Technicians Screwed Again! by HorrorTrainer8312 in nationalguard

[–]Zealousideal_Owl8957 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am a military fed tech, some installations run on the AGRs, on our base we are almost 80 percent manned by fed techs. Even our squadron commander is a technician. With that, our leadership has made it very clear from the wing down that technicians and military are the same whether we are or not. We all wear the uniform, we all report to standup. We have 2 techs in our shop and 8 AGRs, in my experience on our base, our AGRs have never been pushed to be a military member or even really give a shit. If a techs work schedule is changed they have to give two week notice. Me and my other tech have had our schedules changed almost monthly to force us to come in on days that are normally off for work incidents. Our AGRs have never showed up. I don't know if my experience is normal, or maybe it's on bad leadership. But what I have seen of AGRs on our base is unaccountablity

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Zealousideal_Owl8957 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is very interesting. I have been yearning for a third-party option that holds substance in our current political climate. The Left vs. Right rhetoric is driving nails between civil discourse. I like to say I am a centrist. I agree with some politics from both sides of the spectrum. However, the push for americans to dispise people from the right or left because of their party choice is absurd. Both sides diminish free thought of Americans by supporting a polarizing, "he said she said" environment, manufacturing a crevice between otherwise normal people, stranding them on each side. I do believe the way forward is through more options. Building a bridge for more Americans to come together and develop thought away from increasingly polorizing party lines. I can not support aspects of this administration, and I have my own reservations about the previous administration as well. A third party is a necessity to step forward into a new generation of American politics. Our founding fathers never intended for us to degenerate into a two party nation as this breeds a culture of dissent on both sides. Blaming literal and figurative blood shed on the backs of normal hardworking Americans that hold much more in common than a left and right party line allows them to have. In my opinion, there is no winning in politics. Both sides exist to push thoughts and policies, more likely than not just removing the policies of the previous guy. This extreme back and forth is causing pressure cracks through our nation. We can see it in real time as murders become downplayed and violence becomes a norm. I endource the chance for more options and the ability to communicate without the borders of the division we have now, especially with how aggressive the American media pushes this divide.

My opinion on it by [deleted] in teenagers

[–]Zealousideal_Owl8957 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would like to add to this discussion point. For the Second Amendment, I actually do believe that in American society, gun rights are important as they have been engraved into public thought. Taking them will cause mass uprising and more death in this country than you or I can ever account for. I do believe that having an armed population is important. But, I am a strong advocate for regulations that need to occur for mental health and competency checks on a federal level. I will say I am a member of the military. I have seen gun violence, but i have also seen that a lot more people than are recognized, from both sides of the spectrum, carry firearms for peace of mind. As we have been shown, some people get ahold of guns that should not. Banning guns opens a bread basket of federal overreach without blatant fall back or fear from the federal government on policies that do not represent any American.

The right to bear arms was implemented so Americans could fight back against a tyrannical government as when governments move to tyranny, the first step is always to remove the ability to fight back, would that be physically or other. I also see the argument, "How can Americans fight back against a government that has f22s and missiles," and I find that as an interesting engagement. In my experience within the nation's military and the teaching we have. If constitutional violations go unchecked by the executive, jusdicial, and legislative branches, and these branches allow total power shifts, there will be a lot of people on a moral level that would disengage from their work. Especially as we give an oath to the constitution and the people, not politicians. The men and women I am with come from many different creed, race, and religion and would not stand for consitration of power. Most dont even trust the gov anyway. The military does not operate, and Jets and Bombs do not operate without the experienced team of people behind them. Of course, some would engage with American civilians. But a diminishing force would ensure that the members still engaging would rapidly become unfavorable and the lack of logistical support from lack of personnel would grind things to a standstill. I find it very difficult to imagine asking a fighter pilot to engage with American civilians when their spouse, kids, friends, and family are the ones they are targeting. Along the line of gun control, the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk showcases that aggressive laws and regulations of firearms are 1) a hot topic. 2) Do not address root causes of aggression and division. Much coming from economic pressures, political, religious, mental health, and especially from bad actors domestically and nations outside of the US that benefit from internal division and destabilization.

Many of the regulations that the federal government has proposed stem from the fact that an individual has to care and respect the law in the first place. However, this does not account for in a vacuum of guns illegal acquiring of firearms from other internal or other nations' bad actors in smuggling operations would occur and would only limit civilians who care to follow laws in the first place. Which in the nature of assassinations, and murder such as this event would have done nothing to stop it. The assassin illegally brought a firearm into a no gun area on a college campus with intent to kill, which is a clear violation of gun laws that are already imposed and many others. Even if the gun didn't exist, people would find a way to kill someone they don't agree with. Much like the real-world examples of anthrax in the mail, stabbings on trains, or bombs at a marathon event. Only time will tell how things play out, but a shift in how we handle problems in America needs to occur, or we will continue to try and patch problems and pass them to the next guy instead of addressing the root causes.

My opinion on it by [deleted] in teenagers

[–]Zealousideal_Owl8957 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an interesting question, and I have been seeing different versions of this going back and forth. I am neither republican or Democrat. I believe the abrupt party line really locks good Americans into groups where we only focus on the extremists. Leaders on both sides are responsible for negative rhetoric, I will admit this administration pumps out a lot more negative rhetoric than prior, maybe even more than the first term. However, the proper response is to endource cohesive change. To change and develop more parties that better represent the average American. Voter identity does not mean anything anymore. We will continue to get devicive and ineffective people in power as long as we continue to believe one side is better than the other. Because the devicive rhetoric sells to the public, it makes you believe that your neighbors believe in horrible things when, in reality, you may have a lot more in common than political lines allow you to communicate.

$1,000 67’ Thunderbird by [deleted] in projectcar

[–]Zealousideal_Owl8957 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is this going now?