HeloDude

So if a bad (ie not popular) policy was implemented 5-10 years ago and is now rescinded, does that necessarily mean that things have gotten better? If your boss cuts your pay by 10% and a year later gives you that 10% back...is that a pay raise, per se? If that's the case, then the civilians should be very happy for their 'pay raise' in terms of just not being furloughed any longer. I think we're grading on a pretty big curve these days. Don't get me wrong, I'll gladly take getting rid of the stupid policies...but then that begs the question--why were they then implemented in the first place?

I don't know the specifics of this certain situation, put per the AFI, if an aviator isn't willing to fly the assigned aircraft given, then you move to an FEB and usually recommend losing rated status. Though I agree that if a pilot/nav isn't competent enough to fly a manned aircraft then they shouldn't be flying an RPA. You have very little recourse as an aviator when it comes to aircraft assigned, rating status, etc unless the Air Force violates their own policies or goes against the law (ie gave you something you didn't want because of your race, for example). The flying world is pretty much a one way agreement.

Good to see you posting again Bendy!

Hopefully your GF was spared the stupid gene. My solution to liberals--let them have their 'utopia' and see how well it works for them and fight them when they try to interfere with other people's lives outside of their area (that goes for conservatives too). Have you seen the douche-bag NYC elected as their new mayor? If you chose to live near these ass-clowns then you get what you deserve. Just my 'humble' opinion, of course.

I think we're being a little too kind with our definition of 'average' in this case.

Norway's Army Tries To Save The World... By Going Vegetarian Glad to know we're not the only military dealing with nonsense. No meat on Mondays, or sexual assault CBT's...chose your poison.

Oh, I see...guess you feel strongly that they would look differently than portrayed?

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/army-pr-push-average-looking-women-100065.html?hp=f3 Army PR push: 'Average-looking women' I'm sure this will solve all the Army's problems.

Vertigo--do you support any part of the ACA or any of the regulations that have risen from the law?

Since when does a Big Mac cost $5!?? I need to lay off the peyote.

Didn't they already make this movie a few years ago?

In my experience, local businesses can rarely match the prices of online gun stores. Why pay more?

I think you have quite a bit in common with your fellow senior officers, just as I do with CGO's/FGO's who are actually into hacking the mission, mentoring young officers and enlisted, and willing to do what is necessary for legitimate reasons. You want me to go deploy tomorrow to hack the mission?...let me know, and I'll be packed up and ready to go, no BS there. I'm personally tired of the hypocrisy in the Air Force...maybe that's just my personality, but it's something that was instilled in me a long time ago--to not just 'go along to get along'. I have seen the hypocrisy from my first years as a qualified dude in the squadron, to right now at my current staff job. I have also seem some great leaders...mostly when I've been deployed, but at home as well. I have seen a commander go out to dinner with a couple of his 'favorite' young Captains who him and his wife were friends with (literally caught them by randomly showing up with a date to the same restaurant)...funny, those couple Captains were always the ones getting picked for upgrade first, highest strats (I was the Exec, so I saw this with my own eyes), getting pushed harder for the assignments they wanted, etc. Their leadership and flying skills were average to above average, but again, they were the ones typically picked for awards, etc. Yeah, I'm sure an IG complaint would have done wonders...that commander would have had an excuse for every one of his actions. Again, unless it's blatant, then it's a 'he said vs she said'...oh, and this commander has friends out there who could be my next commander, so... I have seen guys get called out for doing something 'wrong' when flying, only to bring the AFI's to the DO/CC to show them that they in fact didn't do anything in wrong...and then subsequently had that the DO/CC say 'well...maybe it was legal, but...'. I personally did this on two occasions, and fortunately I was correct both times. I have seen commanders utterly surprised when not one of the evaluators (both pilots and the E's) recommend their shining star for the next upgrade to evaluator. Think they might have just been a little 'out of touch'? Funny, the commander still pushed that person for the upgrade, the next job outside the squadron to get pushed, etc. I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. You can only pee on my leg and tell me it's raining so often before I smell the piss and realize what's really going on. When a sharp dude gets the highest strat, gets picked up for school on his O-4 board, etc then I'm not at all jealous, actually, I'm happy that the 'system' is at least somewhat working the way it should be. And for the record, I could give 2 shits about saying 'so to speak' (that's a stupid fighter thing anyway), saying 69 all the time, etc. But I do hate the witch hunt and the hypocrisy...you know, that same hypocrisy you show when saying Wilkerson assaulted someone. The same hypocrisy of saying that a picture of a dude's wife in a vacation bikini pic is unprofessional/sexual, etc but then don't have a problem with the AF PA on af.mil sites showing girls in body building pics wearing bikini's. I've said it before and I'll say it again--this is the way the system is and I get it. It's hard to prove that a commander or O-6 did what he did (ie lower strats, not picked for an upgrade, etc) because you challenged them a policy--why?...because this business is subjective as hell. If you're not one of the 20% chosen ones (you know, the guys you love who will agree with anything you say) then you're better off to just doing your best and not rocking the boat. You may call that cowardice...but I call that reality. I'll fall on my sword when I just can't take it anymore or when I'm near the end and I don't feel they can fck with me much anymore. But I refuse to drink the koolaid and be a cheerleader for the nonsense. I have had young Lt's ask me about certain rules, policies that I though was utter nonsense and I tell them is to make sure they understand such rule and policy and that this is what we're to do and follow. I won't though start cheering about how great of a policy or rule I think it is and how it's making us a better force, blah blah blah. BL: I'll keep on doing what I know is right and taking care of my own guys as much as I can--I'm not 'chasing' rank. Sorry for the TLDR type post. Rant Off.

I would tell them that they can make an IG complaint and/or contact their Congressman. I also suggest to them that they can always go to talk to the ADC for just about any legal question they have and that they are far more the experts in the legal realm than I am. As for telling the young guys that most likely very little will get done unless it's extremely blatant or is a 'flavor of the month' type complaint?...no, I do not. They have their peers and mentors for that...not that it's much of a secret these days as you can see from posts in the other threads. Again, you don't see how 'singling out someone for their race/saying Wilkerson assaulted someone' is a bad thing, and you're part of this larger process. Like I said, you're part of the higher echelon club, I, and most others here, are not.

Nonjudicial punishment falls underneath Article 15 of the UCMJ...which must be accepted by the offender. If the offender doesn't accept the terms of the punishment of his CC under Article 15 then they move to a trial. In a trial, the burden of proof is still on the prosecution. By all means, someone please correct me if I am wrong. I agree on the rest of what you wrote though...the Air Force can sink your career and make your life a living hell whenever they want, and you have very little recourse outside of filing an IG complaint (good luck with that) and writing your Congressman (which may or may not do anything). Very few people challenge the system because even if you win, you still kind of lose...and when you lose, then you really lose bad. Senior officers know this, and those same senior officers know that we know this too. Guys like Liquid and their shining prodigies are part of the club...the rest of us, not so much. We're just the help and they just throw us an occasional bone or two to keep us in line.

SW MP-15 OR is on sale at 'Sportsmans Outdoor Superstore' for $700 (fee shipping) for military. Then of course you get your $100 SW rebate on top of this. I know AR's right now aren't hard at all to get, but this price is super hard to beat at $600. https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/products2.cfm/ID/72176

This is exactly why I can't take you seriously. This wasn't some 'study', this was an actual product produced by the Pentagon to be used to train EO's in how to reduce/deal with workplace discrimination. But yet, you don't see that this is discriminatory! You're either a person who assumes that 100% of what comes out of the Pentagon is perfect...or you're a huge liberal who truly buys into the fact that 'white, Christian, heterosexual males' truly do receive many 'unearned advantages'. Do you know my background good sir? Do you know if I have received 'unearned advantages'...or do you just assume this because the Pentagon said so, and because of what my skin color is, what gender I like to bang, and what I do on my Sundays? If the Pentagon came out and said 'black women, who also happen to be homosexual and atheist' have unearned advantages and largely get to where they are because of affirmative action policies'...would this be ok to you? That's essentially what this article says about whites, just the reverse. I do believe racism exists and there are issues that EO handles everyday...I never said anything to the contrary. But it seems that you don't have a problem with one group being singled out unfairly.

I do appreciate this response (no sarcasm there). But why aren't you sure he doesn't need to lead in our Air Force? Because he got drunk and beat up? When this happens to women the authorities call them victims...not sure what you're calling Krusinkski, but it doesn't sound like you're referring to him as a victim. Is it all about public perception and the response from politicians that give guys their next star? I don't know whether he is a good leader or not, but it appears that somebody with a little rank thought he was fairly decent the day before this happened...why can't we withhold judgement until all the facts come out? I know you said somewhat the same thing, but if you don't know, then why don't you default to him being a good leader before this all happened...and also now that he has been acquitted of all the charges brought against him? I'm not so sure you support the decisions of commanders when they base their decision on facts...a couple weeks ago you said: Wilkerson was cleared of the conviction, thus was no longer an offender. But yet you seem to like to use him as an example of someone who did something wrong (unless you're only speaking to his marital affair...in which case I think you'd have a problem with quite a few people in the military). What's funny is that the Air Force wide SAPR training day a few months back (whatever it was called) had pictures of Wilkerson and Krusinkski on a base PPT slide along with the convicted MTI's...but yet, these 2 dudes have now been cleared of any sexual assault charges. It seems to be me like you're screwed the second you're suspected or charged with a crime...and then when you get cleared, you're not 'really' cleared. Guilty until proven innocent.

To give you the benefit of the doubt in that you are being sincere (maybe you are in this case, who knows), here it goes: Do you think it's acceptable for the DoD to put out a training manual (to EO types), that says: "Simply put, a healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian male receives many unearned advantages of social privilege, whereas a black, homosexual, atheist female in poor health receives many unearned disadvantages of social privilege,” or... “Whites are the empowered group,”..."“White males represent the haves as compared to the have-nots.” Do you think this doesn't degrade males who so happen to be white, Christian, and heterosexual? Do you think this is a good way for the Pentagon to train their Equal Opportunity personnel in the military? Do you think putting out this official manual makes us a stronger and more professional force? Now what's funny is that when this article first came out, I clicked on the link for the manual and was able to pull it up...but now, not so much. It's called reverse discrimination, and all you have to do is turn on the news and read a few articles (or hell, listen to AG Holder) and it becomes obvious that this is supported at the higher levels.

Exactly. I wasn't really expecting a legitimate response anyway. Kind of surprised I got this much of one.

Exactly!! ...however, it is perfectly acceptable to degrade "White, Christian, heterosexual males". https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/pentagon-manual-white-christian-heterosexual-males/

You don't recover from that because the Air Force will go out of their way to keep up with public perception and also do whatever the politicians tell the senior officers to do. In the Air Force (and probably the other branches as well), you're guilty until proven innocent. I would like to hear Liquid's thoughts on this...and that is a legitimate/sincere request.

Pretty good deal on bulk .22LR ammo at MidwayUSA. 5550 rds for $253 and reasonable shipping--delivered mid Jan. https://www.midwayusa.com/product/829351/winchester-ammunition-22-long-rifle-36-grain-plated-lead-hollow-point-case-of-5550-10-boxes-of-555?cm_cat=CheckoutConfirm&cm_pla=BOProductDescrip

The problem wasn't with the messaging, the problem is with the piece of crap, over-reaching legislation that was passed 100% on a party line vote. The Dems barely got it through, and that was with having to lie about what it would do...if they had told the truth then it very well might have not gotten through the way it did, or even at all. And if you think Obamacare is just going to negatively affect 4-5% of people then you're just as wrong as you were 4 years ago when you bought into all the other lies. Rates are going to continue to rise because of what the law has deemed plans must cover...and when the employee mandate kicks in next year, you'll see the next wave of shit hitting the fan. I can't understand why people believed that this bill was going to reduce costs for most people--it covers more in the new mandated plans and gives subsidies to people who don't make enough money. So either other people's premiums must go up, employers must pay more, and/or taxes must go up. The Dems didn't reduce any costs, they just shifted who pays for these costs. The insurance companies will make more money because it's more business for them, but at an increased cost in premiums and higher deductibles for the people. Part of me thinks this will blow up so bad that the Dems will pay severely for it...but the other part of me thinks that they will spin it in such a way to blame the GOP, the insurance companies, etc and will take very little of a hit (if at all) because the American public is too stupid enough to see what is going on here. It's just another several nails into the coffin of the Republic.