidency? Or are you just saying that you would support ending the filibuster in 2025 in the above scenario? There’s obviously nothing Constitutionally wrong with ending the filibuster, and if it happened, then so be it. But I think it will be funny when the party (who currently desires to end it) will be upset when the other party uses the same tactics to get their way. We definitely shall see.

So why didn’t the conservatives/GOP change the filibuster rules in the recent past to get bills passed on a simple majority vote?

That's not true. The filibuster serves am important role to keep bipartisanship. Progressives want to get rid of it so they can ram down a far left agenda while they hold government without any obstacles. The moderate and more experienced democrats know that is a double edged sword. Those reforms would only last as long as the Democrats hold government and then in possibly 4 to 8 years the country would be yo-yo'd the other direction when Republicans did the exact same thing. The majority of Americans sit closer to the middle than the extremes. While an accident to start, the filibuster ended fulfilling an important role of keeping policy centrist or focused on compromise. There are very moderate republicans in Senate. If Democrats can't get 9 of them to cross the isle they are trying to pass an agenda that is too extreme and need to come back to the center.

Good read. The “Ukraine isn’t willing to fight” naysayers would do well to note Ukrainian successes against superior Russian forces in Donetsk in 2014/15. Also an excellent discussion advocating for strong US leadership and implications far beyond Ukraine if we abdicate our position as a global leader.

I have the early 90's Orchard issue A-2. Like an earlier poster, I passed on the original tan "vinyl-y" first vendor. I was able to pick mine off the rack at supply, and found one with a rich dark brown leather (there was a lot of color variation). I had the usual mods done by Pop's at Incirlik. It was unwearable without those mods, IMO especially the side-entry pockets. Then, it sat in my closet for almost 30 years until.. now. I never liked the "Top Gun wannabe" look of wearing an issue jacket in public, but I took the velcro completely off, and now it looks better without, having aged a bit. I'm going to work on the shape with a little careful wetting and heat gun to relax the button-down look of the collar, but I've been wearing it a lot recently, although on CA the jacket season is short.

CZ - “If you want mentorship from a future general officer, come by my office…” Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

A dude in my SWA new hire class (former AF pilot) did a year at SWA, leave SWA for American hated it and is now trying to get back to SWA. All goes to show you that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Compared to AD any airline is better. My best advice is whatever you do, live in base. Commuting sucks. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

It’s sniffles and coughs now. It’s all a clownshow now - all this mask business. Everyone just making shit up like an elementary school game when for most people, covid is not a factor, never was a factor, and is sufficiently protected against - also - it’s their choice to do as they see fit for their OWN protection. Clownshow Example: Amex lounge DFW…. Get a whole warning from front desk about the rise in cases (not deaths) from the all powerful OMICRON, and how I need to wear a mask bla bla bla. If you’re eating (have a plate of food on your table)…. No hassle from the employee being the gestapo looking for violators when you don’t wear a mask. BUT! If you don’t have a plate of food, but are instead holding a cup of coffee and taking sips while talking to your group of people surrounding your table….. you get hassled for not wearing a mask and told to wear it and replace it between sips of said liquid. Zero sense. Zero critical thought. 100% clownshow, sheep, fear. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

RINO? Because they didn't support the unbelievably stupid election protest? I'm not as confident with Haley since she's been out of the spotlight for a while, but why do you consider Crenshaw not-conservative? Unless you mean RINO literally, which I consider a good thing. Last I checked, the Republican party has been a disgrace for decades, at least starting with Bush. They've been almost as pro illegal immigration as the Democrats have, minus publicly voicing that opinion. They've been weak dicks on foreign policy, when they had a chance to do something about Obamacare they shit the bed. And it would be absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so tragic how they completely abandoned fiscal responsibility almost immediately after the tea party revolution. It's not just the Democratic party that has to go through an reckoning. Republicans have confused supporting capitalism with enabling billionaire-led multinational corporations that are completely in bed with the Democratic party, simply because they are "business." But their business has been outsourcing jobs to other countries, and almost single-handedly funding all of the radical movements that are decimating our social fabric today. They have presided as the champions of capitalism over the most disgusting distortion of free market ideals in my lifetime, culminating in a pandemic, where for no reason whatsoever, the jobs and activities of the underclass were deemed non-essential, while nearly every single upper class pursuit was enabled and funded. They printed 6 trillion dollars and almost exclusively distributed it to the richest Americans, triggering an inflation wave which is going to devastate the minimal savings of the bottom half while the rich ride the speculative asset bubble to the Moon. Don't worry though, just like in 2008 they'll find a way to sell all of their nonsense holdings before the crash. The Fed will ensure they have enough time to do so by propping up the market until only us silly retail investors are left in play. So who exactly are the Republicans again? And don't give me some obscure Representatives on their first or second term, if the leadership structure of the party aren't "true Republicans" then there's no such thing at all. Exactly how have the top brass of the party acted as true conservatives while Crenshaw has not?

Don't Look Up was fine. You're just falling into the traps of critics. They're bandwaggoning the hate and I don't know why. In the tone of Jen Lawrence, What the Fuck Is Wrong With You???? I loved the lampooning of billionaires. I loved byline of the gaslighting politics. They didn't preach to you, they just tried to reveal the absurdity of politicians and gazillionaires. Don't skip it. You will thank someone, especially when you think, "we can't be this stupid, can we?"

How convenient you forgot this gem from 2012. "The 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back," Obama said, seeking to paint Romney as out of touch on a key foreign policy issue. Russia annexed Crimea less than two years after this comment.

No they can specialize. They can specialize in night 1 SEAD, DCA, etc.... I don't care if they specialize but theyre going to specialize in the shit that cost casualties and money, not flying around uncontested and won battlespace delivering an occasional JDAM. This is their country. If they aren't willing to die for it why should I be?

Embrace the us vs them; You are trying way too hard to make everything Biden’s fault. A potentially coherent argument started falling off the tracks as soon as you tried to pin inflation purely on the Biden admin. Last time I checked, the highest amount of quantitative easing ever along with the highest unemployment rate in recent history occurred in 2020. Oh, and the first President to give out economic stimulus checks… And supporting the filibuster is inane. There are actually no coherent reasons for it - it entirely “cheats” the planned way government legislation is supposed to work and forces supermajorities when they never were supposed to be required. The only argument is “hurr, durr, it’s been this way for a while.” Oh, and it typically helps conservatives more than liberals.

The mark of an educated man that is confident in his beliefs.