Mark1

Baseball's league championship games were shown on TBS and MLB Network this year...the game is dead. And it's not coming back until they change the rules to eliminate the starting pitcher being pulled so that a left handed reliever can pitch to one batter only to be pulled and replaced by a right handed reliever and then an average of two pitchers per inning thereafter with commercial breaks at every change. I know the state of baseball isn't your point, but I guess mine is that e-sports doesn't have to meet a very high bar to be included in the issue when it's only displacing additional baseball coverage that nobody cares to read about...and I'm a baseball fan.

Not to discount the fact that it could cause issues in another circumstance, but I'd put an extraordinarily high probability on the fact that the airstrike mentioned had precisely fuck-all to do with the presence of BACN in the area.

Good news for you, I heard that a totally FUBAR sarcasm detector is worth 30%.

I'm quite capable of hating both at the same time, and they're both worthy of it. If you think there's nothing to dislike about a person who feels that because they once held a position where they ostensibly served the citizens best interest, they're now entitled to now defraud the citizens, then I guess there's not much point in discussing the issue. Me? I'll maintain my stance that a person who collects a disability check for non-service related injuries (that are officially considered service connected just because they occurred while on active duty), then turns the disability off when it serves his best interest in order to do an able-bodied job, and who will undoubtedly be disabled once again when he separates, is worth looking down upon. Apparently I'm in the minority. No wonder this country is going down the shitter. As long as I get mine...fuck everybody else. And I take this to mean that you have no disdain for the stereotypical welfare recipient who isn't seeking employment, is standing in line for their food stamps and Obama phone this morning and going to the free clinic later today to pop out their 14th kid from their 9th baby-daddy that gets so much play on this forum..because, hey, they're just using the system to its fullest. Hate the system, love the player. That's the gist of it. If I had my way it'd be: Legs blown off - 100% All else - 0%

Predictable response. You earned it...everybody else is just a freeloader. And of course everybody else thinks similarly with regard to themselves. I know a guy who will get a check from the government for the rest of his life because he snagged a ski on a tree root while on vacation and it tore his leg to pieces. I know of another who injured himself playing a pickup game of basketball at the base gym (comedically enough, he was skipping out on work to play). And then there's every other guy who avoided the base clinic like the plague until 6 months before their final out date when, based on their medical records, you'd think they'd come down with some sort of degenerative terminal disease (which then miraculously disappeared when they needed to go out and find employment). That reminds me of another guy who thought he was done with government work when he left and pushed the VA hard to earn himself a ~40% rating. 8 months later he was trying to get on with a Guard unit who wouldn't take him because he was disabled. He was able to reverse engineer that issue, pass his physicals, and is serving in a Guard position that is more physically demanding than 99% of all Air Force positions. Had he not had the desire to return, he'd still be collecting. What are the odds that his ailments will return when he leaves the Guard? None of these are the reason for the existence of the VA healthcare system, but they are by far the overwhelming majority of claims. Monthly disability payments exist explicitly to replace income potential lost due to debilitating conditions developed as a direct result of military service...not to compensate people who have lower back pain because, ya know, 40yr old+ people tend to have aches and pains. If the 95% of people living normal lives while receiving VA disability gave up the entitlement, the guy who had his legs blown off in combat could get 50 times better care and not have to wait in a 9 month backlog of people making frivolous claims to start receiving benefits.

I know a lot of guys receiving disability payments...not a single one of them is in a position where they would do a specific job to support themselves or their family if they could, but can't because their 'disability' prevents it. Of course those people exist, but they aren't even close to the majority of people receiving benefits, and it's sickening. My TAPS class was worthless in every regard, except one. It served as a fairly comprehensive guide on how to exploit the VA disability system for personal gain. It bordered on a class about how to defraud to program. It was disgusting to see people who were nodding off in the middle of the class perk up and start asking questions when it came to how to ensure a monthly payment from the government in return for nothing. I have neck, back, knee, and hearing issues...all of which developed while I was on active duty. The VA considers them service connected, and for all I know my time on a constantly vibrating platform with 8lbs of gear on my head under 'high' G's didn't help. But you know what? I was a decade older when I separated. Getting old sucks. Your body starts falling apart whether you're in the military or not. Just because it fell apart while I was on active duty doesn't mean my job led to the problems. I wake up every morning, dress myself, and go to work. Even if it involves some pain, I don't want a government handout that could otherwise go to a guy who took a face full of shrapnel, lost a limb, and is legitimately excluded from performing many jobs that he might otherwise hold if healthy. It always blew my mind listening to retired guys bitching about how their disability check was late again while they piloted a commercial aircraft making $200k a year, and in their previous breath were complaining about the entitlement generation and Obama phones.

Some of those cut scenes are footage from the national ad campaign that was in full force about a year ago (I still see them occasionally). The ads that the footage was taken for were actually fairly well done. Although I personally would have never participated, if I had been featured in them I also wouldn't be so ashamed of the final product that I would have to quietly sneak out the back door every time one of them came on while I was watching a football game with buddies. But of course once you put yourself on video for the Air Force, they own your image. Now you've been shoehorned into this and it'd make me physically ill. Who knows what else you might end up in over the next 50 years. Moral of the story: DON'T TALK TO THE FUCKING MEDIA...and that includes PA.

Hmm, and here I was sure that I acknowledged a caveat for that very specific period of time. I guess not, though.

Perhaps refresh yourself on the meaning of the word "could" as opposed to the word "should" in the English language. There's a not so subtle difference between the two words that I believe you're unfamiliar with. I chose to bold it for a reason, but I guess it was a waste of my time. I should have included a dictionary entry instead. I haven't backpedaled on anything. And although you have no fucking clue what 'my element' is, (for the 4th time) I've made no comment whatsoever on any specific piece of equipment being integrated onto fighter aircraft, so it's immaterial.

Makes sense.

1. An aircraft with limited visual signature moving at 400kts is a (not 'the') hazard, just as every other thing in the sky is a hazard. That's a general comment made with absolutely no reference to the incident that spawned this thread, so unwad your panties. 1a. I made zero reference to any mid-air in my previous post. I did reference a piss poor attitude for a public servant, and not much else. You want a statistically significant demonstration that mil aircraft are a hazard to GA? Reference the link provided on page 1 of this thread about a fatal mid-air between an F-16 and a GA aircraft over South Carolina. Regardless of fault, had the military aircraft not been in that airspace at that instant, there would have been no incident. That's about the definition of a hazard. 1 vs. 0 is always statistically significant as it indicates an event is not impossible. Day 1 - Intro to Statistics. Nailed it. 2. I have no SA on how acquisitions works? I could put you in touch we a few guys at BIG SAFARI that might disagree with you. You seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating for ADS-B in the F-16. I am not. To form an opinion on the matter I would have to weigh that course of action against its opportunity cost, which would take time and effort...time and effort that I would demand compensation for. What I am advocating is that you lose the self-centered dismissive tone when someone (not me) suggests an addition to your aircraft that improves its integration into civilian airspace...inevitably at the expense of something else. Because, once again, your precious safety in combat (if you ever see it) does not take priority over non-squawky, non-talky, GA pilot Cleetus. 3. Great. I didn't reference ADS-B for the F-16 in my previous post so I'm sure he makes a bunch of great points that don't conflict at all with what I had to say. 4. No doubt your unit showed you their 'everybody gets a trophy' here's what we've contributed, feel-good video when you in-processed. Every unit has one...from the cooks on up. And they're important. Everybody wants to feel needed. Nevertheless, combat requires the exchange of force by at least two parties. From the F-16 perspective, it's been a one sided affair since the Balkans wound down...well over a decade ago as I stated. Yes, the F-16 has intervened in the combat of guys on the ground in OEF/OIF and elsewhere since then, but only from the comfort of a completely different non-combat environment. And that's fine. It's a necessary contribution and the extent of most members of the AF participation. There's no shame in it. In fact it's quite worthy of a level of pride. Bottom line: the F-16 has, as of late, been shoehorned into the fray just to 'get in the game' in many places at the expense of (relative) poor coverage for guys on the ground and more tanker orbits, but they've contributed quite a bit...from outside a combat environment. Don't bother to bring up Libya. You and I both know the details and it doesn't qualify. I'd possibly grant you a few days in 2003 but it's splitting hairs. 5. Cool Although it was off the cuff and I didn't intend for it to be factual, I'd bet more likely than not that investing in equipment to improve integration into civilian airspace would actually increase survivability in the F-16 over putting that money into combat related systems. Before your panties get all wadded up again, I am not suggesting we do that...but I do think that more likely than not it would hold true. Then again, your survivability is not the priority.

I must have missed the paragraph in the commissioning oath that prioritized your safety over that of the people behind the document that you swore to defend. I always thought the entire point was that you voluntarily sacrificed a level of your own personal safety in order to provide it for the citizens you serve. That could take the form of forgoing the latest and greatest RWR variant in favor of something that makes you less of a hazard in civilian airspace. However, we wouldn't want to go out of our way to provide a 'service' to civilian joe [or equivalent slightly belittling term for your employer]. That's just not what the military is in the business to do. Get over yourself. P.S. If it's any consolation, your MWS hasn't seen combat in well over a decade and most probably never will again. Re-purposing funds away from combat systems and towards FAA/ICAO airspace compatibility probably increases your survivability.

It doesn't affect anything in this thread but just an interesting factoid for those that didn't know...low level used to be a gunship proficiency requirement. It was eliminated some years ago but there was a half-hearted attempt to bring it back around 2010. It never went anywhere, but low level flight is not unheard of for a gunship. Of course, its modified contour procedures were much less aggressive than the MC,

I'm out of the loop so definitely wait for somebody with current info to weigh in, but the answer to your question is, it depends. If you played all your angles right and got a little lucky, you could potentially spend your entire career there minus maybe a staff tour. Before Cannon became a thing, that wasn't all that unusual. Now it's most likely that you wouldn't be able to pull that off, but still not impossible. 4SOS --> WIC Instructor --> 18th Flight Test --> Staff --> Command might be a viable route, but everything would have to fall into place. I'd say the best anybody is going to be able to do is give you a minimum expectation. My guess would be 3 years. ~8mo training and a little over 2 years flying the line before you could expect to begin to show up on radar for crossflow elsewhere. That's not to say that you will crossflow at that juncture, just that you might. Keep in mind that once you're into AFSOC you have options between different AFSOC entities, but it is nearly impossible to be released to other MAJCOMs. If you have your heart set on flying an ACC or AMC asset at some point during your career, go there first and look to transition to AFSOC later. The other way around is generally not an option.

Is that the 3rd Amendment in the Bill of Rights? I always forget that one.

Can't discuss the examples because they aren't open source, but here's a post of mine from several years ago in the "Latest Movies" thread (before the movie came out): I can't recall if the AAR is classified SPECAT. If so, you may not have access to it, but if not, you can probably locate it and see for yourself. I have not seen the movie, but I did see a trailer depicting the moment of compromise. I was pleasantly surprised to see that they chose to accurately portray one of the goat herders as a young boy. Luttrell glances over it in the book. However, in the movie it's not a big deal because they put all the desire to kill the goat herders on Axelson (another massive foul) while Luttrell steadfastly and aggressively argues that they can't execute the civilians. This is in contrast to the several pages in the book that Luttrell dedicates to his true desire for killing the goat herders (he reluctantly relents due to outside forces/pressure). Of course there's a reason why the movie producers would have wanted to eliminate anything that didn't glorify their hero, but given that Luttrell was a consultant, he shouldn't have allowed it. It does another disservice to the dead men.

Not to mention bending the truth, strategically omitting unsavory details, and attempting to push an agenda after the fact that didn't exist in real time....at least in the case of Luttrell. I can't speak for Kyle as I've never read his book.

Wow. I have a feeling laughter wasn't the emotion that piece was supposed to elicit. If I worked at Fox News I would have to come up with a cover story to tell anytime somebody asked what I did for a living, because I wouldn't be able to tell them the truth without feeling overwhelming shame.

I don't pretend to know anything. I took your comment of "If I were a religious person, and I'm not..." at face value. Apparently there's some sort of hidden meaning in there that I couldn't possibly know... Would it be inherently negative if I advocated that a person live their life free of faith and if they refused to do so I tied them to a post and burned them to death? I thought in an effort to be more positive I would take some cues from the bright shining light of positivity that is faith, and I just want to clarify.

I don't converse in talking points, let alone somebody else's. I'm only vaguely aware of what Reddit is and as far as I remember have never visited it. I never have, and never will, have a Facebook account. Do you? If so, you are a terrible, annoying, progressive, yoga loving vegan hipster who takes selfies while they crossfit...apparently. What was that you were saying about speaking in broad generalities? That's an incredibly tired argument that resonates only with people who have never experienced anything other than what they were brought up on. You should know that since you're not religious, but maybe you're just a very self aware exception to the rule that sees yourself as inherently negative. I know that he's recently found significant popularity so I hesitate to mention him lest I be branded a bandwagoner, but I defy you to watch an interview with Neil Degrasse Tyson and tell me he has an inherently negative perspective on life. You want a narrowly focused counter-argument to faith? Here: The foundational tale behind the Mormon faith suggests that indigenous North American peoples were a transplanted Jewish tribe that traveled here by boat, and therefore their descendants should have DNA in that lineage. Modern DNA testing has shown that not to be the case, and that indigenous American's originated exactly from where every other anthropological indicator says they did - Northern Asia. How does a Mormon rectify that in their head? Well, the church goes to great lengths to ensure they never know that, but if they stumble upon it, it usually ends up with "god changed the evidence to test your faith" or some such nonsense. You can't trust science in this one instance despite the fact that you trust it every time you use your cellphone or toss your child over your head and don't expect them to fly off into the vacuum of space. What can a logical argument possibly accomplish with a person willing to swill that down? Very little. So you change the environment by refusing to allow that stuff to go unabated and wait. Over time, as joe1234 mentioned, it becomes more acceptable to call that kind of thought out for what it is. And let me be clear. Mormonism is no more or less crazy than any other religion out there, this is just an easy example to demonstrate how futile it is to 'convert' individuals with directed logical argument. I'd prefer that the people in this world put in the position to decide when to launch enough nuclear warheads to destroy the Earth multiple times over not base their actions on this kind of thing, but that's just me. And yes, I am aware that sadly I'm in the minority.

Referring to scripture as fairy tale and faith as delusion is dealing with reality. It's not a proactive effort to offend. Anybody who is offended by that is too far gone to worry about. The change will be a generational one, and hopefully that person's offspring will be slightly less likely to give in to indoctrination because the world around them finds the alternative acceptable (as evidenced by people being unapologetic about rejecting religion). When a growing minority deals in reality, it creates an environment that is more and more uncomfortable for faith to exist in, and over time that will support a shift in thinking. The church knows this as it did everything it could to create an uncomfortable environment for non-believers for a long time, because it appeals to the human desire to conform/belong (albeit through more aggressive means like burning people alive). Now the shoe is increasingly on the other foot, except there is no entity organizing the shift in culture that makes faith uncomfortable. And of course I'm sure several people would be happy to drop some bible verses on you to show that Jesus predicted this challenge to faith...so that's indisputable confirmation of the scripture being the infallible word of god. Dig your heels in.

Acts 3:23 You should get started. ISIS has a head start on you.

I rarely vote for candidates as I will not vote for the lesser of two evils, and with very few exceptions 'evil' is all that's offered, regardless of party. As Penn Jillette would say, "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil". So in general I just vote on legislation and omit the candidates. I know of the Jillette quote because I'm staunchly libertarian (not the party, just philosophically). So when I vote on legislation (or candidates in rare instances) it's always with libertarian ideals in mind. Pretty progressive of me, huh HeloDude? Yeah, I'd bone Hilary Clinton real good if given the chance. I love her for her mind. You've certainly got my number. Anyway, I fully support the right of anybody to practice any religion they like, as long as it doesn't affect me. That is not to say that I don't simultaneously wish that they might abandon their fairy tales in favor of logic and reason because it makes for a better existence for everyone. And especially that they would stop brainwashing their kids (strategically at ages where they can't think critically for themselves). Of course, religion would cease to exist rapidly if they didn't do the churches bidding in brainwashing their children, as almost nobody decides that religion is the answer as an adult for obvious reasons. When 70% of the population bases their actions on delusions it's impossible that that doesn't have an impact on everybody else...thus simply not following religion doesn't exactly solve the problem as you state. So, I'm happy to see the pace of erosion of the institution increasing.

Funny because there's no possible motivation for the humans who concocted the scriptures to attempt to assign positive value to the willful ignorance that allows the religious institution to thrive? The greatest scam ever sold is necessarily a crafty, artful, amazing thing. In that, religion holds significant cultural value...but that doesn't make it any less of a con.

Refuting 'anecdotal' evidence with your own anecdotes while TnkrToad claims Ho Lee Fuk is attacking straw men by simultaneously doing the same. Well done gentlemen, well done. Correlation doesn't necessarily indicate causation...true. But pointing that fact out doesn't somehow invalidate the entire concept of correlation in every case. Obesity and poverty and crime (etc.) aside, there is one undeniable correlation related to religion. It thrives in ignorance and struggles in highly educated (read that as access to information) populations. Most religions seek to keep their flock away from objective information for a reason, but that's a losing battle in today's world (at least in developed nations). The trend in this poll will only strengthen, particularly after a few stuck-in-the-mud generations die off and leave behind descendants that are less and less indoctrinated. The 70% are on the wrong side of history. I'm just sad I won't live to see a world where the statistics are flip-flopped.