ViperMan

Well, it doesn't just say that... Rog. Like others have said, it's very difficult for the peanut gallery to give you any real feedback on generalities, but I agree with @Day Man's assessment after having perused the AFI myself: they can pursue an FEB based on a character trait, which a lawyer would say covers everything that falls under the umbrella of officership...which getting an LOR would indicate an issue with. Many have had LOR's and LOA's...and weren't FEB'd. Looking back on my career, I'd say that CCs generally go down these rabbit holes after talking with the bros, or after a member has done something especially egregious - like doing something you were told directly to not do or lying. If it's a trust issue that led to the LOR you may have an issue. Others' advice to lawyer up is good, but that said, you're not going to be in the driver's seat, and I would be extremely cautious about trying to go offensive if that's in the back of your mind.

What were the "administrative actions"? Did you bang an E? If you bang an E they can FEB you.

Seems like he at least figured out the right side to fight for...

bUt RuSsiA Is WiNnInG!

A bank didn't just create a loan to buy stock. There, fixed it for you. And now I see where you go astray. Banks can't do that. Banks can't do what you're saying or what you think they can do. No bank is able to just issue a loan to buy something. Collateral must be put up. Either in terms of a hard asset or future productivity - usually both. If the productivity that was promised to make good on that loan isn't delivered, the receiver of the loan has their (hard) assets seized.

The only point of taxation is to generate demand for dollars. Demand for dollars forces you to work for dollars so you can pay the government in their currency. You know, render unto Caesar and all... MMT makes the case that you can print an unlimited amount of currency and pay all of your debts in it. That's a sophistic truism, and is the core of @Random Guy's world view. It's alien to the rest of us because the rest of us understand that we don't live in a vacuum. Once other people stop accepting FRNs, or start denominating transactions in something else, the game is up. That's it. It's that simple. You are a chicken on a tax farm. For the time being.

I'll give you a hint: it starts with s and ends with earch function.

Joe Biden stepping down because his judgment and cognitive ability are impaired, while instantly endorsing Kamala Harris for POTUS tells you everything you need to know about Harris.

Well you're picking odd ways to make that point then. And Putin is picking an odd way to win a war. Why draw it out? If it was winnable? I'm curious to hear why you think it's in his strategic interest to lengthen a conflict he could win.

Bro, this war is going to enter it's 3rd year and Russia won't have made it 50 miles into Ukraine. Mark my words. Compare that to WWII and how much ground was taken. Compare it to Desert Storm, which was probably an equivalent challenge to taking Ukraine. This war is not going in Russia's direction. I don't know why you keep posting, but you're not convincing us, and it doesn't seem like you've posted enough to convince yourself. Yet. But keep going. Maybe your next post will convince all of us that Russia will eventually get there.

I envision something like this:

Call me crazy, but I think I smell a solution to our immigration problem...

Biden can still be the nominee. The only thing the democrats lost last night was the ability to hide behind the illusion that "everything is fine" with Biden. That's all they lost. Biden hasn't been running the administration. Biden isn't running the administration. And if he wins, Biden won't be running the next administration. Everyone already knew the actual truth before this. And honestly, that lie wasn't all that important to begin with - democrats do what they want in order to obtain power; if one thing has become clear over the last cycle, it's that. The democrat establishment still has the power they they need, and hence will move on from last night's ooopsies with grace (as they do) and will press on with Biden as their guy.

Tony Carr is of the ilk who believe that a leader needs to "take care of his people" no matter what - stated differently: he believes that no one he supervises could ever fuck up. Ever. Which is why all his fire is directed upwards. A lot of fire in the USAF is deservedly aimed high. A lot of it should be aimed low, though, too. He just cannot accept that most basic fact. Even airmen (small a) can be dipshits.

Just saw Kinzinger on Bill Maher's show. He is WELL on his way to becoming a fat ass. Like Peter Griffin fat. Must be on some sort of all bread diet.

I read that as more directed at Trump, not Ukraine. I could be wrong though.

I'll just pile on to say that none of what is coming out right now is a revelation. All of this was knowable, was known, and was frankly obvious to neutral parties who were labelled as partisan to serve the interests of the opposing political party.

Here's the thing though: It doesn't matter at what level they tax you - they will always spend more than that. They're spending addicts. They need to put down the money pipe. Until they strip ALL of the waste out of the budget, raising taxes is a non-starter for much of the population.

MOOOOOOORRRRRRE SMOOOOKKKKEEEE!!!!!

UFB. Actually UFB.

Fair enough. I just think these are separate arguments. My point is that we're wringing our hands over this being a safety issue, when really it's about something else. Fine to make an argument that it's not fair for them to be parked at the top of the list for that long. Just make that argument. And regardless of the status quo being what it was, there is precedent for having recently changed it without having provided such data. Which I acknowledge. It just seemed to me like you were making two arguments and tossing in any justification you could come up with. You eventually threw one of them out when your core argument appeared. I understand there is the justification you have that is backed up by safety concerns - I don't think the data is there. I also understand there's your other separate argument that really amounts to "it's always been this way so I think it's fair." Those are separate. Congress doesn't give a shit if it's always been this way. Congress does give a shit about "safety" - which is why the substrata of this discussion is what it is and why any argument that's going to have legs must enlist "safety." All the other arguments are interesting but academic.

Wait, who put who at risk? The cops are always going to escalate. That's what they're paid for. All three of those guys have killed people. They didn't run because they thought they were getting busted for a minor drug charge. Don't be so naive.

You don't believe this. If you believed this, you wouldn't have spent all that time and effort referring to safety, known "facts" about cognitive decline, how it'd be too complicated to test for it, that group-based metrics are an effective measure, how it's a can of worms no one wants to open, etc. Or, if you do believe it, you were arguing disingenuously the whole time. I, for one, always enlist irrelevant facts having nothing to do with the core of my argument 🤔. If your argument is that you don't have a "right" to work in an industry, so therefore you get to be subject to whatever arbitrary regulation that other people put on you, that's a pretty lack-luster argument, and I don't think many other people would be convinced by it. That said, you're welcome to make it. I knew what we disagreed on at the outset. It's that age discrimination is wrong and you think it's right. Again, that's a fair opinion to have. The main component here, though, is self-interest wearing the mask of safety. The safety refrain is a Mott and Bailey. That's all I was trying to flesh out.

You are conflating a general argument that old people slow down (which nobody disputes) and using it to generalize to a something specific: namely that people over age 65 are unsafe to fly. There is no data that shows that, so please don't misrepresent what I argued here. If people over age 65 are unsafe to fly, there should be data that backs up that specific claim. No one has presented that or produced it. So far it's all anecdote and narrative-weaving. "This one time, at band camp..." This is a circular argument. Innumerable laws throughout history have been unjust / immoral. I know you know that because we've agreed on what some of them are. I don't think age-based discrimination is proper, ethical, or moral, so pointing to the fact that it's happens to be legal in some circumstances begs the question. Questions about when you can drink or smoke have more to do with consent and not being an adult yet. You're so close to connecting the last dot here. In all the relevant ways, the checkride system already does screen for this. If a dude doesn't have the cognitive ability to fly, how's he gonna have the cognitive ability to pass a sim check? Or a line check? See, you're pointing at a problem you see with the checkride system - not a problem with older pilots, who you scapegoated to justify having a crappy checkride system. Instead of fixing the problem you identified (or alternatively adding a different check - which everyone seems to be clutching their pearls over), you retreat to an arbitrary age cut-off as a proxy (which also happens to serve the personal interests of a lot of people). Not to mention, you literally justified having an easier checkride for dudes because there's no old guys around??? What??? Why would the checkride have to become more robust if 65+ were around? I guess it's because you'd need a harder checkride to prove that the old guys don't have the cognitive ability to pass the easier checkride the younger guys do because they clearly have the mental capacity which they obviously posses because they're young, but which you don't need to screen for because they clearly already have it since they're young and not old and they're smarter than old people and therefore we don't have to test them for that because they're younger than 65 and not older than 65 amirite??? Your fade-away about it being more complicated is pure chaff / ECM. The airlines give reaction-time, focus, coordination, and mental tests to their applicants. Ask me how I know. Do you remember the one you had to take? It doesn't matter how complicated something is if it's the right thing to do. Airlines already screen for cognitive ability as part of the hiring process. The FAA could do the same thing. Your retort on this point, alone, underscores the disingenuous nature of your argument. The bottom line is this: the appeal to safety makes for nice syllogisms on paper and it sounds good, but it's also totally unsubstantiated. Further, there are other ways we could actually just test to see if someone has the cognitive ability to continue flying commercially. Why it's anathema that an alternative means to determine if an aged pilot can continue in his career is clear: naked self interest.

I have no illusion that there is self-interest on both sides of this thing. None. I'm just trying to pull-back and say what I think is actually fair from an objective standpoint. Strip away the concern about getting yours (on both sides) and I think it becomes pretty clear what the right answer is.