HeloDude

I'm not 100% down with the Fair Tax in its current form, but I believe it's the right direction. The problem with the flat tax is that if you make your money underneath the table then you don't pay any direct federal income taxes. Nearly everybody buys something these days in which a sales tax is charged (or could be charged as in the case with purchasing something online and out of State)...why not roll all the federal taxes at the corporate and income level to the last place the good or service is transferred?

I don't think you worded your statement the way you wanted to...but I think I understand what you were intending to say. So do you hold the guy who attempts to reduce his net federal income taxes paid to as close to $0 in a higher regard compared to the person who can find a way to get his net taxes paid to be ($1) or greater (ie gets even more net money from the gov't)? If it's legal, I don't blame either one, and I definitely don't blame one more than the other. They're both trying to work the system the best way they can in order to maximize their gains/minimize their losses. All things being equal, do you fault the homeowner more than the person who rents?...the homeowner gets to reduce their taxable income with property taxes, interest paid, etc and the renter gets nothing other than a standard deduction (assuming no other itemized deductions). Yes, I know there is more risk in buying a house vs renting, that buying a house helps growth, etc...but again, all things being the same, the renter is paying more in taxes. The problem is the SYSTEM. As much as I'm a staunch Libertarian, I am not an anarchist. We need to have some form of government at the federal and State/local level with our Constitution and thus some system of collecting revenue to pay for what The Constitution outlines that the federal government will provide. The problem in DC is the spending and the way revenue is collected as it is very unfair and full of loopholes and exceptions. Reduce the spending considerably and adopt something closer to the Fair Tax. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I think it's smart on their part...rich people do the same thing in terms of trying to pay as little taxes as possible without hurting their bottom line. The problem is with the bill, not what they are doing to minimize their pain. That being said, on the other hand, philosophically this does point out the hypocrisy of those on the left--they are all about giving away free stuff and having a more socialist utopia, but when it comes to them opening up their pocket books more, many of them try to escape the pain. Yet another reason the federal government needs to scrap the entire income tax system and move to a national sales tax that affects damn near everybody. Make it a flat 15% or whatever federal sales tax on everything people buy and there you go, everybody is paying for all the crap and rich people are still going to pay a shitload more. You can even work out a system where certain food items, clothing at goodwill, basic utilities less than $100/month, cars less than $2K, etc are all exempt. Be a whole lot better than the crap system we have now.

This is totally not a waste of time. I'm looking forward to the mock trials of someone for drinking and driving, molesting a child, robbing a bank, giving classified information to a foreign national, cheating on your spouse...I'm sure I'm missing some other ones. Just think--if they build this into basic training and all the commissioning programs then we won't have any more problems ever again. Whoever came up with this idea is a genius...definitely deserves an award and should be promoted ASAP.

It comes down to what most of the other guys are saying: That we don't know where the line is, because at any point, that line can change. We're being told that gender, sexuality, and ethnicity don't matter...yet we have special months 'celebrating' (whatever word people want to use) all these differences that supposedly don't matter anymore. I'm being told that things that don't make us a better warfighter don't belong at work, yet we do things all the time that don't make us a better warfighter. And when we mention these silly issues on here that don't make any sense, for the most part we hear 'well, man up, and change things yourself'...if that's the case, why even have commander call and request feedback from the lower levels? It also comes down to the hypocrisy of all these issues. It comes down to the fact that a picture of a woman in a bikini on a work desk is 'glorifying sex, sexually offensive, whatever' but yet af.mil sites having girls in bikinis is totally acceptable, because, well, that's the AF doing it, so it's ok. I'm told that if I say one thing and do something different around the enlisted troops that I am a bad leader (which I would agree), but yet the AF (ran by senior officers) does it all the time...again, what's up with the pictures on the af.mil site? And for the record, I could care less about any pictures as I don't keep any personal pictures at work--never have, never will. But when Big Blue is making such a big deal about something, then they should check their own backyard first. If I would at least have someone with some high rank say to me 'Yea, it's hypocrisy, but that's just the way it is'...then I'll at least somewhat accept that answer because it's an honest one. But when you won't call out the hypocrisy yourself, then I call that being a 'company' man--not sure what else to call it. I'm not saying that you are setting the policies that conflict with one another, but at the same time you don't seem to have an issue with any of it...at least not on here anyway. And when there is a legitimate story that once again highlights the AF's hypocrisy (that I linked), we don't get a long answer from you to why 'this is the way things are right now and the ways things need to be' like you have done with all the sexual offensive examples, but rather we hear crickets. 90% of us on here may just totally 'not get it' when it comes to the way things are actually done and why they are done...but I do know this--perception is reality and it does affect things at the lower level. If you still think I'm completely wrong then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Noted... This about sums up everything the guys have been saying in this thread. In reality, senior officers don't want to be challenged and don't want to be put in a situation where they have to potentially disagree with their bosses and what they are being told to do. It confirms what many of us have been seeing over the years.

You're definitely a 'company' man! They say jump and you say how high...and then I'm sure try to jump even higher. I'm in the military and I have to adhere to the polices, guidance, and regulations--got it. What I don't have to do is be a cheerleader for the parts that are nonsense. I'll pass on on the 'special month' lunches because like you said, it doesn't make me a better warfighter. As Nsplayr correctly pointed out...the military is kind of like a dictatorship. That being said, I don't have to believe in all the propaganda and allow myself to be indoctrinated. ETA: Liquid, you still haven't commented on this article...why not? https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/pentagon-manual-white-christian-heterosexual-males/

As a Libertarian, tell me what you think he is doing well/right? And tell me where he has messed up during his 5 years in his presidency? (and just for clarification, what his administration does, good or bad, also falls underneath him). The floor is yours.

Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month also has nothing (repeat NOTHING) to do with defending the nation, killing people, or executing the mission...but yet you guys at the Pentagon have hard-on's for all these 'special' months. Now why is that? I'm sure if we got rid of those special months that the Air Force would move right along and execute its mission. And I'm sure (like you said) nobody would be talking it about 3 years from now...and do you know why? Because nobody talks about it now! It wastes resources, but yet, someone has to set up events, write a PA article about it, and promote the month. I know you're getting crapped on from just about everyone on here (including me) but I would appreciate a response to my questions in earlier posts. You're trying to explain the directive of the CSAF, and in doing so, I want to know if watching Seinfeld while pulling alert is allowed? If we can listen to FM radio at work (maybe during unit PT sessions) even though there are sexually offensive songs on the radio? Why can't guys sleep in the same pods with girls (non-married) downrange or use the same cadillacs? Why are bikini pictures, posters of girls with guns, etc considered offensive today and not last year? Was 90% of the General Officers knowingly and willingly supporting sexual harassment several years ago by allowing all this to happen?...even at the point of allowing AAFES to bring in NFL cheerleaders? Why is it not sexually offensive or inappropriate to allow service members to march in a civilian gay pride parade supported by the DoD? Why are the pictures RTB posted of girls in bikinis still available for view on a DoD website? By the way, the chick on the 6th picture looks pretty damn hot. Unless a brand new Lt or A1C was actively involved in a deployable unit (ops, mx, etc), that said new Lt/A1C would barely understand the gravity of the situation of that we're still at war and we have good dudes fighting downrange. 7-8 years ago that's mostly what CC calls were all about...now it's about all this other crap. In a lot of ways, you senior officers 'can't see the forest for the trees'.

Your post doesn't make much sense...but I welcome you to the forum anyway. I agree with you that Obama isn't doing too many things in line with the Libertarian philosophy (did I ever say that he was?), hence why my comment to/in response to Vertigo was 'tongue in cheek'. Vertigo is a Libertarian (I'm assuming he's honest when he says so), however, he is quick to jump on the GOP much more often than Obama and the Dems...and, drum roll please, the Dems run the federal executive branch! So they're the ones to bash right now at the federal level...just like Bush was the one to bash 5 years ago. At best the GOP can only stop (or at least try to) the Dems, so it's hard to bash the guys for their policies when they can't get any of their policies through. But yet, Vertigo rarely bashes Obama and Obamacare, the increased regulations, the gun control push by the Dems, etc. As a fellow Libertarian, I'll bash the GOP all day long when they're doing stupid shit. I bash them for reauthorizing the Patriot Act, not passing recent proposed restrictions on the NSA, still authorizing all the crazy spending in the House, etc. But right now the Dems are taking the cake...they saw how the GOP spent under Bush and decided to take it even further into crazy land. They're still hoping to get some more gun control through, and the Obamacare crap, well, I think that is self explanatory. Vertigo keeps us all on honest on here, and vice versa. If he wants to bash a certain news report, then that's fine--but he has to offer something substantive on the story itself and back up his opinions vs just giving an emotional response about where the story was reported. I think he gets where I was coming from.

Doesn't matter if they do...either way they'll call it an AR-15 (maybe they'll call it an AK-47 if they're feeling saucy).

I read M2's post and then the responses afterwards...and then had re-read M2's post again because I didn't catch it the first time. At the minimum she should send out a tweet stating that she made a mistake with the whole 'Houston' part. I'd actually be more concerned if the elite/Hollywood types weren't supporting the liberals (when compared to non-liberals/conservatives)--if so, I would wonder what secret squirrel games they were up to! Look at it this way...I'd be willing to bet that most people who really care what Molly Ringwald thinks are most likely going to vote for the Dems anyway.

"Vertigo", aka the Libertairan who almost always supports Obama. Had you had quoted from the Huffington Post, Vertigo wouldn't have questioned the source. Here's an idea Vertigo--the article quotes certain people saying certain things. Why don't you comment on the reputation of the guys quoted and/or the substance of their quote? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the retired Generals, but I'm also not just making a worthless response the the source of their quotes. Focus on substance not emotion.

You're damn skippy I want leadership...but I want to know why something was deemed acceptable last year and now it's not. I get these guys have to answer to political bosses, but the 'well, I was always a supporter of this no-sexual innuendos' blah blah blah...it's bullshit man. The senior officers knew that fighter guys said 'so to speak', 6.9 seconds, that a lot of us had pictures of NFL cheerleaders (that freakin' AAFES gave us) at our desks...and then one day they're all of a sudden sexual harassment?? So I was sexually harassing coworkers all those years and I didn't even know it? Why didn't somebody tell me this then? The military is ran by politicians, got it. Senior officers have to comply with what they are told by politicians or they will be replaced, got it, and same goes with the officers under the CSAF, and so on and so forth. But the senior officers do not have to blow smoke up your ass and act like they were always against things that went on in the AF while they were still in charge. Just give it to me straight...tell me WHY they were allowing something to occur last year, why all of a sudden the change this year, and where do we go from here. The senior officers want to curb motorcycle accidents but yet they haven't banned riding motorcycles...if banning something is the key to fixing a problem, then why not do it there? I don't own a motorcycle and my life is just fine. I get that the bikini pictures are out, got it. What else specifically is no longer allowed? Is showing somebody a clip from Family Guy on my phone allowed? If I'm pulling alert, are we allowed to watch Family Guy? What about Seinfeld?

So everything was wrong before the Gen's policy change and now everything is correct? Yes, that is a juvenile response, and it was on purpose. You ducked my entire question--if it was condoned before (even you said yourself that is was), then why wasn't Gen Swartz and a bunch of other senior officers fired? Why now? Girls were being harassed and assaulted earlier than just 1-2 years ago...why all of a sudden the change? I have a hard time believing that 90% of General officers thought an NFL cheerleader calendar at work added to the problem of sexual assault or believed that it was sexual harassment, but yet allowed it to continue for so long. It's not like any of this was a secret beforehand...hell, AAFES brought the cheerleaders to the base and would meet with the Wing Commanders! You're right...you mentioned 'work' and that's what it is becoming. It used to be a place of a close fraternity of warriors--guys and girls, working hard to achieve a mission and not spending time worrying about BS. It was a place where you didn't have to worry about re-telling the slightest joke that you heard on TV the other night. It was a place where guys and gals would tell stories at the squadron bar and make fun of each other (whether with a sexual innuendo or not) and it would foster camaraderie, morale, and communication in a less threatening environment. It was a place where people would pull pranks on each other to lighten the tough work and didn't have to worry about somebody being 'offended' because people knew it was in good fun and we cared about each other and knew where the line was. I don't think I need to go on, I think you get the idea. It's called incrementalism, General. You can say that it's just coffee mugs and posters, no big deal...but it is a step towards more. The below article is mentioned in a new thread, but just in case you missed it... https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/31/pentagon-training-manual-white-males-have-unfair-advantages/ And you didn't respond to my post from yesterday when I ask why you all still haven't enforced the tattoo policy all these years. Selective enforcement of the standards, depends on which way the politics is blowing. It's wrong to have a picture of a wife in a bathing suit (I'm sorry that offends you) but yet if it offends someone that DoD approved dudes in uniform to march in a gay pride parade next to dudes in drag, well then that's just their tough luck. I saw this hypocrisy with the repeal of DADT...we were told sexuality didn't matter anymore, that we were all professional enough to deal with the issue, but yet, a guy and a girl can not live in the same pod together downrange even though 2 gay guys/girls can, that I can't use the same cadillac as the women, but yet if a guy is uncomfortable with having a gay guy in the same cadillac as him, well then that's just tough luck. I don't envy the fact that senior officers have to deal with political bosses and answer to their ideology...but you know what, you guys asked for the job. Again, tell me which standards and regulations will and will not be enforced and I'll comply accordingly.

You guys at the top were fine with it a year ago...if it so offensive, then why didn't you all get fired for condoning it for so long? If you were at least just to say "We're doing it because that is what our civilian bosses are telling us to do", then I will respect you for telling it like it is. But when you guys jump on board all of the sudden, preach the talking points and then try to appear like you always believed in the new policy...well, it's disingenuous. And you if are being disingenuous with this issue, I question what else you are doing that is disingenuous. If you all are only a political yes man then please don't be upset when a bunch of yes men is what you get at the lower levels.

I want to be upset...but at the same time, I'm not that upset because I am not surprised that this is where the military is going. I could rant on and on about this, but for right now I'll just say again: I'm glad that I'm over the half way point. Let's see Liquid and 'leadership' try to spin this one. If they have the courage to discuss it, then at the very least their comments might be mildly entertaining.

Buds LE has SW MP-10 (.308) in stock for $979...damn, that is $100 cheaper than when some people bought theirs earlier this year. If I owned guns and already had one of these, then I'd be pretty tempted to buy one another one. https://www.budspolicesupply.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/15142

I personally find it offensive...especially if he doesn't buy me a drink afterwards.

The leadership is drawing the line...the same leadership that allowed us to have sexually offensive material a year ago before the standards changed. I'm upset that our leadership failed us up until recently, but now they've got it all figured out so I'm much happier!

Also...are we going to ban the radio at work? Not sure if you've tuned in recently to what the kids are listening to these days but it's fairly 'suggestive' to say the least, even on FM radio. What about the A1C in uniform stopped at the light on base with his windows down listening to some 'gangsta rap' with racist undertones and sexual offensive words'...and what if it is just the FM radio in general? Where is leadership going to draw the line? If leadership is going to send out memo's saying you can't say 'so to speak', then are they going to tell us what music is allowed on base? What about watching Seinfeld on network TV if you're pulling alert...a lot of 'sexually offensive' jokes on that old 90's sitcom. ...I have an idea, maybe we should all march in the gay pride parade in our uniform? (which was actually supported by DoD last summer) No big deal if we're in uniform walking next to people with sexually offensive outfits on, I mean hey, it's all about diversity! Leadership won't even enforce tattoo regulations, but yet they'll all jump at banning pictures of your wife in a bikini on your desk..."yes sir, yes sir...3 bag full". Just let me know what rules are going to be enforced and which ones won't be enforced and I'll act appropriately.

This...this right here. RTB, good on you man. The hypocrisy of leadership is so thick you can cut it with a knife. I'm sure Liquid will get right on having it removed...as it is sexually offensive to me that I may have to see this just in case I check out an Air Force PA site and come across this horrible picture.

Rog. Sorry man--good luck.

It's an Arsenal SLR-107FR at Atlantic Firearms for $990 (folding stock). https://www.atlanticfirearms.com/component/virtuemart/shipping-rifles/arsenal-slr-107fr-7-62x39mm-side-folding-rifle-detail.html?Itemid=0

Not married to another pilot, but having known folks that are, the biggest challenge will be getting the same airframe. If you don't both get KC-135's (for example) then it will be a challenge to get Join Spouse assignments at the same base. In UPT there were 2nd assignment Captains that were married during training...he got C-17's, she got A-10's. AFPC/assignments process got him C-17's to Charleston and she got A-10's to Pope--best they could do, and then of course they both got T-37's IP jobs to the same base. I also knew 2 H-1 pilots who were married and they had 3 assignments together before she got out...again, much easier when you have the same airframe. My personal opinion is that you have to determine both your #1 priorities--if it's to get the airframe both of you want (regardless of the other's desire) then it will be tough to live with each other unless you both want/receive the same airframe and it's one of the more 'common' aircraft dropped (KC-135's, C-17's, etc). Either way, you're rolling the dice as nothing in the AF is fair. If you're all about getting the same aircraft to increase the chances you will be stationed together, then I would definitely go T-1's (most common track select) and then chose one of the more common aircraft that is typically dropped to the folks at the bottom half of the class (I'm assuming it's a KC-135...no offense guys, just a rough numbers assumption here). I think it's smart to play the odds on this one if you want to live in the same location. As you can see, IMO, it's all about being able to live with each other...else, why bother getting married if you're in a constant long distance relationship? To make the join spouse program work in your favor then you have to give AFPC/UPT assignment folks the best numbers to work with. Good luck.