HeloDude

Thank you for explaining that you need an ID to adequately determine someone’s identity.

If that’s good enough to prove someone’s identity, then why can’t that also be used when purchasing firearm?

Good thing we’ve never seen that in the US...

Well, to be fair, he said “my lifetime”.

So...religious faith is not personal? I have to subscribe to a certain organized religion to claim a religious exemption? Why are certain religious organizations/their beliefs given more credibility than others? Picking and choosing which religious faiths and organizations are credible and not credible is a dangerous road to go down...

Are you supportive of someone having their own faith and abiding by it, even if they’re the only “member” of that certain faith?

Who says you have to subscribe to a certain church/organized religion to have a certain kind of faith?

Isn’t someone’s faith/religion, by definition, “personal”?

Unlike progressives and right wingers, I support policy that gives us more individual freedom and liberty. When Trump did things well, I gave him kudos, and didn’t when he made bad policy. I wasn’t a fan of the tariffs or the crazy spending...but I was a fan of the deregulation policies he put in place. And clearly the judges he put on the bench are far better than those nominated by his predecessor. As for Obama, he was just another progressive...fortunately he just wasn’t too successful at getting many of his desired policies implemented. But if you think I gain more overall individual freedom with Biden than with Trump, then I’m willing to hear you make that argument.

You sound surprised. She’s very far left...of course she’s going to push the identity politics stuff—it’s literally part of the left’s platform.

So for the progressives on here who labeled Trump as a fascist...what say you about Biden and the Dems wanting to ban certain kinds of popular firearms? You know...the same type of firearms that are only used in a small percentage of all murders. Also, Biden supports (see link below), the police being able to go into your house and seize weapons without a warrant...also sounds a bit like what a fascist would want to do. ”But in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/03/23/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-let-cops-enter-homes-and-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/?sh=7f258e082829

So when does China invade Taiwan? I wouldn’t be too surprised if it’s in the next 1-2 years...especially if/when our economy takes a huge it. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9347527/US-admiral-warns-China-aims-invade-Taiwan-6-years-global-leadership-role.html

Another couple years—keep me posted on when I can stop shaving!

It’s not that I don’t think comfort is unimportant (my wife didn’t think the maternity ABUs were uncomfortable when she stopped wearing her flight suit, so there’s one data point)...rather that when this is bragged about as “real change”, it becomes a distraction from the other important problems that don’t seem to get corrected in a timely manner, if at all.

Fair enough man—I appreciate you post and your comments (honestly). As I said, I’m not against women (and men) being more comfortable, but I do want the focus of our military to be on readiness first and foremost. It definitely is frustrating, for someone who has been in quite a while, seeing the AF brag about how it takes care of it’s people by making “real changes”...when it still can’t fix problems that effect the readiness of our force. You’re right, one doesn’t necessarily (and rarely does) affect the other to a considerable degree, but when one is being triumphed as a large success and the readiness problems are “ummm...we’re working on that”, it’s hard to believe the focus is where it needs to be. Thanks guys for the chat.

Well, we usually don’t redesign/make new uniforms if there isn’t a readiness issue. Actually, scratch that—we mess with our uniforms all the time. As to your earlier point about shaving changes...not going to happen anytime soon, at least not before I retire. If it does, I’ll buy you a bottle of your choice at the Class Six.

Well, since you’re thrashing about me not reading posts (which is fine, I don’t mind some thrash)—can you please answer this simple question that I keep posting: What is the annual percentage is of flyers who wear a flight suit, who are pregnant, who are on flying status, and who cannot comfortably wear a flight suit to perform flying duties? What is your guess? I ask because this is the readiness question...yet Jazzdude is the only one who has even attempted to answer it, and he didn’t even answer the actual question...

I didn’t ask what percentage of those who wear flight suits are pregnant...I asked what percentage are pregnant, on flying status, and can no longer wear a regular flight suit in order to perform flying duties...I’m betting that it’s an extremely small percentage. As for enlisted aviators, don’t most (if nearly all?) wear the flying OCPs? But either way, same question as above. I keep asking—is this a readiness issue or an issue of comfort, sense of belonging, morale, etc? My bet is that this isn’t much of a readiness issue as only an extremely small percentage of flyers require this to perform their flight duties. So if it’s an issue of comfort, morale, etc...sure, that’s fine. There’s a lot of things I would rather change due to comfort (see below). I’m just asking then why can’t they wear the maternity uniforms already in place? And I agree...not having them available due to supply/logistical issues is messed up. As for the AF seeing this as a big issue (comfort, etc) that needed to be addressed, hey I would rather not have to shave everyday without attempting to get a shaving waiver, but the AF sees it differently...and unless I need to shave specifically to perform my job, then why not remove it? More importantly, I wish the AF would focus more attention on actual readiness issues (only so much money and resources to spread around)...OBOGS come to mind?

Do I want to, of course not. At the same time if they wouldn’t allow me to wear a flight suit because I didn’t need to wear one that day, would the AF be wrong? Also, if I had a condition which DNIF’d me and prevented me from being able to comfortably wear the flight suit, but I could be comfortable in ACUs, then what’s the problem? Nobody is saying that there shouldn’t be a maternity uniform...but one already exists. So unless a pilot can’t find a flight suit that is comfortable to perform flying duties, then what exactly is the problem? Again, what percentage of pilots annually are pregnant, on flying status, and can’t find a flight suit that comfortably allows them to perform their flight duties? I’m not saying it’s zero...but I can’t imagine it meaning too high.

Well, you didn’t answer my specific question...but that’s ok as I’m sure you don’t know the numbers (in fact neither do I, though I imagine it’s pretty darn low). But to specifically address your questions, the flight suit is most definitely a utility uniform, first and foremost. I know most of you guys aren’t old enough to remember when those in many non-flying jobs (both flyers and non-flyers) were required to wear blues, except perhaps on Friday. This was pre 9-11...things have definitely changed quite a bit since then. And of course there are still plenty of us who remember Monday’s blues. When that started and I was in an operational squadron, most guys would fight to get on the flying schedule to avoid wearing blues. Later on it was realized that guys would fall out of the schedule and we would have to ops cancel lines, so our leadership started allowing non-DNIF guys to wear the bag on Monday so as to not lose lines for wearing blues...but if you were attached in a different squadron or at the group or wing, you still had to wear blues. And then when I got sent to my staff job, yep, Monday’s blues were back until it went away. What I’m trying to say is that there is plenty of precedent for not wearing a flight suit if you’re not going to be performing (or possibly performing) flight duties that day. As to not buying uniform items, that’s definitely a perk of being a flyer...but again, it should definitely be tied to performing flight duties, hence while you’re only authorize limited/certain quantities. Once again this old guy typing remembers sequestration and when you had to turn in your old flight suits to get new ones...sad, but true. For the record, I think it’s messed up that flyers don’t have to buy their uniforms but the non-flyers do. So circling back to the pregnant piece, is this a readiness issue or an issue of people feeling that they’re being treated differently because they’re pregnant? If it’s the later, I think pregnant people are most definitely treated differently...no PT tests, limited duty hours if needed, DNIF at a certain point in their pregnancy, etc. I’m not at all against those occurring (makes sense actually), but let’s not pretend that wearing a maternity uniform was such a hardship, at least it wasn’t for my wife.

I’m not aware of the AF designing specific flight suits for dudes who are DNIF..unless I’m missing something? My wife wears a flight suit and when she was pregnant and it didn’t make sense anymore/wasn’t comfortable, she wore the maternity ABU—she never once complained about not having a flight suit that didn’t fit comfortably...because at that point, she couldn’t fly anyway. So the question I have is this: What percentage of pilots annually are pregnant, on flying status, and can no longer wear a traditional flight suit due to discomfort, etc (even if they require a different size)? My guess is that’s it’s an extremely low number, but I’m willing to see the data that says otherwise as perhaps this issue is affecting ops in a bigger way than I realize? And I’m not saying I disagree with your overall points, but if a point (DNIF guys wearing flight suits) isn’t based specifically on designing/procuring specific uniforms for X condition, then you need to argue apples to apples. Full disclosure: I think what Tucker said was stupid and unnecessary.

I’m pretty sure POTUS doesn’t take questions from the press at the State of the Union. But I do get the joke...

Can’t disagree there. But it only further supports the opinion that mainstream media is far left as they largely only carry and support only one of these two messages.

You don’t need to be a member of Congress to be the Speaker of the House...

Read my original comment is this thread: Pitt4401 made this comment: ”You forgot the part where people claimed the convicted was morally impeccable...while having a previously undisclosed love child.” I then replied: “Kind of irrelevant as to if one committed rape or not, right?” The whole reason we’re even talking about Wilkerson in this thread is because he was convicted of rape, and then the conviction was dismissed by Franklin. So again, discussing Wilkerson’s character on a completely different matter (cheating on his spouse, etc) is irrelevant as to whether or not he raped someone. Franklin dismissed the conviction because he said the evidence presented in the trial didn’t lead to a conviction. Now if we want to argue that point then that’s totally fine—I have yet to comment on whether or not I believe Franklin was right (not to mention I haven’t seen the evidence presented in the trial). But bringing up the fact that that dude later was shown to be a dirt bag should have zero relevance on whether or not that guy raped someone earlier.