HeloDude

Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month also has nothing (repeat NOTHING) to do with defending the nation, killing people, or executing the mission...but yet you guys at the Pentagon have hard-on's for all these 'special' months. Now why is that? I'm sure if we got rid of those special months that the Air Force would move right along and execute its mission. And I'm sure (like you said) nobody would be talking it about 3 years from now...and do you know why? Because nobody talks about it now! It wastes resources, but yet, someone has to set up events, write a PA article about it, and promote the month. I know you're getting crapped on from just about everyone on here (including me) but I would appreciate a response to my questions in earlier posts. You're trying to explain the directive of the CSAF, and in doing so, I want to know if watching Seinfeld while pulling alert is allowed? If we can listen to FM radio at work (maybe during unit PT sessions) even though there are sexually offensive songs on the radio? Why can't guys sleep in the same pods with girls (non-married) downrange or use the same cadillacs? Why are bikini pictures, posters of girls with guns, etc considered offensive today and not last year? Was 90% of the General Officers knowingly and willingly supporting sexual harassment several years ago by allowing all this to happen?...even at the point of allowing AAFES to bring in NFL cheerleaders? Why is it not sexually offensive or inappropriate to allow service members to march in a civilian gay pride parade supported by the DoD? Why are the pictures RTB posted of girls in bikinis still available for view on a DoD website? By the way, the chick on the 6th picture looks pretty damn hot. Unless a brand new Lt or A1C was actively involved in a deployable unit (ops, mx, etc), that said new Lt/A1C would barely understand the gravity of the situation of that we're still at war and we have good dudes fighting downrange. 7-8 years ago that's mostly what CC calls were all about...now it's about all this other crap. In a lot of ways, you senior officers 'can't see the forest for the trees'.

Your post doesn't make much sense...but I welcome you to the forum anyway. I agree with you that Obama isn't doing too many things in line with the Libertarian philosophy (did I ever say that he was?), hence why my comment to/in response to Vertigo was 'tongue in cheek'. Vertigo is a Libertarian (I'm assuming he's honest when he says so), however, he is quick to jump on the GOP much more often than Obama and the Dems...and, drum roll please, the Dems run the federal executive branch! So they're the ones to bash right now at the federal level...just like Bush was the one to bash 5 years ago. At best the GOP can only stop (or at least try to) the Dems, so it's hard to bash the guys for their policies when they can't get any of their policies through. But yet, Vertigo rarely bashes Obama and Obamacare, the increased regulations, the gun control push by the Dems, etc. As a fellow Libertarian, I'll bash the GOP all day long when they're doing stupid shit. I bash them for reauthorizing the Patriot Act, not passing recent proposed restrictions on the NSA, still authorizing all the crazy spending in the House, etc. But right now the Dems are taking the cake...they saw how the GOP spent under Bush and decided to take it even further into crazy land. They're still hoping to get some more gun control through, and the Obamacare crap, well, I think that is self explanatory. Vertigo keeps us all on honest on here, and vice versa. If he wants to bash a certain news report, then that's fine--but he has to offer something substantive on the story itself and back up his opinions vs just giving an emotional response about where the story was reported. I think he gets where I was coming from.

Doesn't matter if they do...either way they'll call it an AR-15 (maybe they'll call it an AK-47 if they're feeling saucy).

I read M2's post and then the responses afterwards...and then had re-read M2's post again because I didn't catch it the first time. At the minimum she should send out a tweet stating that she made a mistake with the whole 'Houston' part. I'd actually be more concerned if the elite/Hollywood types weren't supporting the liberals (when compared to non-liberals/conservatives)--if so, I would wonder what secret squirrel games they were up to! Look at it this way...I'd be willing to bet that most people who really care what Molly Ringwald thinks are most likely going to vote for the Dems anyway.

"Vertigo", aka the Libertairan who almost always supports Obama. Had you had quoted from the Huffington Post, Vertigo wouldn't have questioned the source. Here's an idea Vertigo--the article quotes certain people saying certain things. Why don't you comment on the reputation of the guys quoted and/or the substance of their quote? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the retired Generals, but I'm also not just making a worthless response the the source of their quotes. Focus on substance not emotion.

You're damn skippy I want leadership...but I want to know why something was deemed acceptable last year and now it's not. I get these guys have to answer to political bosses, but the 'well, I was always a supporter of this no-sexual innuendos' blah blah blah...it's bullshit man. The senior officers knew that fighter guys said 'so to speak', 6.9 seconds, that a lot of us had pictures of NFL cheerleaders (that freakin' AAFES gave us) at our desks...and then one day they're all of a sudden sexual harassment?? So I was sexually harassing coworkers all those years and I didn't even know it? Why didn't somebody tell me this then? The military is ran by politicians, got it. Senior officers have to comply with what they are told by politicians or they will be replaced, got it, and same goes with the officers under the CSAF, and so on and so forth. But the senior officers do not have to blow smoke up your ass and act like they were always against things that went on in the AF while they were still in charge. Just give it to me straight...tell me WHY they were allowing something to occur last year, why all of a sudden the change this year, and where do we go from here. The senior officers want to curb motorcycle accidents but yet they haven't banned riding motorcycles...if banning something is the key to fixing a problem, then why not do it there? I don't own a motorcycle and my life is just fine. I get that the bikini pictures are out, got it. What else specifically is no longer allowed? Is showing somebody a clip from Family Guy on my phone allowed? If I'm pulling alert, are we allowed to watch Family Guy? What about Seinfeld?

So everything was wrong before the Gen's policy change and now everything is correct? Yes, that is a juvenile response, and it was on purpose. You ducked my entire question--if it was condoned before (even you said yourself that is was), then why wasn't Gen Swartz and a bunch of other senior officers fired? Why now? Girls were being harassed and assaulted earlier than just 1-2 years ago...why all of a sudden the change? I have a hard time believing that 90% of General officers thought an NFL cheerleader calendar at work added to the problem of sexual assault or believed that it was sexual harassment, but yet allowed it to continue for so long. It's not like any of this was a secret beforehand...hell, AAFES brought the cheerleaders to the base and would meet with the Wing Commanders! You're right...you mentioned 'work' and that's what it is becoming. It used to be a place of a close fraternity of warriors--guys and girls, working hard to achieve a mission and not spending time worrying about BS. It was a place where you didn't have to worry about re-telling the slightest joke that you heard on TV the other night. It was a place where guys and gals would tell stories at the squadron bar and make fun of each other (whether with a sexual innuendo or not) and it would foster camaraderie, morale, and communication in a less threatening environment. It was a place where people would pull pranks on each other to lighten the tough work and didn't have to worry about somebody being 'offended' because people knew it was in good fun and we cared about each other and knew where the line was. I don't think I need to go on, I think you get the idea. It's called incrementalism, General. You can say that it's just coffee mugs and posters, no big deal...but it is a step towards more. The below article is mentioned in a new thread, but just in case you missed it... https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/31/pentagon-training-manual-white-males-have-unfair-advantages/ And you didn't respond to my post from yesterday when I ask why you all still haven't enforced the tattoo policy all these years. Selective enforcement of the standards, depends on which way the politics is blowing. It's wrong to have a picture of a wife in a bathing suit (I'm sorry that offends you) but yet if it offends someone that DoD approved dudes in uniform to march in a gay pride parade next to dudes in drag, well then that's just their tough luck. I saw this hypocrisy with the repeal of DADT...we were told sexuality didn't matter anymore, that we were all professional enough to deal with the issue, but yet, a guy and a girl can not live in the same pod together downrange even though 2 gay guys/girls can, that I can't use the same cadillac as the women, but yet if a guy is uncomfortable with having a gay guy in the same cadillac as him, well then that's just tough luck. I don't envy the fact that senior officers have to deal with political bosses and answer to their ideology...but you know what, you guys asked for the job. Again, tell me which standards and regulations will and will not be enforced and I'll comply accordingly.

You guys at the top were fine with it a year ago...if it so offensive, then why didn't you all get fired for condoning it for so long? If you were at least just to say "We're doing it because that is what our civilian bosses are telling us to do", then I will respect you for telling it like it is. But when you guys jump on board all of the sudden, preach the talking points and then try to appear like you always believed in the new policy...well, it's disingenuous. And you if are being disingenuous with this issue, I question what else you are doing that is disingenuous. If you all are only a political yes man then please don't be upset when a bunch of yes men is what you get at the lower levels.

I want to be upset...but at the same time, I'm not that upset because I am not surprised that this is where the military is going. I could rant on and on about this, but for right now I'll just say again: I'm glad that I'm over the half way point. Let's see Liquid and 'leadership' try to spin this one. If they have the courage to discuss it, then at the very least their comments might be mildly entertaining.

Buds LE has SW MP-10 (.308) in stock for $979...damn, that is $100 cheaper than when some people bought theirs earlier this year. If I owned guns and already had one of these, then I'd be pretty tempted to buy one another one. https://www.budspolicesupply.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/15142

I personally find it offensive...especially if he doesn't buy me a drink afterwards.

The leadership is drawing the line...the same leadership that allowed us to have sexually offensive material a year ago before the standards changed. I'm upset that our leadership failed us up until recently, but now they've got it all figured out so I'm much happier!

Also...are we going to ban the radio at work? Not sure if you've tuned in recently to what the kids are listening to these days but it's fairly 'suggestive' to say the least, even on FM radio. What about the A1C in uniform stopped at the light on base with his windows down listening to some 'gangsta rap' with racist undertones and sexual offensive words'...and what if it is just the FM radio in general? Where is leadership going to draw the line? If leadership is going to send out memo's saying you can't say 'so to speak', then are they going to tell us what music is allowed on base? What about watching Seinfeld on network TV if you're pulling alert...a lot of 'sexually offensive' jokes on that old 90's sitcom. ...I have an idea, maybe we should all march in the gay pride parade in our uniform? (which was actually supported by DoD last summer) No big deal if we're in uniform walking next to people with sexually offensive outfits on, I mean hey, it's all about diversity! Leadership won't even enforce tattoo regulations, but yet they'll all jump at banning pictures of your wife in a bikini on your desk..."yes sir, yes sir...3 bag full". Just let me know what rules are going to be enforced and which ones won't be enforced and I'll act appropriately.

This...this right here. RTB, good on you man. The hypocrisy of leadership is so thick you can cut it with a knife. I'm sure Liquid will get right on having it removed...as it is sexually offensive to me that I may have to see this just in case I check out an Air Force PA site and come across this horrible picture.

Rog. Sorry man--good luck.

It's an Arsenal SLR-107FR at Atlantic Firearms for $990 (folding stock). https://www.atlanticfirearms.com/component/virtuemart/shipping-rifles/arsenal-slr-107fr-7-62x39mm-side-folding-rifle-detail.html?Itemid=0

Not married to another pilot, but having known folks that are, the biggest challenge will be getting the same airframe. If you don't both get KC-135's (for example) then it will be a challenge to get Join Spouse assignments at the same base. In UPT there were 2nd assignment Captains that were married during training...he got C-17's, she got A-10's. AFPC/assignments process got him C-17's to Charleston and she got A-10's to Pope--best they could do, and then of course they both got T-37's IP jobs to the same base. I also knew 2 H-1 pilots who were married and they had 3 assignments together before she got out...again, much easier when you have the same airframe. My personal opinion is that you have to determine both your #1 priorities--if it's to get the airframe both of you want (regardless of the other's desire) then it will be tough to live with each other unless you both want/receive the same airframe and it's one of the more 'common' aircraft dropped (KC-135's, C-17's, etc). Either way, you're rolling the dice as nothing in the AF is fair. If you're all about getting the same aircraft to increase the chances you will be stationed together, then I would definitely go T-1's (most common track select) and then chose one of the more common aircraft that is typically dropped to the folks at the bottom half of the class (I'm assuming it's a KC-135...no offense guys, just a rough numbers assumption here). I think it's smart to play the odds on this one if you want to live in the same location. As you can see, IMO, it's all about being able to live with each other...else, why bother getting married if you're in a constant long distance relationship? To make the join spouse program work in your favor then you have to give AFPC/UPT assignment folks the best numbers to work with. Good luck.

Your friend is not the type of voter the Dems are counting on during an election year. He is expendable.

Dude, are you new here or something? When the politicians get involved it's always a huge knee-jerk reaction that is taken to the extreme. Sexual harassment and assault was illegal 7 years ago, and yet we were allowed to have Maxim's on the desk, say 'so to speak' (which I think is just a stupid saying anyway), mention 6.9 seconds, have funny Friday patches, etc. But yet, not everyone was sexually harassing females and not every female was feeling sexually harassed. But in typical fashion, the leadership was told by the politicians to fix the problem and so the leadership went overboard to cover their ass. All the leadership had to do was investigate and prosecute as necessary those 'specific' instances of sexual harassment and assault, and discipline/remove the leadership involved as necessary if they weren't doing a good job. So hate to say it man, it's your line of thinking that has caused all these issues, whether you wanted it go forward to this level or not. I can be against sexual harassment and assault while at the same time saying 'so to speak' once in a while after a sexual innuendo or mention that I ran my 1.5 in 11 min and 6.9 seconds without offending anybody (male or female)...but since it was deemed as 'potentially' offensive, the knee-jerk reaction was to end all of it without only dealing with specific instances where there were problems. And I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but anytime you, I, or somebody else is teased or is the topic of a joke, then it can be considered offensive. If my buddy teases me about my car being old, is he harassing me of my disabled brother who I give money to and hence why I can't afford a new car? If we make fun of someone because it looks like they didn't get much sleep the night before, are we offending them because maybe they are having PTSD issues and can't get a good night's sleep? I can give more examples if necessary, but I think you get the idea. Should we outlaw all joking in the military, or just be sensible and and deal with issues when the come up? That also goes along with people either directly telling the other person to cut it out or using the chain of command/IG complain process as necessary? The leadership is turning this military gig more and more into an everyday job and that's how more and more people will begin to treat it--like a 9-5 job, do what's needed, skip out on the going away parties after work hours, put your self interests first above the mission because leadership doesn't have your back...

I share the thoughts in your post...but weren't you one of the guys on here recently talking about how bad things were before the recent crack-down? This is how progressiveness works--it literally keeps 'progressing' until guys that supported the original measure start scratching their heads at what's now going on because it gets so fvcked up. If I've mistaken you for one the other guys on here then I apologize...

From NBC News... Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance I'm sure Jay Carney will spin this into something else...probably blame the Republicans. No question--we have the best politicians money can buy!

I am so glad I'm past the half-way point in my career.

Mom, 4 kids dead in Brooklyn stabbing Shame to hear...and this is barely making the news. Had the murderer used an AR-15 instead of a knife, then this would be front and center in the headlines and politicians would be using it to further an ideological agenda. Just something to think about...

Good on you man. I'm all about helping buds in need. But my question still stands--what happens when someone is 'tasked' with doing something (such as planning a holiday party, gay pride luncheon, etc) when it goes against their conscience? You volunteered (I'm assuming) to help out...what about when guys don't volunteer and take issue with the event? Of course it's out of control...but none of us should be surprised, I know I'm not. Go back a couple years and look at old threads--most of us predicted this would happen in one form or another. To be honest and to be quite fair though, I don't have any problems with a gay pride month in the military any more than I do with black heritage month, women's month, asian american month, blah blah blah. They all single out a certain group, which like you mentioned, we have been told not to do. But what does make the gay issue worse is that when black troops were open up to all career fields, integrated with the rest of the troops, etc, well that was it as official policy was concerned (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong though as I have not researched this history that closely). Obviously racism was still occurring on a case by case basis that were much more numerous early on but improved greatly over the years. But now, 2 gay guys can room together in a pod when downrange, a gay guy and a straight guy can room together (same combos for the women), but yet I can't room with a chick or shower with them. So the politicians and leadership advanced the story that 'sexual orientation and gender do not matter', but only for certain instances, not for all of them. When the military is ran by politicians, this is what you get...not saying we shouldn't be run by civilians, just saying I wish politics didn't influence what our military is supposed to do. I know I know...always been that way, always will be that way.

This. Though I'm sure it's someone's O-4 board soon and I think that was what mat was referring to--would someone volunteer for this/not say they wouldn't do it all because they fear not getting a DP, etc? Guarantee there's quite a few people out there who fall into this category.