HeloDude

By your logic/scenario above, cars shouldn't be able to drive faster than 40 mph since people have died in car accidents driving faster than 40. Or does "mitigating potential risk" not also work in your own given scenario?

That is exactly what I meaon by further regulation. Health "insurance" stopped being "insurance" when the government forced people to enter into business where the business was forced to cover things it didn't want to cover. Here's a simple analogy you should be able to understand: Homeowners insurance. If the government forced the insurance business to take a new customer whose house had been burnt down last week and then also forced the insurance company to pay to replace this home after the fact...and then also force me to do business with said insurance company, then this is no longer insurance. It's government mandating that homeowners with insurance who have not had their house burnt down pay for someone's house who didn't pay into the insurance pool before it burnt down. Or even worse, forcing a homeowner who didn't want insurance to pay for the guy whose house burnt down. Like I said, this is not insurance. As for the rest of your post (which came across as quite emotional by the way), I'll gladly respond once we can understand each other as to what is and isn't insurance. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2016/11/01/why-should-the-young-and-the-healthy-bail-out-of-obamacare/#309d294f1f69

I've been pondering ideas like this a lot lately (not saying I plan on failing a PT test anytime soon), but what's the incentive for someone who wants out and/or doesn't really care whether they stay in/get out and thus isn't concerned about rank...what's the incentive to do well/pass a PT test? Sure it's good to stay in shape, but those people would workout even if there wasn't a PT test. Failing a PT test is purely administrative. So if the AF is consistently working you 10-12 hours a day, some weekends, deploying you, etc, why workout if that's not your thing and you don't care about advancing your military career? And if someone brings up core values then I would argue the AF hasn't met their part of that obligation. Again, just some thoughts from someone who has been in quite a while...

So let me get this straight--over the last 50--60 years, healthcare in the US has only become more regulated (at both the state and federal level), and yet your solution to something (that has only gotten worse in your opinion) is to further regulate it. And as for our "healthcare system"--we don't have a "system", and that is a good thing. We have a US Postal "System" (which is inefficient), DMV "systems" (which is very inefficient and really sucks), a social security "retirement system" (which is scheduled to go bust), etc. As for poor people not having the money to be able to see as good of a pediatrician as my family?--well, I bring more value to society than a poor person. The laws of economics never lie. Oh and and as far as using Medicare as a good example of a "quasi-healthcare system", it is also scheduled to go bust even soon than predicted. So thanks but not thanks... https://nypost.com/2018/06/05/medicare-social-security-running-out-of-money-faster-than-expected/

How do you "overturn" a recommendation? So because a couple recent O-5 boards had a few guys with a DP get non-selected, the board now doesn't take DPs vs Ps into consideration? Read my post on this issue from a couple weeks ago--I understand some of the frustration and agree that the promotion process can always use some improvements, but using nonsense to make your point does not add credibility to your argument. As for what's going on with the recent O-4 board, I have no idea. I think it's poor form to not release some info as to why there is a delay but I bet SRs already know the reason. The SRs knew well before the official release that there was going to be "100% promotion opportunity to Major" (or whatever they called it).

Totally agree. My original point (which I guess I didn't make clear) is that substantiated evidence against a military member should never be overlooked/not lead to a prosecution. And to Azimuth's post, I agree that a member's rank shouldn't keep you from being prosecuted, but that's a problem with leadership, not the UCMJ.

No...I was referring to being charged for an alleged crime vs not being charged for an alleged crime. Once someone is acquitted then it's a nothing burger. And an alleged crime refers to not yet being convicted or acquitted when substantiated evidence shows there is reason to prosecute. I'm not an attorney, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

So are you upset that people are charged when violating the UCMJ or that not everyone is charged for violating the UCMJ? I get the second part, but that in no way excuses people who are charged for an alleged crime.

So where is your frustration: That fraternization is not allowed per the UCMJ or that you can actually be punished for fraternization (per the UCMJ)? I can also show up to work at FB drunk and it wouldn't necessarily be a crime...in the military, not so much. As much as there are many things with the military, the AF, the UCMJ that I disagree with, the standards are the standards. No one was forced to join.

Are you suggesting those are not crimes in the military?

Again, if it's it's "drastic" to undo what Obama did then logically that means that what Obama did in the first place was also "drastic". Unless you're just arguing that what Obama did was good and Trump undoing it is bad--which just means that you're a partisan or an ideologue, you tell me. So once again I ask: What has Trump done that is "sooo far to the right"? Undoing what Obama did just means we go back to pre-2008, so how is that going "far to the right" if Bush was a centrist as you say? Be specific instead of just complaining that he is undoing Obama's executive orders, which by design, are meant to be changed with each President...because let's not pretend that the next Presifent who is a democrat won't likewise undo everything Trump has done. Dude, I get it--you didn't vote for him and you don't like him.

Wait...so the "drastic changes" that Trump is making is just undoing some of Obama's executive orders? So in essence, Trump is undoing Obama's "drastic changes"? I get it dude--you and the other half of the country who are repulsed by Trump's rhetoricstyle and thought Hillary had this election locked up are still very upset. But your arguments are full of emotion/opinion and little of substance...would you like to take back your "drastic changes" argument?

Aside from Trump's rhetoric, what are these "drastic changes" we've seen in the last 1.5 years? Obama completely changed the healthcare industry (pretty drastic if you ask me)--what has Trump done that is so drastic? A tax cut? Moving our embassy to Israel? Stepping up border enforcement (which was law well before Trump became President)?

I don't know how you're being a "quiet professional" at Lowes when you're asking for your 10% military discount in front of the guy who is not getting the discount. Look dude, it's fine if you want to make the argument that military members/veterans should get nothing (nor accept anything) more than what is offered to a non-military/member from a private business, but when you start picking and choosing what we should take vs not take you come across as very hypocritical. Again, when an airline voluntarily offers military members to board first, I don't see how this equates to "demanding" special treatment, especially when you say it's cool to ask for the military discount in front of the guy who doesn't get them. Take one position and be consistent...it's obvious that you're just confusing the rest of us on where you stand, at best.

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.