gearhog

i may be wrong, but I bet the first case has more to do with atlanta and less about delta. the second is definitely southwest.

i don’t think those places are the issue. it’s all the outposts and unacknowledged locations in the middle of sudan, syria, and elsewhere that are lit up

best sotu ever.

"listerine"

want to get in shape during your next deployment? this app lets you find popular routes at nearly every deployed us military location as well as other places. dont forget your fitbit/apple watch! https://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#13.92/51.31611/25.12240/hot/all https://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#14.97/36.99188/35.04879/hot/all https://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#15.63/38.92630/36.26115/hot/all https://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#14.41/-103.33138/34.39362/hot/all

no problem, you appeared to be contradicting yourself but i didn't have the full story. i've done some temp AGR lately, and i still can't imagine, assuming you have a job at one of the big 6 airlines, that any AGR would yield a higher amount of benefits/pay/quality of life, especially if the med requirements are more strict. good luck in your decision.

this guy needs to be drafted.

on friday you couldn't decide whether to medically retire for a hip replacement, two days later you're applying for an flying AGR position? okay.

a typical day in the life of a fighter pilot:

would you say that any college age starbucks barista is equally as capable as you are, through life experiences and education, to accurately determine the worth of this country?

cant disagree with you here. just because it's legal doesn't mean it's smart.

danny, we're discussing a plan to get hired, a plan to not work at that job, and a plan to receive financial, seniority, and quality of life benefits for three years... from the company he plans not to work at. i cannot believe anyone has any trouble whatsoever in comprehending there's a problem with this. we can argue all day about what the right amount of USERRA military service is, but in this case, we're talking............ zero productivity, zero contribution to the company that hired you to do at least something for the benefits you're being given. the expectation is that youll be compensated for either full-time or part-time work, not zero-time work. if you're working a full time guard or reserve gig and you know there's a need for your service, full-time, for the next three years and you intend to fulfill it, then the obvious and correct thing to do would be to work that position and when the times up, find your airline job. in this instance, he says he's not ready to be a part-timer, doesn't want to put in a full year of probation, and just wants to get his foot in the door. are you really trying to rationalize that?

i dont give a shift

cmon, man. were talking about planning to exploit a technicality in a law with a design and intent to protect people who are required to perform periodic legitimate military service. it sure as shit wasn't designed for people to skip work for three years immediately after being hired for the sole purpose of enriching themselves. how is this not completely obvious? the fact that integrity (especially among military officers) should extend a least a little bit beyond what the law allows you to get away with shouldn't be something that needs to be typed on a forum post. it happens. people can scam the system all the time. but let's have a little intellectual honesty here, admit that's it's harmful, and not encourage more military folks to do it lest we poison the well.

you really think this is a mutually beneficial idea? you should tell them during the interview that for the low low price of initial training, annual profit sharing, 401K contributions, and benefits, you'll commit to flying for them three years from now. yeah that'd be a great deal... for one of you. they'd likely prefer that you moved on to screw a competitor. sure guys do it all the time, but it's not the intent of USERRA, and it's deceitful. edit: apologies for the harsh tone, but this sort of thing does upset both retired and non-military line pilots.

conscription in the US revolution was wrong? how paradoxical.

sorry, i don't understand your first statement. it seems sarcastic and poorly informed. conscription was used in the revolution, civil war, WWI, WWII, korea, and vietnam. i don't think you read my earlier thoughts on "forced labor". i'll address them again if you are unsatisfied, but i don't want to reiterate. if i see you stop your car at a stop sign, i have no idea if you agree or disagree with the law, or are simply stopping out of fear. all i know is that you complied with the law, and that's really all that matters. if you manage to have the sign removed in the future by appealing to reason and logic and not emotion, i think that's terrific, too.

as I said, noble, but not sustainable. i don't think you can legitimately argue that our freedom was free. it came at a cost. when you obtain something through sacrifice, it is the very definition of having been "earned". how you think or feel about a law is of no consequence. laws do not govern thoughts or feelings. how you act or behave is of consequence. if you abide by a law you disagree with, you accept it. would you mind giving and example of a law you are deregulating?

so you're willing to give up some of your freedoms and liberties so others can enjoy all of theirs, but you don't expect or trust those same people with the smallest and most necessary tasks. imagine if WWII volunteers rejected draftees. imagine if parents never required children to earn the things they enjoy. what would that generation look like?

sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. reading is hard. ”society should seek to find a balance between allowing it's citizens to do whatever they feel like doing (liberty), and providing a structure that requires them to act with discipline and responsibility (law).”

that is a great concept when when we're talking about the broad direction we seek to take our society, but it's also an oversimplified ideal that cannot be practically applied to all aspects of life in that society. your personal liberty in daily life is restricted by countless rules and laws that cannot be said to directly infringe on the rights of others, and you accept them. i could argue to restrict a great number of your personal liberties by making a tenuous connection to a threat to my right to life (safety and security) and pursuit of happiness. a society should seek to find a balance between allowing it's citizens to do whatever they feel like doing (liberty), and providing a structure that requires them to act with discipline and responsibility (law). you can't teach a person to act with discipline and responsibility without forcing them to make a sacrifice. estimating the amount of personal sacrifice needed to guarantee and equitable amount of personal liberty isn't easy, but it also isn't zero. as a voluntary member of the military, the amount of sacrifices you are making is likely ensuring the liberty of dozens of people (129.24 to be exact). that's noble, but not sustainable. especially when your beliefs are becoming more polarized from the people whom you provide for.

you're using the term "liberty" as if it is a unconditional right with no boundaries. surely you must acknowledge that total liberty, total freedom cannot exist when a nation of 350 million individuals want to thrive, advance, and to defend themselves against exterior threats. in the course of those pursuits for the common good, nearly all individuals are going to be required to make some involuntary sacrifices. Every law is a restriction on liberty and freedom of the people whom left to their own devices, would act conversely. but I think you would agree they are required for our nation to endure. if we agree (and perhaps we don't) that at least some limits to individual liberty and freedom are required for a nation to function, then we only disagree on where the limits are placed, and that's subjective. You can't just point to the Constitution and say it contains the word "liberty". what we seek is a nation that provides the MOST individual freedom and liberty for the most people while still ensuring the nation as a whole continues to succeed. since the time period immediately after 9/11, i believe we're seeing a breakdown of our national values and our national identity. a thing i've learned from my military service is that overall, the connection in values and identity I shared with my military coworkers far exceeds anything i've ever seen outside the military. Why? because we share common experiences, adversities. the amount of personal sacrifice for something dictates the value you place on it. I think it is no coincidence that we are seeing a decline in appreciation for our nation as we're also seeing a decline in the rate of voluntary military participation (sacrifice). I will say i do not believe in "serve or prison" in most cases, but I think compulsory national service could be heavily incentivized, and it need not be military. Our security and prosperity was earned through a great deal of sacrifice and a great deal will be necessary to maintain it. A lot of work needs to be done and if you want to enjoy all the great aspects here, you should be required to do more than simply exist. all the free-loading libertarians should be required to do their part.

just cry "LIBERTY!" when you get stop-lossed. everything should be fine

false. the nation exists because we have a long history of conscription, including the war which founded it.

what do you call forcing someone to pay money? theft or taxes? you're playing word games. labor or money for the common good isn't the same thing as slavery and theft.