WAG

Don't ever go to Vegas...

Does this fall under the "it's only important if somebody has to ask you to do it twice" tactic most commonly employed by execs?

Whoa whoa whoa. So you're saying the Air Force should be compensating it's most highly skilled, high cost to produce, war-fighting personnel who genuinely risk their lives every day they step into the cockpit MORE than $200 a month over their non-rated peers?. GTFO! What gave you this crazy idea of a more "corporate"-like Air Force?

Don't get ahead of yourself. For starters, you need to at least ensure you don't suck at UPT so you're not left with the remains of the Herc/Tanker community.

I agree, but that goes both ways.

Slackline is criticizing people who buy into and regurgitate the nonsense that the conservative media feeds them. However, he is essentially doing the same thing with his stupid "colored fellas" comment which is the classic Republican, old white guy racist stereotype often used by [name your MSNBC anchor]. In other words, he is not practicing what he is preaching. Does that make sense boss?

... and it's BS comments like this that make your "holier than thou" rant less meaningful. In fact, it sounds a lot like the same spoon-fed, liberal "snappy comeback" nonsense that most Dems get from their left wing media. Yet this is the same behavior you are criticizing. Now that is irony....wait... hypocrisy.

Yes... because the Dems never critiqued Bush in this fashion?!? How did that work out for them in 2008, again? Pack your bags, Fuzz. Game over. Here you go Hillary! Slackline: I agree with most of your post in that this criticism is a stretch. On the other hand, saying that this kind of behavior by the GOP ruins their reputation and will break their chances in the next election is a stretch in itself dude. Swing voter: "Well, I was going to vote for (name your GOP candidate), but that nonsense they said about Obama in the situation room really was kind of ridiculous, so I think I'll vote for Hillary!" .... GTFO

And that's how you do it General Chang.

“Honestly, the patch is the last thing on the student pilots’ minds,” Barger said. “They are focused on the rigors of their fast-paced and world-class pilot training … Our allied partners send their student pilots here to train because the United States Air Force is known for its air superiority around the globe, and now perhaps, in the land of Equestria. Perhaps the Wonderbolts will start sporting a U.S. Air Force patch of their own.” ... and this is why we are supposed to contact PA before talking to the media? Did PA get approval from PA for this? WTF Locked.

I see what you are saying, but your first explanation does not explain why they would discriminate between 11Fs and the other pilots when they have the same ADSC... This leads me to believe that your last your reason is more correct. Therefore, senior leaders are concerned. Otherwise they wouldn't have put big blue another $100k in the hole.

So why did the senior leaders decide to spend $100k to buy 4 more years from these dudes if they are not worried? The new Air Force welfare system? The annual amount remains the same but why are you making the duration and total amount an irrelevant issue?

Nightlife? Social scene? A university just minutes away with 66% females? You should really consider picking Charleston. Oh wait... disregard. See ya up there on the track!

Which doesn't explain why you chose to ignore 90% of your link's relevant truth...Noted.

Hmm, the liberal media slamming Fox and propping up an anti-Christian book, shocker... - If he makes his living as a professor of religion he would be a professor of religion, not an associate professor of creative writing. - If he was an expert in the New Testament he would have a PhD in Religion with a focus on the New Testament, and not in Sociology with an emphasis on Islam. There's a reason those pursuing a doctorate are held to a higher standard. In the world of academia, everyone knows master's degrees don't mean shit, sorry... If you think all this makes him an expert scholar on the subject of Jesus and the New Testament, you're misguided. Look, I'll even link unfavorable review from an actual NT scholar on a lefty website which discusses plenty of problems with the book: https://www.huffingto..._b_3679466.html TL/DR: " At the same time, I have some serious reservations about Aslan's portrait of Jesus, and I suspect that most professional biblical scholars will share some of them. First, the book contains some outright glitches, things a professional scholar would be unlikely to say." I think it's perfectly fair for a journalist to ask why someone of a different religion would be motivated to write a book about another religion (that goes for a Christian writing about Islam). Simple question: are you biased? Is it possible to be objective on a subject matter that is very personal and goes against your deeply held beliefs? Hmmm....I'm doubtful. However, when you publish something under the guise of "scholarly/historian" work, your credentials, motives, thesis, background, religion, twitter comments, and blogging are all fair game for review. How you find that kind of stuff irrelevant is beyond me. I've read enough reviews to get the gist of this book. Consensus: he wrote a well articulated opinion on Jesus. One that is commonly held by many Muslims. Nothing new but I have no problem with people reading this book. Nevertheless, I think he clearly has a dog in the fight (an agenda) against Christianity. I beg to ask why he wrote this book when he isn't an actual scholar on this subject matter. He is an expert on several other things (Islam, history of Jihad) on which he could have written and had more credibility. Why did he pick this subject? He can scream all he wants reminding people of his 4 degrees (kind of odd) but his most important degree, the PhD, does not "anoint" him as a scholar and expert "historian" on the subject of Jesus Christ (Islam, definitely). Dude, he even misrepresented being a professor of religion! That screams of desperation. Furthermore, busdriver, he IS an arrogant ass that vehemently rejects opposing viewpoints, so that doesn't help his credibility either... One takeaway, I think it's great we live in a country where his viewpoints are not only embraced, but are marketed and published. There is no way this shit would fly in any Muslim country if it were the other way around. His head would roll, literally. I find that ironic. Standing by on the new thread creation in 3...2....1

Seriously?...hilarious? ...but you are right Reza Aslan should be in the WTF thread: https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reza-aslan-media-martyr-and-bully_742315.html None of these degrees is in history, so Aslan’s repeated claims that he has “a Ph.D. in the history of religions” and that he is “a historian” are false. Nor is “professor of religions” what he does “for a living.” He is an associate professor in the Creative Writing program at the University of California, Riverside, where his terminal MFA in fiction from Iowa is his relevant academic credential. It appears he has taught some courses on Islam in the past, and he may do so now, moonlighting from his creative writing duties at Riverside. Aslan has been a busy popular writer, and he is certainly a tireless self-promoter, but he is nowhere known in the academic world as a scholar of the history of religion. And a scholarly historian of early Christianity? Nope. Aslan’s Ph.D., explains Franck, was in sociology. “He cannot plausibly claim, as he did to Lauren Green, that he is a ‘historian,’ or is a ‘professor of religions’ ‘for a living. Read his twitter comments. The dude is pretty arrogant and unprofessional for someone that claims to be a scholar. Just want to make sure everyone has all the facts.

Borderline cauliflower ear... hot!

Actually, it started (post #22) when some of the Herk sheeple on this forum started chiming in yet another C-17 discussion like a freckle-faced middle child. It's as if they were oblivious to their own record of touching down 2,800 feet short of an airfield in Kuwait or overshooting final in Toncontin and coming to rest at highway interchange...Isn't there some thread here about a -130 carrier landing in Afghanistan that had to be scrapped recently? There is no sense in dangling this kind of stuff over the -130 community, or any community in general. I have many bros that are stellar Herk drivers and even they know that what they fly doesn't define them. There is plenty of good information so far in this thread and elsewhere. My .02, pick the plane based on the mission you think will be most gratifying to you. Most people really enjoy their first assignment regardless of the location which is due, in most part, to the awesome pilot (and USAF) community you will soon join. You will also be surprised how little control you have on your next assignment/location/airframe. With the exception of your parents, no one really gives a shit what plane you fly or even the fact that you are an 11X. This includes the non-rated AF and those hot old high school flames you are probably still trying to impress...

It's interesting how you always fall back on slavery: https://www.npr.org/2...opposed-slavery Your argument is tired and your moral philosophy does not work as a guideline for a civil society. Our founding fathers knew this but you mock and reject them. I question your commitment to the Constitution of the United States and the principles upon which this country was founded. True, you are an American citizen, but you are anything but patriotic. ... and this debate is tired too. I'm done. "Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants." - Benjamin Franklin "We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!" - Abraham Lincoln

I guess you don't.... ever heard of deism? A little research on Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin might help you out.

Democracy/Republicanism will not work in the Middle East (unless your country is called Israel). They have no history of a civil society and tolerance. It doesn't matter who steps in next. It's going to be the "same shit, different day" over there. I'll put the over/under on another revolt and uprising at 4 years.

You DO realize you don't have to follow a religion for that to hold true? C'mon man... As an individual, you have a right in this country not to subscribe to that philosophy. An individual may benefit from moral order and unalienable rights around which society functions while still rejecting their Divine origin. However, the civil society cannot organize itself that way. We're not talking about America becoming a theocracy, dude. The founders refused to build this country on the basis of the abandonment of "Natural Law" because doing so would lead to tyranny in one form or another. This is especially fitting today: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Please explain. Is this an evolutionary "survival of the fittest" (Social Darwinism) argument to explain ethics? This philosophy is flawed and the endgame of it is not pretty. And no, I'm not even a fundamental creationist. We have the amendment system for a reason. I see you have a very pragmatic opinion on this process (which is why the system is breaking). The original designers of the Constitution provided for the process of changing it, they never intended for their original words to change meaning. If the Constitution was up for interpretation, it would have been written specifically in the Constitution for it to be that way. Judicial activism is destroying this country and is setting terrible precedents... "[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things.... [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court .... They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable." - Justice Antonin Scalia

Never said that. Read my words carefully. I am saying there is a source that is not your own. How you make that connection is your own path.

I have my own belief with regard to the truth. I will not and absolutely should not dictate yours. All I know is that moral relativism is not the answer and I am certain the people that founded this country knew it would not survive based on the principles of that philosophy.