HeloDude

https://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/05/06/mexican-cartel-allegedly-hired-ms-13-to-carry-out-torture-operation-in/

Agreed. Though I'm sure there would still be somewhat of an limited underground presence and/or another black market to take its place. But I believe the strength of the cartels would be severely limited in both the business sense and the power they hold.

If you think the majority of politicians in DC truly care about securing the border...well, then I have nothing for you. They haven't done it before and I don't see them doing it anytime soon (regardless of what political party is in control). Reagan allowed himself to get fooled in the 80's (maybe that was his goal all along?) and today if you support anything other than legal status and future citizenship for illegals then a third to one half of the country will call you anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, anti...well, you get the idea. Republicans were all about the cheap labor all those years (and still are) and the Dems (who were also fans of the cheap labor) now see millions of new voters once again for the future. As for the security situation with the drug cartels, human trafficking, etc on the southern border...see above. I understand there are decent people who would just like to come here to better their families and they're not the same as the cartel members, but when the border is not secured, then both get to come in. Like I said, most politicians don't want to risk not allowing the former to enter even at the risk of the later. I've talked to quite a few in the border patrol over the years and I understand their focus is on the criminal aspect (as it should be)...but let's not kid ourselves, we don't know exactly who is coming over. I'm all about letting the free market decide who/how many should be able to immigrate/come over for specific/temporary periods for work visas and allowing that to be the forefront front of the policy, but this is not popular as it creates 'inequality'. As for the folks already here, let's not kid ourselves, no politician is going to be for mass deportation (see Romney 2012), especially by force (see nobody). I'd petsonally be wiling to give legal status/permanent green cards to the illegals already in here as long as they're not given citizenship (kind of wrong to reward people for breaking the law...as for those brought over as children, maybe some wiggle room there because of the obvious situation) and only if it was attached to a trigger that required a truly secured border and the passage of a new Constitutional amendment to rewrite the 14th Amendment to not allow citizenship purely by birth in this country alone--that you would need to have at least one parent be a permanent resident to be given citizenship by birth alone. But since I'm not naive, I know none of this will happen--emotions almost always trump logic. As for whose responsibly it is for securing and monitoring the border, I agree that it shouldn't be the military, but it's kind of irrelevant because it could be CBP, National Guard, a new DHS department (take your pick)--it's not going to happen, except on the margins so politicians can say that they're doing something. Think about this: How comfortable would the American people be if they found out that only half of the airports were screening passengers before flights. We get the kind of country and government we deserve. If you think the majority of politicians in DC truly care about securing the border...well, then I have nothing for you. They haven't done it before and I don't see them doing it anytime soon (regardless of what political party is in control). Reagan allowed himself to get fooled in the 80's (maybe that was his goal all along?) and today if you support anything other than legal status and future citizenship for illegals then a third to one half of the country will call you anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, anti...well, you get the idea. Republicans were all about the cheap labor all those years (and still are) and the Dems (who were also fans of the cheap labor) now see millions of new voters once again for the future. As for the security situation with the drug cartels, human trafficking, etc on the southern border...see above. I understand there are decent people who would just like to come here to better their families and they're not the same as the cartel members, but when the border is not secured, then both get to come in. Like I said, most politicians don't want to risk not allowing the former to enter even at the risk of the later. I've talked to quite a few in the border patrol over the years and I understand their focus is on the criminal aspect (as it should be)...but let's not kid ourselves, we don't know exactly who is coming over. I'm all about letting the free market decide who/how many should be able to immigrate/come over for specific/temporary periods for work visas and allowing that to be the forefront front of the policy, but this is not popular as it creates 'inequality'. As for the folks already here, let's not kid ourselves, no politician is going to be for mass deportation (see Romney 2012), especially by force (see nobody). I'd petsonally be wiling to give legal status/permanent green cards to the illegals already in here as long as they're not given citizenship (kind of wrong to reward people for breaking the law...as for those brought over as children, maybe some wiggle room there because of the obvious situation) and only if it was attached to a trigger that required a truly secured border and the passage of a new Constitutional amendment to rewrite the 14th Amendment to not allow citizenship purely by birth in this country alone--that you would need to have at least one parent be a permanent resident to be given citizenship by birth alone. But since I'm not naive, I know none of this will happen--emotions almost always trump logic. As for whose responsibly it is for securing and monitoring the border, I agree that it shouldn't be the military, but it's kind of irrelevant because it could be CBP, National Guard, a new DHS department (take your pick)--it's not going to happen, except on the margins so politicians can say that they're doing something. Think about this: How comfortable would the American people be if they found out that only half of the airports were screening passengers before flights. We get the kind of country and government we deserve.

I see what you did there...

So you're telling me I should invest in anti-laser cream now...before the rush?

Proponents of gun control laws have made the arguments that a woman is better (ie safer) to not be allowed to carry a firearm vs having the choice to carry a firearm for defense. They have also said that it's better for a woman to urinate or vomit to stop a rape attacker vs be allowed to defend herself with a firearm. So again, "They're trying to say that the risk of rape (due to being unarmed) is better than allowing people to have firearms due to the risk associated with a potential fatality with a firearm." Gun control proponents believe what I just wrote, regardless of a whether a poster on the Internet is true or not. I care about what is actually going on legislatively not about online posters. Check out these links if you think I'm making this stuff up: https://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/colorado-rape-prevention-guidelines/ https://www.occupycorporatism.com/colorado-rep-no-guns-rape-victims-urinate-or-vomit-will-protect-you/ https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

They're trying to say that the risk of rape (due to being unarmed) is better than allowing people to have firearms due to the risk associated with a potential fatality with a firearm. If what I said makes any sense. I've stopped trying to have a rational conversation with these people...their emotions are too strong and keep from having real dialogue on the subject. Just don't believe them when they say, 'nobody wants to take your guns away'...that's like saying we don't want to take your right to have an abortion, but you can't have one once you're 2 weeks pregnant.

This doesn't appear to be too new, but still pretty awesome. 1.43 mile shot wuth a .338 Lapua

Are you referring to his trigger finger...or that the eotech optic he is using is on backwards.

Congrats, man! Safe to assume you would have punched soon anyway? Or did it take the VSP money to solidify the decision?

Might want to reconsider going to the Air Force Museum at Wright Patt... https://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140409/NEWS/304090042/Air-Force-security-holds-granny-gunpoint-Wright-Patterson

Transparency, you know...just like the President promised us. Wait...is it not happening?

You have a few decent thoughts, but here's where I see the biggest 'potential' flaw with Big Blue: Convincing the young guys for the future. Back when I was competing for a UPT slot in ROTC (to include the entire time in the program), there was very little negative talk about joining the AF, willing to accept the new 10-yr ADSC, all the BS that active duty would entail, etc. Is it the same way at the Academy/ROTC Dets today? My ROTC time was before Sept 11th, so we weren't hearing all the crazy stories about all the deployments (though we knew the fighter guys were doing ONW and SW, and that the heavy guys were always doing their standard trips, but it didn't sound too bad). Also, the only brief Internet chat about AD seemed to be on studentpilot.net (if I got that correctly) and guys like Hacker and Toro telling us how AD flying was the best thing since sex (I don't blame them...times were much better then). Flash Forward to today: I'm assuming there are quite a bit of young guys at the Acedemy and in ROTC that constantly lurk on here and I'm sure they tell their friends the good/bad/ugly stories we discuss...have these stories influenced the young 20-year olds to not pursue taking on the longer ADSC? As naive/immature (and motivated, of course) that the pre-commisionees are, hearing all the crap we put out, not to mention the open-source info about RIFs, constant focus on SAPR stuff, you name it...this stuff eventually has to influence the younger guys. Flying is great, but anything great has a price, and if it gets too high people will eventually say it's not worth it. Or will there always be enough halfway decent young guys wanting to fly so badly that they don't care about the horror stories? Either way, you're right--it won't change much in the short term I'm sure. Maybe the AF will soon need to resort to recruiting videos like this: https://vimeo.com/7015914

To be accurate and fair, this was started under H.W. Bush, and then has continued under all Presidents since. I see this more as an 'Elite' vs 'common man' issue much more than a Dem vs GOP issue. As far as the Generals, they're not going to tell their boss 'no', especially on this issue.

Who knows exactly how long he had...but regardless, when seconds count, the police are only minutes (at best) away. I doubt much will change after this incident--military members who are trusted with arms inside a base in a combat zone will still not be trusted with one on a base back home. Management's solution: Pretend you're a child once again and have your favorite hiding place ready to go. My thoughts and prayers are with all the victims and their families. This sucks.

Touché!

Agreed. As for the day it came out, that is what drove my 'entertaining' comment. Though I would have still enjoyed it any day of the year.

Just curious...how many times have you made these fantastic corrections (I'm recalling quite a few)? Does this mistake in particular really bother you that much or are you now BO's spell checker?

I'm no theologian (though I did stay in a Holiday-Inn Express last night), but 2 out of the 4 religions you mentioned are montheistic, and one of the other two does have only one 'Supreme God'. So when I hear a chaplain say 'God' does that mean they are automatically only referring to the God that Christians worship? Or is it just implied based off the faith of the Chaplain (which is usually Christian)? In all my years in the military, I don't specifically recall ever hearing the words 'Jesus' or 'Christ' in a military prayer (I'm sure it has happened, but if I can't remember it then it must not happen too often). To be fair though, I do hear Chaplains say 'Father' in their prayers, but Christians aren't the only ones worshipping a single God that use this term. So is your concern only with Christian Chaplains invoking a prayer before an official event...or is it with any Chaplain, regardless of religion, saying a prayer? I have already agreed that I don't think Chaplain duty should be used at these events, so I'm not disagreeing with the overall point people are making. Just to stir the pot even more, I think promoting 'X' heritage/history month also promotes inequality in the force, but I seriously doubt those are going away anytime soon. Edited because I can't properly count, and I'm just an overall idiot.

This is short, informative (not that I fact checked it), and entertaining...

I'm cool with one's personal religion/philosophy being discussed at personal events...like a promotion ceremony or a retirement. But that's about it. I agree on it being weird (and I'm a Christian) that people are invited to pray at an official ceremony that is inclusive (awards dinner, change of command). Didn't they also recently take out the 'So help me God' portion of the oath if the member chose not to say it? (I'm too lazy to look it up)...either way, I'm cool with that too. Here's a question for debate: Guest speaker at an awards ceremony, class graduation, etc--should the invited speaker be able to mention his/her personal faith? For example, if they say "Back when I was at X school and struggling, I was able to find that praying Y prayer helped me remain calm and focused..."

This was definitely worth my time and believe it will be worth their time as well. Well done, sir. Thank you!

She just wanted a little 'RSPECT'...just a little bit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnLSmsPjFx8

I'm coming up with 32.33 (repeating of course) percentage of survival...

AFPC