Leaderboard

We need to find this guys exec and have him expedite the signing!

You would understand conservatives better, and why they seem to support indefensible people, if you would consider more that it is about fairness than the actual positions. Conservatives have now watched liberals jump all over the first instance of conservative rioting in modern American history, after openly cheering the wide scale destruction of several American cities, to include many federal institutions, during rioting that falsely portrayed America as racist. This is after liberals spent years defending Hillary Clinton, but suddenly could not abide the idea of a president enriching their family. Cute. Or maybe the hilarity of going after Donald Trump for having classified documents in his basement (remember that scandal that went nowhere?), again after down playing Hillary's bathroom email server. I remember when Jeb Bush's daughter was in the news for drug abuse, but don't you dare talk about Hunter Biden and his drug fueled, underage prostitute, illegal firearms, international money laundering schemes. He's not the president! Conservatives are somehow silently condoning the rare-but-highly-covered school shootings by supporting the constitutional right to bear arms, yet if you bring up that thousands of black teens and young men are killed every year in gang violence, mostly in liberal strongholds, somehow that's... racist? Black lives matter indeed. Or perhaps it was Alexandria Ocasio Cortez at the border in her white dress decrying the evil Republicans for... Barack Obama's chain link Mexican children cages. But when the border crisis explodes under their watch, you're just being xenophobic. And when Trump era immigration policies are reinstated, no no, it's different this time, this is a Democratic triumph. See, we defend the border! https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg People, like most other animals, will do irrational things when they feel they are being treated unfairly. It is the bedrock of our system, the entire basis for our founding, and inconveniently, detestable to most politicians and activists. At some point in my lifetime, Democrats (politicians, activists, and academics, not liberal voters) decided they would be explicit in their willingness to abandon fairness in pursuit of their societal goals. What we are seeing is the predictable response.

A super quick response!

Latest update from the portal: "Staffing on the PSDM is complete and it is currently with our Directorate Chief for final approval. As soon as I get the final approval, I will get it sent out to commanders/MPFs via myPers Secure. No exact date/time other than ASAP once approved. I'll post a note here on the portal once it goes out."

I posted in the UFT Board AFPC page asking if there was any update. Hopefully we'll get some more details soon!!

That's cool. I'm not fixing or editing anything, but thanks for the threat. You gunna jump through the internet and choke me if I don't censer my words? Here I though helo guys had thick skin... Glad to know you were there in the 1700s, that must have been cool. By the way, they routinely drilled with their weapons, fully understood the concept of military hierarchy, came to duty when called, and were infinitely more disciplined (when needed) than we are today. They were also basically farmers with pitchforks...and cannons...yes, CANNONS. Imagine Jim-bob in Kansas having a fully operational 155 howitzer hanging out in his barn. Historically, that's actually a pretty close technological equivalent. What's more, they built many of their own weapons and their own ammunition. They also drank. A LOT. Don't go cherry picking comparisons. Full context is key. I feel confident in my assumption that the authors used "well regulated" intentionally because it could grown, expand, or contract as required with time and social requirement as needed. They understood that having some constantly drunk dude rolling up with his arsenal was not helpful to the fight. Discipline then, as it is now, was highly important. No doubt, they had their well armed "a Florida man" who did what he wanted, and the framers intentionally didn't want to empower that asshat. My point is not that the government or some other central agency should regulate our militia capable citizens. Rather, that our citizens should adhere to a high standard if they intend to own weapons. Modern day suburban Karen, who owns a baby Kimber .45 that she carries with one in the chamber at the bottom of her purse while she never practices, maintains, or even fires it, and still shouts about her second amendment rights, is being violently arrogant. A right is a responsibility, not an entitlement. Too many 2nd amendment thumpers forget that there is a first framing portion in that amendment's text, and they tend give responsible gun owners a bad name. We the people are supposed to be disciplined, regulated, responsible, and good stewards of the rights and freedoms purchased with blood that we didn't have to spill. Cherry picking rights and omitting framing text in the guidance passed by our forefathers is rather childish. If you're going to pick up a weapon and claim it as an American Right...which it is...you must pick up the responsibility that goes along with it. A 'well regulated militia" implies going way beyond defending my personally property, and asserts that that I am willing to subordinate myself and my armed capacity into a military structure for the purpose of defending my state or country. Sadly, that's taking critical thinking and analysis of our constitution WAY farther than most drunk airline pilots are willing to intellectually go. More unfortunately, educating people into being responsible is damn near impossible, but I'll keep trying. Out of curiosity, how would you have me edit my statement? All I did was quote the a constitutional amendment. What triggered you? So we're clear, here's the full text of the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." For the millennials: TLDR - If you own a gun, you're supposed to be responsible and proficient with it. It's not just for defending yourself or your own interests, it's for defeating tyranny and defending your country if so needed. Many abuse that right and it pisses me off. Governments should be afraid of, and work for, their people, not the other way around.

Post American Revolutionary era draw-down led directly to the White House getting burned. Post WWI draw down heavily contributed to an over-populated workforce and helped make the great depression even greater Post Korea draw down coupled with the idea that all future wars would be nuclear lead to an entire series of weapons (century series aircraft) that were completely inappropriate and miss-matched for the real-world wars that were clearly on the horizon. Post Vietnam draw-down lead to a completely hollow force (literally we parked airplanes with no engines in them to make it look like we had more than we really did). We got lucky that the 70s and 80s weren't more turbulant, and we got really lucky that Reagan revived our military instrument of power before it was needed. That's just American history. Ask Germany, Japan, Spain, and France what happens when you let others do your fighting for you. No-one cares as much about you as you do. Pretending we can pay others to fight our battles from here on out is an easy trap to fall into, and has NEVER historically worked in the long term. I am not advocated maintaining our military as is. I AM advocated for a right sized and CORRECTLY ORIENTED force (an expeditionary capable deterrent force able to hit hard and get out fast against a near peer. We can and should not be an occupying force.

Lmao, not my intent! Just putting the good vibes out there!

Dude! Don’t scare me like that lol

Hopefuly they at least post an update on the portal today 🙏

It's showtime... well hopefully lol.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/eyewitnesses-record-unknown-object-flying-across-the-sky-in-san-antonio-and-hondo/ar-AA165BD1

Unfortunate, I know...but I like your style Duck, you can never go wrong by doing what you can to take care of your people.

Orders were dated 29 March 2022, MFS was beginning of March, IFT at the end of April to the end of May, PCS'd mid-October. The 4 months between end of IFT before the PCS from the losing unit were a little chaotic...fully expect productivity in your current AFSC to drop off to 0

100%. No matter how much we've given Ukraine, it's a fraction of our annual DoD budget. We are witnessing the wholesale destruction of a near-peer's military capability with zero US lives spent. It would be a bargain at twice the price.

Nah, I dislike DT a lot, but also find this guy to be detestable. Instead of effective governance, he’s interested in self promotion and finally found a gravy train he can ride that doesn’t require any real conviction.

Someone please explain to me how it could possibly be in the best interest of the United States to not give Ukraine really significant military assistance. They are killing Russians and blowing up their stuff. Russia is one of our two near-peer adversaries. The one that is run by a crazy man. What’s the point of being in NATO if just fold our arms and say ‘not our problem, we need the money for dish washer rebates and drag queen shows’. Yes, I know that Ukraine isn’t a member, but all their neighbors are. What will we do if we see Putin dancing down main street Kyiv while the FSB is going door to door kidnapping kids and sending Mom and Dad to Siberia? And why are Republicans suddenly whining about defense spending? Are we now in bizzaro world?

I was on the AD board last year and got a slot from the 2022 board - I think I heard around the 8th of Jan. Best of luck to you all! Let me know if you have any questions about the timeline or process. It moves pretty quick for current AD members

I also love when idiots use “well regulated” in an argument for gun control not understanding the etymology of the phrase in its meaning. “In good order and supply” is hardly what they think it is and they are shocked to discover that by that requirement we should literally be buying people guns and ammo in order to effect that government sponsored training. When the due hards continue to argue “that’s not what regulated means!” I have to remind them I’ve been in several different Army Brigades where the logistics/quartermaster elements of the Brigade Support Battalion were named “regulators,” for that very literal translation of the word. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it means anything, a couple guys in my squadron that got picked up last year that didn't go to IFT PCS'ed around August/September

Thanks again, and yes please! If anyone did, I'd appreciate the info. Late 2023 makes sense, but just trying to project the likelihood of getting moved up due to no IFT. I'm actually hoping it does not, as I have some major life events this summer, but just trying to forecast, and I'm sure many selects will also already have their PPL. I'm glad to hear that AFPC was flexible with the MFS though. I'm already at Wright-Patt, so hopefully they can get me in ASAP.

They ended up giving me an original MFS date that didn’t work with short notice schedules/flights coming from overseas. I reached out to AFPC and requested some flexibility - they were really willing to work with scheduling to get things shifted around to accommodate life events, travel and leave en route within a couple days of the request. Not sure on the timeline for those who didn’t need to go through IFT. Based on the results and timeline from last year, I suspect you’d hit MFS in March/April, then wait for orders to shake down for your PCS late 2023. Pure speculation, but I can ask around our class and ask if there’s anything else to pass along for those circumventing IFT and if there’s any left shift to UPT RNLTD.

But you ignored my statement about supporting the Switzerland model of gun ownership. I have no problem with gun ownership. But in America we have no incentive to make it safe.

Thanks for the info! Did you pick your MFS date or did they assign it? Was it the earliest you could or did you delay it for any reason? Also, did you hear of the timelines for anyone who did not need to go to IFT?

So, very much what @brabus said. If they advertise a limit, it might not be worth your efforts to head out, as time is not your friend and you should focus your energy where it'll have the greatest effect...with squadrons that will be fine with Centrum Silver. Secondly, in regards to your interview and the jaws dropping about your age, best course of action is to EXPECT that and practice your response to why your age is an ASSET, not a hinderance. You certainly don't want to hide your age, but there should also be quite a few examples and supporting lines for how your greater life experiences through time on the planet will help you overcome obstacles, interact with others, etc. It's not a bug; it's a feature. Third, being old usually comes with extra entanglements that young folks don't have. You might have a sig other/kiddos that add to the expense or just general struggles with PCS-ing between schools, spending time studying, staying focused if they don't enjoy life/can't find employment in the middle of nowhere UPT bases are located, etc. You may be single and have no attachments, but you'll also have probably made more money/accumulated more expenses that can be tough to swing on a 2Lt salary; you wouldn't be the first to be "shocked" at how little military pay is. You may also not be as keen about getting berated at OTS or at UPT after a shitty sortie. It's not the easiest for many folks to swallow getting crushed by someone that may be 6-9 years your junior that never lived life outside of the military. The elderly are less keen to play the game and just shut up and color. Lastly, realize that a main reason many do not want to process a waiver is that it's extra work that they don't have to do if they go with a younger candidate. It's a lot of paperwork, explanations, and risk that, if you bomb out, the hiring board/squadron could be beat over the head with. "See, we did all that work and they failed out or quit." At the very least, it's a lot of paperwork to push a waiver (called an ETP), so you can certainly help your cause by figuring out what that paperwork is and promising the squadron you will do everything in your power to help complete it and push it along. Most people don't want extra work, so if you can show you're willing to minimize the extra work required to push an age waiver, then you'll help them feel a lot better about considering someone requiring one. Good luck!

A hero!

Many events far worse than Sandy Hook have happened in America for hundreds of years with firearms involved, at the hands of the US govt and military. Ooof, history is a real inconvenient thing for the anti-2A crowd. The problem is that crowd is generally very ignorant of history, emotional instead of logical, and for some reason has a completely baseless, yet steadfast, trust in the govt (see first problem listed). Completely agree, with the exception of your “many abuse” statement. No, I don’t believe many do, just the occasional dumbasses you remember more. Kind of like how your “average drive” in golf is 290 yds, but really it’s probably about 69; you’re just selectively remembering the ones that “stand out” and that’s what your perception is built upon subconsciously. Same comment as above. I know you can point to stories of jackasses with firearms, but it’s incredibly insignificant numbers. Less than 500 people die per year in the US due to accidental gun events. That number means nothing in the grand scheme of things, especially when we’re talking about constitutionally protected rights.

Isn’t in the US where the left gets really upset for police shooting unarmed people?

If the squadron says no age waivers over X, and you’re over X, then not worth your time to visit. But, if < X, or they invite you to come out, definitely go visit. Not saying you should advertise “old age” in conversation unprompted, but your birthdate has to be somewhere in the packet, right? I don’t know how a board interviewed you with zero clue on your age.

He got me too [emoji1] Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

I've watched some videos about gun ownership in Switzerland. I think the U.S. could really learn a lot from them. Of course a lot of that is based in mandatory military service for everyone, but gun ownership is seen as a tremendous responsibility. Lots of people are simply reckless with firearms.

Solid point. The crowd was dovish and peaceful and .gov were the extremists that day. Oh, but one question. Are we considering the bombs in this calculus, or just the guns? I mean, yeah, they were too stupid to set an egg timer properly (not surprising given the demographic), but does that mean we put it on the scoreboard as a zero? Not so sure. Maybe we should rope in some other opinions on this one? FTFY. Seek help.

Agreed. Jan 6th showed that the .gov is indeed scared of the people. And the only guns fired in anger that day were by the government. And Adam Kinzinger donated to the pig who murdered Babbitt. There’s a special place in hell for his breed.

Nah not triggered, just initially disappointed, and it wasn't a threat—wonder why you would suggest that it was? As for “just quoting the Constitution”…if you say so. Funny, it’s the same partial quote that those who want to erode gun rights use. I guess I assumed you were doing the same, my honest apology. As far as the high standard people should have when owning, carrying, using firearms…totally agree. I expect that everyone should have a high standard in everything they do in life. But if Karen wants to have a loaded pistol in her purse with “one in chamber” (I don’t know why anyone would carry a firearm for self defense without one in the chamber?), then that’s her right. If she uses her firearm inappropriately/to cause problems, then she can answer for it. But until then, carrying a firearm is still her right and it shouldn’t never be reduced or taken away. But back to Kinzinger…he’s a politician. He said what he had to say to get elected and now he’ll say what he has to say to stay relevant. Justin Amash can’t stand Trump either (he voted to impeach him the first time), but I believe he’s more so of an honest type politician (compared to most) as he still stands for what he has stood for in the past.

That's a fair point. From my view, we are actively in the process of giving the fight back to other people. My core point is that we need to be careful that we don't let that pendulum swing so far that we lose our ability to fight for our own interests. I could easily see our current 'leaders' doing just that, as none of them have a clue what it's like to serve something bigger than themselves, and more importantly, none of them appreciate the sacrifices that happened to get our country to where it is at the top of the heap.

I come from a gun family, though we were just casual target shooters with dad. Sandy Hook made me change a lot of what I think about the availability of guns generally. I find myself more in line with the left on guns now. But I recognize guns are the law of the land and I don’t have the votes to change it.

Wasn't sarcasm. A serious COA. Is it possible some of these border states know the best means of investment for their defense better than we do? Is it possible they could spend that money more effectively and wisely than we could? We gave Ukraine $21B and they have literally crumbled what we thought was our second largest conventional competitor. We are geographically the most secure country on the planet but have the largest standing army in history. We also have guaranteed our security through a massive nuclear enterprise. The vast majority of our forces are engaged to security commitments abroad. We can't reduce forces due to those commitments. We spend ~$700B on defense annually but ~$350B is actually spend on personnel cost, benefits, entitlements, salary, wages and insurance. People are the costliest asset in the DoD. We don't need 2 million people though to defend the US borders. We need that because of foreign commitments. And a smaller force would generally be overall healthier for our economy. Imagine reinvesting ~$350B annually back into the US economy, or approximately $1000/person, $4000/family. The average household income in the US is $70K/yr. That's a nearly 5% raise to buying power across the US population. It also puts the onus back on most of these other countries that they need to take more responsibility for their own security. I don't think it should be the job of US forces to hold the expectation to absorb the majority of casualties in foreign conflicts designed to protect other countries. I think back to McArthur's support for the South Koreans when he said we weren't there to fight the war for them, but to be their spine, knowing that the US was backing them was a major boost to confidence and morale that allowed them to be successful. Working in South Korea its very clear they feel responsible for their own defense. Working in Europe, its exactly the opposite. They largely believe it is the US's job to pick up the burden of defense and they will assist in support roles later in the conflict. (With the exception of France and the UK, who are pretty reliable and self sufficient.)

Takes one to know one

And oddly enough if Trump just had a better disposition we would be taking about the start of his 7th year and how he is one of the greatest. Instead we are trying to prop up a mannequin and hope no one notices he has on no clothes. I thought it would be insanely difficult to be a worse president than Carter. Biden surpassed that mark in the first year. Oh oh oh but Jan 6th…..

I believe his self-immolation in joining the Jan 6 committee demonstrates the opposite—extreme conviction. Perhaps made easier by getting redistrict-ed. But I find myself more impressed by his and Cheny’s efforts to hold Trump accountable as more genuine than the cowards like McCarthy that blow wherever the winds of power take them. Flame away.

Wow https://open.spotify.com/episode/406fOiiKMU0ot5AS1AIwve?si=_lSA-vKATgajvSWgis3uqg&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A4rOoJ6Egrf8K2IrywzwOMk

Probably daily. As a narcissist would.

I have no idea where to even begin with this? Have you ever worked in a targeting cell? Like..... no man, you don't need to listen to a JAG, it is your decision..... but if you have that mindset, don't cry when interpol takes you into custody on vacation in France because you committed a war crime... I don't know what to tell you, lol. Your attitude comes off as "my job would be a whole lot easier if I could just break the law to do it." I mean, no shit man, that's everyone. That's why we have the laws. Because when we don't people break them and do worse stuff just to make their job slightly more easy. Ask SBF, dude thought managing a $30B crypto fund was super easy without laws or lawyers....

Bro 😂 I thought you got news, you got me.

JAG friend. "Her take." Volumes right there. I'm not an INDOPACOM expert, sounds like you actually are, but the second you mentioned a JAG, I turned the volume down. I found that if you are in a shooting match, which we are not with INDOPACOM, but if you find yourself in one of those, the JAG is the furthermost concern from your mind. Honest question, when has a JAG ever produced any kind of execute value info? If one of your troops are in trouble all a JAG can do is offer you a laundry list of horseshit info that is highly invaluable. They can't tell you to do anything, all they can do is offer their advice. Which is a laundry list of horseshit info that your wing commander is going to tell you, no we're not going to do that. And the ADC pads their resume. JAGs love to get into ROE discussions. Because they are not accountable for people's lives. JAGs are some of the most useless creatures I've seen in the AF. Besides Navs and WSOs of course.

In light of that would it be better to reduce the DoD budget by half, fire half our force, and invest in efforts like this more so than maintaining the large standing force we conventionally use? Instead of participating in NATO at all why don't we withdrawal all troops from Europe and offer NATO say, $50B/year in subsidy, but 0 manpower or materiel unless it's through FMS or technology sales.