tac airlifter

The order is in direct conflict with science, and only serves to further support the narrative that government policies are unfair and unscientific.

A paycheck that keeps his family fed. Tough situation for anyone to be in. Do you think our military is stronger or weaker now that we’ve forced our members to do this?

Valid.

That link says households with vaccinated people spread C19 at 25%, and unvaccinated households at 38%. That’s only a 13% difference. Add to that observation there was no discussion of how severe symptoms were (if any at all), and it’s quite clear this is not a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” Frankly it’s not a pandemic at all, COVID is over as a threat. Now we’re talking about mandatory boosters? This is insane.

Shhh, don’t tell Waingro. He’ll explode

As someone who has never flown a T-38 please educate me: what is the DLO of form takeoff & landing?

This one. The rest of their vaccines are real vaccines, against genuinely threatening issues, with significantly more research and no political taint. We even elected to have my daughter receive the HPV vaccine which is questionable for some, but it was our choice and it met my risk reward threshold. given all that, consider how disingenuous it is to label me an anti-VAXXER if I don’t unquestioningly comply with mandates surrounding this vaccine. For children, the cure has been worse than the disease. I’m speaking here not just of the vaccine but more importantly of the forced isolation, school lockdowns, school masking, no friendships, blunted development, etc. The same experts who championed those practices are now forcing a vaccine while hiding the scientific data for 55 years.

Actually I do a lot of things with my son more risky than driving: shooting, weight lifting, ocean swimming. I do those things on purpose because I am raising him to be an eagle, not a chicken. And I am with him and able to mitigate the risk while I teach him. Said another way, I take calculated and controlled risks when required in order to achieve desired benefits. I do not play Russian roulette. I do not take risk for its own sake. I understand your viewpoint from a mathematical perspective, but from a leadership perspective unnecessary risk is extremely irresponsible. There’s enough information in the public domain for me to conclude that mandatory vaccination of all children is child abuse.

“This article is terrible” is true if you were looking for a well researched scientific study. However if you are merely documenting a fact that is not widely documented elsewhere, then the article is helpful because it adds information to our evolving understanding of the situation we’re in. There could be many reasons the cause of deaths has increased, and I’m glad the article did not speculate. Vaccines or isolation, I don’t know. But since children are not at massive risk of contracting and dying from this disease, why are we even taking a risk with them? You are “willing to wager,” but I’m not. I’m unwilling to have my children receive a vaccine that could harm them without proof the situation demands that risk. As it is, our society is being too aggressive with the vaccination campaign. I am also uncomfortable that the entire media and government conglomerate seems to be pounding the same message and preventing debate: the vaccines are safe and effective. But there’s enough information to have me question if that is true always for all people under all circumstances. The blanket nature of these pronouncements and policies gives me a lot of pause because there are people with unique situations. Covid is not smallpox or the plague, and we can’t let the cure be worse than the disease. This article merely adds an avenue to further that discussion.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uk-sees-44-increase-in-child-deaths-after-jab-rollout-for-young-teens-data-shows/ it’s unbelievable to me that anyone would vaccinate their children given the uncertainty surrounding safety.

Sorry, no one has adequately explained why my son should die for Ukraine or Taiwan. If those countries are absorbed into their respective aggressors, is anyone in the US less safe in a quantifiable way? “Defender of the global commons” is insufficient rationale unless it translates to an actual threat to US personnel. Now if you want to start some shit with China because of the US Fentanyl crisis or C19 I’m game to hear you out, but we should probably have a real intel assessment first.

The same highside analysis that predicted Afghanistan wouldn’t fall in 24 hours? You can plan whatever you want, if leader ship is paralyzed with indecision you still lose.

When Afghanistan fell in such a shameful fashion, it became obvious our nation wouldn’t do anything about Taiwan or Ukraine either.

I know there are some petty and small minded commanders who justify your apprehension, and that’s unfortunate. I believe crossflow (assuming it’s the members choice) is ultimately in the best interest of the Air Force because people do better when they want to be somewhere. I recommend simply talking to your boss and functional. It is a risk, but embrace that risk and be bold. Here are approaches that will resonate with your CC: 1. In what circumstances would you support a cross flow out of our community? 2. I desire to cross flow into xxx program because I think that type of service is suited to my skills. What can I do to receive your endorsement? Item one allows you to grasp the perspective from their viewpoint. The goal is information gathering so you can manage expectations and strategize your next approach. Item two keeps the focus on mission and how you can better serve. What organization wouldn’t want people to serve in ways which best match their personalities and skills? Keep it professional, but don’t be afraid to ask direct questions. I’ve worked a lot of these; here are some observations: you have to be good at your current platform. Not “ok” and not just good in your mind. Be in the top 25% strat-wise, but also be actually good at your mission. Both your commander and functional must agree, as well as the gaining functional (meaning, you need to know their pipeline throughout capacity, what that does to your timing). Keep a professional attitude and be up front to your commander. “Up front” doesn’t mean you have to accept the dictate of your commander if they are the rare petty breed discussed earlier: you can simply tell that person “I’m going to continue to try everything I can to move into XX community.” But those are rare. More often I see members trying to be sneaky and play people against each other and end up getting sideways with their commander. Not a good spot to be, the commander is extremely influential in this process but not solely determinative. Also it matters how you leave your last community to your gaining commander. My final recommendation is have a specific platform in mind. Commanders are busy and so are functionals, they aren’t going fishing for you. Have something specific you want and do your homework on the timing, both your own personal timing (PDE, TOS, upgrades, etc.) and the general timing of new FTU. “I want to do something different but I don’t know what” is going to get you white jets. Big picture: be professional, straightforward about your desires and rationale, and be very good at your existing job. That is how you best position yourself; then luck in timing will hit your plan and who knows what happens. Good luck, I wish you the best.

Agreed. CH, what would you think about AFSOC reorganizing wings into similar type missions? Strike wing, mobility wing, ISR, etc. I’m curious if that would help AFSOC focus more; it seems a lack of focused O6 attention results in a lack of GO focused attention, which allows problems to fester. Although we would need increased cross flows to prevent tribalism, but in general I think more cross flow is a good thing.

Thanks for the explanation, never heard it called that.

What does “mechanical crossflow” mean?

In this situation are you imagining you’re a cop or another armed citizen? In either case, why did you let an angry mob attack the kid and burn the city? Did you ask the arsonist mob to “comply?” I welcome dialogue, but your post is nonsensical because it presumes this event occurred in a vacuum.

Quick summary of this conversation: I speculate boosters may become mandatory, you come off the top rope mocking me, but now acknowledge boosters may be mandatory and you’ve forgotten that only 3 weeks ago it was a conspiracy theory. You think I’m a “southwest first officer” (which I assume is bad?), I think you're incapable of critical thought; conversation and compromise is impossible. That’s this whole COVID event in a microcosm. Wish I had an idea of how to move forward productively, but I don’t. From my viewpoint we have to: 1. cease mandates. “Emerging data to refine hypothesis” is fine, except this experiment involves human beings. How about we cease mandates until certain we aren’t making it worse? 2. hold responsible those who lied and abused their power, starting with Fauci and Cuomo and big tech oligarchs who crushed the free speech of doctors trying to help during a pandemic. 3. conduct an origin investigation on par with the 9/11 commission. That’s how we START healing. From his perspective I don’t know, but I’m guessing we get boosters every 6 months, ask no questions, and mock those who do. Our nation has irreconcilable differences and I fear for the future.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/fauci-changing-definition-fully-vaccinated hey buddy, you ok? Or still a sheep bitch?

I don’t understand how anyone with an ounce of fairness could oppose this verdict. Justifiable self-defense has rarely been this easy or clean to determine.

Careful, I postulated that a few pages ago and Waingro apoplectically shit his pants.

You don’t see the irony and hypocrisy in your own viewpoint? Why do healthy people have to alter behavior for the vulnerable, and not the other way around? You can’t make me feel guilty for not willingly obliging to the mandates when those espousing mandates show zero interest in changing their behavior to accommodate me. You are guilty of what you lament in others.

Great question, I think you hit the heart of the philosophical disagreement. Simply answered- if COVID is not a danger to me, I shouldn’t be subjected to restrictions intended to protect those who are endangered. As one (of many) examples: Why am I wearing a mask instead of the person afraid of catching it? As a society, what other issue do we approach this way? If I am afraid of catching something, I protect myself. I don’t demand you change your behavior. The times we force vaccinations on everyone (public school) it’s for diseases which are equally dangerous to all.

You’re on. But I should warn you: I won my last BO.net scotch bet and I have expensive tastes. See you in 2026.