nsplayr

Thanks for the input. I pretty much see it like SuperWSO, it's a big plus to be a veteran and they have a much greater possibility of knowing what it actually means to serve; being a politician is hardly a "public service" for most people. But if they don't agree with me on the big things it's not enough of a plus to vote for them over a regular pol. One thing I do appreciate is that more conservative families actually encourage their kids to join up which in turn makes more veterans who decide to run for office conservative. Some of those hippies who vote democratic do everything they can to keep their kids out of the military and that's messed up because it's a great way to go for a lot of kids rather they're troubled or just looking to get some education or want to get some hand-on leadership experience or whatever. Anyways, if it comes down to a veteran who I agree with over joe blow lawyer who I agree with the vet definitely has my support.

Honest question. I noticed that all the people linked to above happen to be from one particular party which I'm sure most of you also support. Would you consider supporting a veteran running for office if he belonged to the other party? As much as I support veterans in public office, I honestly would have a hard time voting for any of these guys because we don't agree on many of the issues (unless of course their opponent was a total assclown, then maybe.) Thoughts? How do you feel about these candidates?: Iraq veteran and Army Reserve Captain Cal Cunningham or Former Green Beret and Maj. Tommy Sowers or Air Force Captain (from a long line of military men) Bill Owens or Iraq vet, former enlisted Marine, and Marine Officer Rob Miller

Wow, I had a very different experience at my Det. I'm an 07 guy and we commissioned all our seniors and had people dropping out because they wanted to, not because they were forced out. The cadre were fighting to keep people in, giving make-up PT tests, etc. and looking for any reason to keep a person in. Some of those people who did get commissioned with me did not deserve it. Same went for scholarships and FT slots early on...there wasn't a shortage of either...

It's a hell of a way to make a living so you have to commit to sticking around. If you're worried about it go nav; 6 years is easier to swallow for some people (sts). And just FYI the clock doesn't start ticking until you pin those shiny wings...i.e. usually by time you're already a 1st LT with two years in.

My class had a FCO drop and I heard from the rumor mill that the person who filled that slot (sts) didn't work out so well. Not that most of us couldn't have predicted that just from knowing the guy, but that's water under the bridge. Good guy, good heart, but I guess he didn't have what they were looking for. If you want AFSOC then be a good nav/ewo student, have a positive attitude, be professional without being a douche, and let your flight commander know what you want. My class had 6 AFSOC drops so just cross your fingers for the correct timing b/c we were good and had a great flt/cc but weren't that special, it just worked out right.

Don't vote in a poll that was posted 6-9 years ago when you add nothing substantial to the thread. All it does is bump it to the top!! Choke yourself before you consider doing this in the future. And to make this thread slightly better than useless...

IMHO, you should not weaponize platforms that don't have the experienced personel and established, well practiced TTPs to use them with near 100% effectiveness. Obviously the buff has plenty of weapons it uses for it's primary missions so is it a good idea for them to practice CAS just in case, I don't know. My instinct is no because there are lots of other carnivores out there and you don't need crews wasting time practicing a mission they may execute once in a very blue moon at the expense of keeping the expertise in their primary mission sets. I think a lot of this will be moot once we have the envisioned 6-9 thousand UAVs orbiting with ordnance strapped to their wings. Back in 2001 we needed buffs to orbit because there wasn't the type of unmanned strike capability we have today. Anyways, feel free to critique b/c I haven't BTDT enough to provide a more well thought out answer.

Bump. AF Uniform Office Plans for the Future The comments are the best: +1

Veering back on topic (there are enough threads bashing Obama/his supporters)... I watched the video again. "The enemy fears him!" Here's this blue dildo in appreciation for all you've done to this great nation. Awesome.

You can get 15 round mags for the M11 so in doing so you get the same 15+1 as the M9 but in a more compact package which is nicer for concealed if you are required to do that. The larger mags don't stick out any more or change the dimensions of the weapon at all, they look identical to the 13 rounders on the outside. Good gun IMHO, like shooting it.

Pretty sure Obama gave money to scholarship funds for poor kids of all stripes. I.e. poor black kids, poor hispanic kids, poor white kids, and poor Indian kids. Gotta please all the constituencies...

Man, just watched that video again and LOL'd at the giant blue dong that he got awarded. Way to go West Virginia. Like real Virginia, only trashier :)

Just in case anyone doesn't wanna go back a page.

Agree...my only financial product that isn't currently with USAA is my mortgage b/c they simply couldn't match another lender.

Generally agree with your points except the following two: If you say it's so easy, then why would you want the training to last as long as UPT (with the associated costs)? Nav school, ABM school, enlisted aviation pipelines are shorter than UPT and yet there is sufficient time to develop the "airsense" needed to be a nav or controller or load/eng or whatever. If it really is that easy then I think the timeline the betas are using seems about right. Like someone said, if the quality is similar to middle of the road UPT grads at a fraction of the time and costs, then I think that's tracking towards a win. Absolutely not. Honestly, do you think dudes in other airframes have time to dual-qual, learn another airframe (no matter how easy it may be), and take time away from their primary duties to spread the load? I know in AFSOC we don't, no thanks. And it's no aversion to the RPA mission set; a setup like that would not only be incredibly expensive (spreading out GCS costs to every flying wing in the AF), but it would be another example of doing more jobs with the same amount of time and less people. A combo of it's own career field, technology that allows one pilot to fly multiple birds, some of our OCO commitments eventually winding down, those are the way to stabilize this problem.

Ok, how has no one talked about "The Hurt Locker" on here yet? (feel free to redirect me if I've missed it...) Just watched it after it cleaned up at The Oscar's last night. Not too impressed. Some things seemed right, the dirty streets, the explosions, some of the emotion of the main characters. On the other hand there were SOOOO many details that were completely F-ed up for no apparent reason that it took me out of the moment over and over again. "Let's split up and cover more ground!" Oh, I'm gonna go all CIA and leave Camp Victory in a freaking sweatshirt with an M9 in hand and hunt down some Iraqi boy I think got killed...that sounds like a good idea! /sarcasm Plus the pacing was horrible. The "exciting parts" weren't all that exciting, and the plot just stumbled forward with no point other than to count down the days until the main character's tour was up. Each little vignette was unrelated to the others, making for a plot that had no point. It was like real life where you're just watching someone do their job (albeit very inaccurately re: tactics). Not exciting. Even if your life includes flying planes or explosions, if there was a movie made about my last deployment it would have been boring as shit and this movie was just that to me. Just my opinion...wondering what others think who maybe have BTDT.

Yes. If it were up to me to create new rules, I'd give each side (so long as there are only two parties) X number of filibuster opportunities to use on whatever bills they want and that's it. Think of it like the red-flag challenges coaches get in the NFL. If you blow your chances to challenge a bill early on in the year then later on the majority can pass what they want if they have the votes for it (i.e. 51). It's crazy that the Democrats own the house, have 59 votes in the Senate, and hold the White House yet can't pass some of the signature legislation in their platform. The same would be true for republicans...remember when President Bush wanted an "up or down vote" on his judicial nominees? I agreed with him...even if these judges were off their rockers (some may have been), they were qualified judges and if the President wanted to appoint them to higher positions that was his perogative. The Senate can "consult" to the point of weeding out people who are clearly unqualified, but if a majority of Senators thinks a person is qualified he/she should be confirmed. Filibusters should be used rarely and the threat of a filibuster can no effectively shut down the government. If I was the majority leader, I'd let the minority physically filibuster a bill. It makes them look stupid and obstructionist when they're trying to read the phone book for 24 hours straight and it rarely works...people physically can't stand and talk for more than 24 hours without stopping or having to pee.

I agree with you. Even if this is the case (and some people will debate that I guess), reconciliation is not = to the nuclear option, and that was the point of my nerdy post. On the other hand, being sympathetic to the idea of passing healthcare reform, I'd support pushing it through because it's been used inappropriately in the past by both parties and the world didn't end so it's not as big of a deal as some people are making it out the be. The entire reason the Bush tax cuts are ending is because they had a 10 year limit, which they had only because they were passed via reconciliation. Large tax cuts are not exactly "small fixes to previously passed budgets either," but the republicans were willing to play hardball and got what they wanted. I'd be supportive of just getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate and having them work more like the House does, where a majority party can actually pass it's agenda. The filibuster is not even a written rule, it's just a tradition of the senate that came about in the 1800s that needs to pass away. Unless the parties are willing to compromise and work together more often (the preferred option IMHO), it's undemocratic that a minority can completely roadblock the wishes of the majority. And it goes both ways (sts) and each party would have to work harder to either win the elections or suffer through the other party's agenda becoming law. It's ridiculous that we vote for leaders who are unable to carry out their promises (if they even attempt to) because the way Washington works prevents them from actually governing the country.

Reconciliation is not "the nuclear option." The "nuclear option" is using a point of order to declare a filibuster unconstitutional, a vote on which would only require a simple majority, thus potentially ending the filibuster for good. Came about most prominently in 2005 when Democrats were filibustering (or threatening to do so...actual filibusters almost never happen) some of Pres. Bush's judicial nominees and the Republicans were fed up with it. Gang of 14 bipartisan group came up with a compromise at the last minute. What's happening now is reconciliation, which is very different. It's a process where bills that deal with budgetary concerns (debt-limiting measures, stop-gap payments for programs that are about to have their authorizations end, fixes to previously passed budgets) can be passed with a simple majority and are immune to a filibuster. Has been used several times as a way to pass something you don't have 60 votes for but really wanna do, like the Bush tax cuts, etc. that don't strictly fit the mold of what reconciliation was created to accomplish. Both parties have tried to use it at other times to pass different tax cuts, budgets, oil drilling, healthcare, etc. Read on the differences between the Nuclear Option vs. Reconciliation. Reconciliation has been used numerous times in the past by both parties. The actual Nuclear Option has never been carried out, but these days politicians are getting more traction calling reconciliation "the nuclear option" because it makes it sound like something bad. It's a finger-pointing, political point-scoring, parliamentary queer-fest that does not deserve a thread here on Baseops.net. I'm sure you are all worse off for having read this...

Here's an idea...CALL USAA! They have some of the best customer service out there and I'm sure they're happy to tell you what products they currently offer. +1 on mappleby...I got the $25K @ 2% a few years back and it was a no brainer. At 5% your results may vary (if that is indeed the case...ask USAA for the straight deal).

Not a doc or 100% sure on your particulars, but you can wear contacts as an aircrew member.

fail...see the Track Select/Assignment Night thread...this was discussed there. Ok...looks like almost all the discussion there has been deleted in favor of just drop results...carry on, nothing to see here...

This guy deserves a man award for exceptional use of duct tape and for keeping it legal with the tail # inked on.

Not sure this has been addressed directly in another thread. After seeing a lot of reluctance to address religious convictions in other threads I figured we should have a place to discuss those separately if so desired. How does religion affect your views on your profession? On international terrorism? On DADT? On working with others who's views differ? Open forum for direct discussions of religion. Ask and you shall receive...

The 'tard is strong with this one. Full quote from slacker: Important words in bold. "Was" refers to "the use." The use...(of purple monkey diswasher insert anything here)...was; that is correct and you sir are pwned by the grammer gods in your attempt to look smart. Any more dumbness at the deid to report?