HeloDude

Yeah...why would the NFL ever make profit-driven decisions. That's just stupid...because Fox News, or something. Oh, and according to link below 2015 was the highest viewership on record. So why did you say the decline began in 2015? https://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-ratings-faced-steeper-declines-in-2017-2018-1

So you honestly believe that the recent rule change has nothing do with decreased viewership? Because the NFL doesn't make decisions based off money...and ratings don't equate to money.

You were saying? https://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/05/23/nfl-adopts-policy-to-fine-teams-if-players-and-personnel-dont-stand-for-national-anthem.html

I guess it has something to do with it being a Promotion 'Recommendation' Form. I hear your frustration but when you look at the recent years and how many guys have been given an IPZ DP and passed over it comes out to something like 0.01% chance (however the math works out). Don't get me wrong, it definitely sucks for those individuals. Also, don't forget that a SR's DP allocation has nothing to do with the quality of officers he is rating. So if a Wing CC has 9 IPZ O-4s for the O-5 board and gets 4(?) DPs, it doesn't mean that #4/9 is automatically better than what would be the first non-selected for promotion guy without a DP. I agree with you that it appears messed up (and probably most times is), but it actually goes to show that board is looking at the entire record and not just automatically promoting DPs. I have personally heard a Wing CC say how he will get grilled by his fellow Wing CCs if it looks like they're speeding/just trying to get a guy promoted without the record showing continued performance.

So Lowes wanting to sell you something 10% cheaper than a non-military person is ok, but an airline wanting to allow you to board 10 minutes earlier (to sit in your same seat) is not ok?

So you're ok with the perks...just as long as civilians/non-veterans don't know you're receiving the perks?

CSAF said the AF still doesn't know what the problem is (shocker). Also, one of the few Senators who actually served in the military said this (smh): "Ernst asked if the Air Force is studying potential causes other than mechanical issues, including physiological issues such as pilots drinking too much coffee before flying." https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/04/24/goldfein-air-force-still-looking-for-smoking-gun-causing-hypoxia-problems/

Are you TDY-en route? And if not, are you planning on going back to your home for quite a while at your losing base? Reason I ask is because in addition to per diem lodging, you're still getting your BAH...which I imagine is much more than $700/month. I know we all want to bank as much money as possible when TDY, but unless you're in a different situation than most then I don't see the financial problem.

1) Obama did attack Syria. If a country attacked anywhere in the US (not necessarily a "government target") then we would say the country attacked the US. 2) Obama did not attack Assad forces because he didn't get Congressional authority--if his concern was not attacking country X until given Congressional authority then Obama wouldn't have attacked Libya, Yemen, Iraq (he declared the Iraq war was over and then he later attacked them anyway), and any other place he has dropped bombs (even in his last year of his presidency). So your nonsense about how Obama had some sort of restraint that Trump doesn't have is a joke. Keep digging your hole man...

Attacking Syria is attacking Syria--whether you're going after pro-Assad targets or not. And if you're trying suggest that Obama never attacked legitimate government targets without Congressional approval then I'm wondering what happened in Libya?

No--Azimuth was being sarcastic and by doing so suggesting the Sean Hannity does not provide credible commentary (which I don't disagree). Yet, Azimuth never calls out commentary on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc as also not being credible. Hence I am once again pointing out the blatant bias and hypocrisy on Azimuth's part.

Sean Hannity's commentary is no more/less credible than commentary you will find on CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, etc..

If you reference my earlier posts, I clearly say how I didn't support the war attacks under Obama and I don't support them under Trump. I will praise Trump when his decisions extend me more personal liberty and call him out when does not, same as I did for Obama. You and others clearly don't do the same as one can easily see on the Presidential thread where it appears Trump has not done anything positive.

Good advice...so why are you so worried and concerned with Trump supporters?

So you're making the point about Obama sometimes attacking Syria without Congressional and sometimes not attacking Syria because he did not Congressional approval? How about instead you just admit that Obama did the same thing Bush did, and now Trump is doing the same thing Obama did...

Are you suggesting that Obama never dropped bombs in Syria? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy For the record, I wasn't a fan of Obama's air strikes and I'm not a fan of Trump's air strikes.

Would you rather him post a link from another biased "news" source such as CNN, NY Times, Wash Post, MSNBC, ABC, etc? They're all biased, so why are you only against Fox News?

See my post above--Trump is no more/no less a moron than his predecessors. Yet the bias we all have shows one guy to be a genius and one guy to be a moron...just depends on your point of view who is who.

Yep, you're not biased at all LOL. Allow me to let you in on a little secret: The current president is no more or less of a moron than his predecessor, his predecessor's predecessor, his predecessor's predecessor's predecessor, etc. I know you don't like Trump, but I'll let you determine the level of moron he and others before him have risen to.

Fox News is biased? Wait...I agree with you. As is CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, WSJ, Wash Post, NY Times, etc. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source these days...and I don't think it has ever existed. Today it's just much more apparent due to the extreme polarization on all sides of the political and philosophical spectrums. Not to mention that each "news" outlet needs to write stories/report on what their readers want to see, because if not, they quickly go somewhere else. So anyone who makes fun of Fox News without likewise making fun of all the other news outlets (and vice versa) only goes to show that person's own bias. That all being said, in terms of money, viewership, etc do you think there are more people following "news" sources biased more to the left or biased more to the right?

Well it's not like this issue has been in the news lately lol...

But you are against gun control laws of any kind, so it's cool.

No worries man--yes, this was referring to the 90s when the AF took in quite a few Army RW pilots to fly 53's, 60's, and Huey's, and they did just fine.

Since when do Army RW pilots coming over to be AF RW pilots go through IFF? This post was concerning UPT-H...

I appreciate you admitting that you don't know what you're talking about with regards to this issue. The reason for the change in the mid-90s was to rationalize the cost of the new T-6 acquisition during the drawdown of the 90s: More students needed during FW phase 2 without increasing the overall quantity of pilot graduates per year.