In article ,
says...

On 3/28/2013 7:55 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 3/28/2013 5:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013



It's our money being wasted. Why are you gloating?

----------------------------------------

I read an article about the cost overruns on these ships a month or so
ago. It bothered me that the two versions are being built by
companies owned (in one case) by a foreign country (Italy) and the
other as a joint venture or something with a company in Australia.

Why aren't American warships built by Americans?

We may not have the capacity to build the ships.


Maybe they just don't want to have to **** with unions crybabies and waste?

More insanity. And of course, being a low class type you can't post
without being vulgar.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:23:55 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:39:05 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:18:09 -0400, wrote:


Who do you think runs it now?

A better question is who do you think should continue to run it?

It appears that it will be the highest bidder.

Unless people like Elizabeth Warren can do something.

She looks good on MSNBC but she has been pretty ineffective in
actually accomplishing much. That is the main reason she went to the
senate. Every other post she was given was reduced to being
meaningless pretty much immediately.
Let's see what big money does to her in the Senate.
I fear that when the reality of fund raising raises it's ugly head she
will just be another bought and paid for tool of the rich ... or she
will be gone.

Huh? She was just elected. She's holding their feet to the fire. What
would you like her to do in the couple of months she's been there?

You fear... precisely.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:24:08 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/29/2013 1:23 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:39:05 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:18:09 -0400, wrote:


Who do you think runs it now?

A better question is who do you think should continue to run it?

It appears that it will be the highest bidder.

Unless people like Elizabeth Warren can do something.

She looks good on MSNBC but she has been pretty ineffective in
actually accomplishing much. That is the main reason she went to the
senate. Every other post she was given was reduced to being
meaningless pretty much immediately.
Let's see what big money does to her in the Senate.
I fear that when the reality of fund raising raises it's ugly head she
will just be another bought and paid for tool of the rich ... or she
will be gone.


Warren, she already is bought and paid for.. Not to mention, like so
many others she cheated her way in...

Not to mention, you're completely a ****ing ignoramous.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:23:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

...besides "Meyer the Hank"





Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013


Sounds a lot more like union shipbuilders screwed up.

In any case, why would we need a more potent ship. The liberal philosophy denies the existence of a
threat.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

In article , says...

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:00:26 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"BAR" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 3/28/2013 5:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013



It's our money being wasted. Why are you gloating?

----------------------------------------

I read an article about the cost overruns on these ships a month or
so
ago. It bothered me that the two versions are being built by
companies owned (in one case) by a foreign country (Italy) and the
other as a joint venture or something with a company in Australia.

Why aren't American warships built by Americans?

We may not have the capacity to build the ships.

--------------------------------------

That's damn scary.

More scary is those are the same people who built the Carnival
Triumph.

It was a custom build not a spec build.

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 3/28/2013 5:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013



It's our money being wasted. Why are you gloating?

----------------------------------------

I read an article about the cost overruns on these ships a month or
so
ago. It bothered me that the two versions are being built by
companies owned (in one case) by a foreign country (Italy) and the
other as a joint venture or something with a company in Australia.

Why aren't American warships built by Americans?

We may not have the capacity to build the ships.

--------------------------------------

That's damn scary.

Not really. At the beginning of WW II we didn't have the "capacity"
either until factories and facilities that were making other things re-
tooled to help in the effort (and make a lot of money in the process).

Just before WWII we had the capacity, we didn't have the demand.

In article , says...

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:39:05 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:18:09 -0400, wrote:


Who do you think runs it now?

A better question is who do you think should continue to run it?

It appears that it will be the highest bidder.

Unless people like Elizabeth Warren can do something.

She looks good on MSNBC but she has been pretty ineffective in
actually accomplishing much. That is the main reason she went to the
senate. Every other post she was given was reduced to being
meaningless pretty much immediately.
Let's see what big money does to her in the Senate.
I fear that when the reality of fund raising raises it's ugly head she
will just be another bought and paid for tool of the rich ... or she
will be gone.

Warren's longevity will depend upon how much the credit industry wants to put with.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:24:42 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:02:46 -0400, wrote:


His own advisory panel says they have people who are too dangerous to
release, they can't try and they can't deport. What would you do with
them?

Supermax. Nobody has ever escaped.

As soon as the hit US soil, a first year law student would be filing a
habeas corpus writ and we would have to turn them loose.

Because you said so I guess.

Because that DoJ study says so.

Cite?


That is why we just kill them now, no prisoners to have to deal with.
We should have killed those guys in Gitmo

You're not much of a human being if you are serious about this.

Poor phrasing, I meant the guys in Gitmo should have been killed
before they left Afghanistan, like we are doing now.


He went back on the public campaign promise

No he didn't.

Yes he did but just like ending the wars, it was a naive statement by
a guy who did not have a clue what he was promising could never
actually happen. It did give him a nice campaign sound bite tho..

And he's been trying. So you can fault him for believing that those on
the right wouldn't continue to this day to obstruct just about
everything he's tried to do.

He had both houses of congress for 2 years. Who was stopping him then?

Never heard of the fillibuster? Guess not, because you're ignorant.

Was closing Gitmo filibustered? Cite it.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:06:31 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:39:05 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:18:09 -0400, wrote:


Who do you think runs it now?

A better question is who do you think should continue to run it?

It appears that it will be the highest bidder.

Unless people like Elizabeth Warren can do something.

She looks good on MSNBC but she has been pretty ineffective in
actually accomplishing much. That is the main reason she went to the
senate. Every other post she was given was reduced to being
meaningless pretty much immediately.
Let's see what big money does to her in the Senate.
I fear that when the reality of fund raising raises it's ugly head she
will just be another bought and paid for tool of the rich ... or she
will be gone.

Warren's longevity will depend upon how much the credit industry wants to put with.

So, I can almost agree, except what that says is that she's on the
right track. Unless you think the credit industry should control
Congress?

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:52:18 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:50:01 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:06:31 -0400, BAR wrote:



Warren's longevity will depend upon how much the credit industry wants to put with.

So, I can almost agree, except what that says is that she's on the
right track. Unless you think the credit industry should control
Congress?

They shouldn't but they do.

Except I guess that the exceptions prove the rule or some such bs. You
don't actually want her to be on the right track, right?