| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
....besides "Meyer the Hank"
Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013 The U.S. Navy’s troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel intended to be small and speedy for use in shallow waters close to shore, lacks the firepower it needs, a top U.S. navy commander said in a classified memo. Vice Admiral Tom Copeman, the commander of naval surface forces, called on the Navy to consider a ship with more offensive capability after the first 24 vessels are built, according to a Navy official who asked not to be identified discussing the confidential document. Copeman’s memo, prepared late last year at the request of Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, indicates the Navy may be starting to re-examine the $37 billion program. The ship has been beset by troubles, including cracks and corrosion, its price has doubled since 2005 to $440 million per vessel and a decision to build two versions will add to longterm operating costs. A review could lead to an eventual redesign of the ship or the development of an entirely new vessel. “He’s raising issues which no one with active-duty stars on their shoulders has said before,” said Norman Polmar, an independent naval analyst and author who’s spoken to Navy officials about Copeman’s memo. “He’s not playing the total party line. I think it will have an impact on people expressing their views.” Producing a ship that can accommodate larger guns or Harpoon anti-ship missiles “would be a major redesign,” Polmar said in an interview. “It will be real work to put major weapons on the ship.” Two Versions The two versions of the Littoral Combat Ship -- derided by critics inside the Navy as the “Little Crappy Ship”-- are being built simultaneously. A steel-hulled vessel is being made in Marinette, Wisconsin, by a team led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) (LMT), and an aluminum trimaran is being built in Mobile, Alabama, by a group led by Austal Ltd. (ASB) Lockheed’s first ship developed a crack in the hull, and Austal’s vessel had corrosion problems. Conceived in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the ship was designed to replace aging frigates and other vessels. It’s intended to perform missions such as clearing mines, hunting submarines, interdicting drugs and providing humanitarian relief. Nothing has haunted the LCS more than the perception that both variants are too lightly armed and may not survive an enemy attack. The Pentagon’s chief weapons tester has cited flaws with the ship’s guns and concluded that its helicopter isn’t powerful enough to tow mine-hunting equipment. Not ‘Survivable’ The ship “is not expected to be survivable in that it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment,” Michael Gilmore, the weapons tester, said in a January report. Until now, Navy officials have maintained that the ship has sufficient defenses to perform its missions while working in tandem with the rest of a battle group. “These ships are designed for speed,” Rear Admiral Tom Eccles, deputy commander for naval systems engineering at the Naval Sea Systems Command, said at a Surface Navy Association conference in January. “They’re designed to be in the fight and then get out of the fight when it’s required.” Copeman’s assessment suggests that the Navy may rethink that strategy. In a speech at the same Navy association conference, Copeman spoke publicly about the possibility of creating a “Super LCS,” likening it to the evolution in fighter jets from the F/A-18 Hornet to the Super Hornet. The newer plane is a larger version of the aircraft built by Chicago-based Boeing Co. (BA), with longer range and more endurance than its predecessor. ‘We’re Out-Gunned’ The vice admiral’s memo calls for a vessel that can operate independently rather than traveling under the protection of better-armed ships, according to a government official familiar with the document who isn’t in the Navy and asked to not be identified. “It’s born of this nagging fear in the surface warfare community and elsewhere that we’re out-gunned by the Chinese, who have a series of surface-to-surface missiles,” said Bryan McGrath, a retired naval officer who commanded a destroyer. Outfitting the LCS with heavy-duty missiles or guns would add weight, and “additional weight means a loss in both speed and endurance,” said McGrath, a critic of the Littoral Combat Ship who is director of consulting at Delex Systems Inc. in Herndon, Virginia. ‘Thoughtful Look’ The Navy projects that the $37 billion program will buy 52 ships. Of those, four have been built and the Navy has agreed to buy 20 more through 2015. “We’re committed to 52 LCS’s,” Captain Danny Hernandez, chief spokesman for Greenert, the chief of naval operations, said when asked about Copeman’s memo. Lockheed, based in Bethesda, Maryland, is building its Littoral Combat Ships in partnership with Marinette Marine Corp., a subsidiary of Fincantieri SpA, based in Trieste, Italy. The other version is made by Austal, based in Henderson, Australia, in partnership with Falls Church, Virginia-based General Dynamics Corp. (GD) Greenert requested the memo from Copeman, which was entitled “Vision for the 2025 Surface Fleet” and was previously reported by Defense News. The comments on the LCS are three paragraphs in a 10-page document on the future of the Navy’s surface fleet. “He appreciated the thoughtful look he gave into the future,” Hernandez said of Greenert’s reaction to the memo. He said the Navy chief considered Copeman’s proposals to be “interesting and useful.” ‘Offensive Power’ Those who have read Copeman’s recommendation offered differing interpretations of the changes he envisions. While the Navy official who asked to not be identified said the current LCS designs could be revised, the other government official said the proposed changes would amount to developing a new type of ship. “There’s inexpensive ways, less expensive ways, to dramatically increase the offensive power of our surface fleet, I think, without spending hundred, tens and tens of millions of dollars on research and development and come up with new classes of ships,” Copeman said in the January speech, according to a transcript. “I think we can look at what we’ve got, and what we’ve got on the drawing boards right now, and take great advantage of that.” Two Versions Copeman’s memo didn’t discuss whether one of the two current designs should be scrapped or whether just one version should be used as the base model for future improvements, the Navy official said. Building both versions of the ship, which have different designs and parts, adds about $400 million in operating and maintenance costs over the lifetime of the vessels, according to Rear Admiral James Murdoch, who oversees the ship’s procurement. The LCS program is “in a period of steady production and has demonstrated the maturity of most of its critical technologies,” according to an annual assessment of major weapons programs released today by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. The GAO raised questions about the effectiveness of the ship’s “mission modules,” portable containers of weapons systems that can be switched for different missions. The modules the Navy has accepted so far “do not yet meet requirements,” and the first ones won’t be fully operational until 2018, when the Navy will have purchased 30 ships, the GAO said. “The mission packages aren’t ready,” said Polmar, the naval analyst. “We’ve got the least capable 3,000-ton warship in the world.” http://tinyurl.com/cwhd238 |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
On 3/28/2013 5:23 PM, 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 The U.S. Navy’s troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel intended to be small and speedy for use in shallow waters close to shore, lacks the firepower it needs, a top U.S. navy commander said in a classified memo. Vice Admiral Tom Copeman, the commander of naval surface forces, called on the Navy to consider a ship with more offensive capability after the first 24 vessels are built, according to a Navy official who asked not to be identified discussing the confidential document. Copeman’s memo, prepared late last year at the request of Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, indicates the Navy may be starting to re-examine the $37 billion program. The ship has been beset by troubles, including cracks and corrosion, its price has doubled since 2005 to $440 million per vessel and a decision to build two versions will add to longterm operating costs. A review could lead to an eventual redesign of the ship or the development of an entirely new vessel. “He’s raising issues which no one with active-duty stars on their shoulders has said before,” said Norman Polmar, an independent naval analyst and author who’s spoken to Navy officials about Copeman’s memo. “He’s not playing the total party line. I think it will have an impact on people expressing their views.” Producing a ship that can accommodate larger guns or Harpoon anti-ship missiles “would be a major redesign,” Polmar said in an interview. “It will be real work to put major weapons on the ship.” Two Versions The two versions of the Littoral Combat Ship -- derided by critics inside the Navy as the “Little Crappy Ship”-- are being built simultaneously. A steel-hulled vessel is being made in Marinette, Wisconsin, by a team led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) (LMT), and an aluminum trimaran is being built in Mobile, Alabama, by a group led by Austal Ltd. (ASB) Lockheed’s first ship developed a crack in the hull, and Austal’s vessel had corrosion problems. Conceived in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the ship was designed to replace aging frigates and other vessels. It’s intended to perform missions such as clearing mines, hunting submarines, interdicting drugs and providing humanitarian relief. Nothing has haunted the LCS more than the perception that both variants are too lightly armed and may not survive an enemy attack. The Pentagon’s chief weapons tester has cited flaws with the ship’s guns and concluded that its helicopter isn’t powerful enough to tow mine-hunting equipment. Not ‘Survivable’ The ship “is not expected to be survivable in that it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment,” Michael Gilmore, the weapons tester, said in a January report. Until now, Navy officials have maintained that the ship has sufficient defenses to perform its missions while working in tandem with the rest of a battle group. “These ships are designed for speed,” Rear Admiral Tom Eccles, deputy commander for naval systems engineering at the Naval Sea Systems Command, said at a Surface Navy Association conference in January. “They’re designed to be in the fight and then get out of the fight when it’s required.” Copeman’s assessment suggests that the Navy may rethink that strategy. In a speech at the same Navy association conference, Copeman spoke publicly about the possibility of creating a “Super LCS,” likening it to the evolution in fighter jets from the F/A-18 Hornet to the Super Hornet. The newer plane is a larger version of the aircraft built by Chicago-based Boeing Co. (BA), with longer range and more endurance than its predecessor. ‘We’re Out-Gunned’ The vice admiral’s memo calls for a vessel that can operate independently rather than traveling under the protection of better-armed ships, according to a government official familiar with the document who isn’t in the Navy and asked to not be identified. “It’s born of this nagging fear in the surface warfare community and elsewhere that we’re out-gunned by the Chinese, who have a series of surface-to-surface missiles,” said Bryan McGrath, a retired naval officer who commanded a destroyer. Outfitting the LCS with heavy-duty missiles or guns would add weight, and “additional weight means a loss in both speed and endurance,” said McGrath, a critic of the Littoral Combat Ship who is director of consulting at Delex Systems Inc. in Herndon, Virginia. ‘Thoughtful Look’ The Navy projects that the $37 billion program will buy 52 ships. Of those, four have been built and the Navy has agreed to buy 20 more through 2015. “We’re committed to 52 LCS’s,” Captain Danny Hernandez, chief spokesman for Greenert, the chief of naval operations, said when asked about Copeman’s memo. Lockheed, based in Bethesda, Maryland, is building its Littoral Combat Ships in partnership with Marinette Marine Corp., a subsidiary of Fincantieri SpA, based in Trieste, Italy. The other version is made by Austal, based in Henderson, Australia, in partnership with Falls Church, Virginia-based General Dynamics Corp. (GD) Greenert requested the memo from Copeman, which was entitled “Vision for the 2025 Surface Fleet” and was previously reported by Defense News. The comments on the LCS are three paragraphs in a 10-page document on the future of the Navy’s surface fleet. “He appreciated the thoughtful look he gave into the future,” Hernandez said of Greenert’s reaction to the memo. He said the Navy chief considered Copeman’s proposals to be “interesting and useful.” ‘Offensive Power’ Those who have read Copeman’s recommendation offered differing interpretations of the changes he envisions. While the Navy official who asked to not be identified said the current LCS designs could be revised, the other government official said the proposed changes would amount to developing a new type of ship. “There’s inexpensive ways, less expensive ways, to dramatically increase the offensive power of our surface fleet, I think, without spending hundred, tens and tens of millions of dollars on research and development and come up with new classes of ships,” Copeman said in the January speech, according to a transcript. “I think we can look at what we’ve got, and what we’ve got on the drawing boards right now, and take great advantage of that.” Two Versions Copeman’s memo didn’t discuss whether one of the two current designs should be scrapped or whether just one version should be used as the base model for future improvements, the Navy official said. Building both versions of the ship, which have different designs and parts, adds about $400 million in operating and maintenance costs over the lifetime of the vessels, according to Rear Admiral James Murdoch, who oversees the ship’s procurement. The LCS program is “in a period of steady production and has demonstrated the maturity of most of its critical technologies,” according to an annual assessment of major weapons programs released today by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. The GAO raised questions about the effectiveness of the ship’s “mission modules,” portable containers of weapons systems that can be switched for different missions. The modules the Navy has accepted so far “do not yet meet requirements,” and the first ones won’t be fully operational until 2018, when the Navy will have purchased 30 ships, the GAO said. “The mission packages aren’t ready,” said Polmar, the naval analyst. “We’ve got the least capable 3,000-ton warship in the world.” http://tinyurl.com/cwhd238 It's our money being wasted. Why are you gloating? |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
"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? |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
|
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
|
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
|
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
|
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
On Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:42:13 PM UTC-4, Eisboch wrote:
Why aren't American warships built by Americans? We can't afford American-Union built ships. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:49:03 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:59:14 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/28/13 7:49 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:23:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013 The U.S. Navy’s troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel intended to be small and speedy for use in shallow waters close to shore, lacks the firepower it needs, a top U.S. navy commander said in a classified memo. Did you ever see the movie "Pentagon wars"? It is worth the rental. This looks like the same deal. ... and yet these guys can't find $30 billion of waste anywhere without withdrawing a carrier battle group from the middle east. It is why I think we can't trust our government with our money. Yeah, we should turn our economy over to the Wall Street banksters... Who do you think runs it now? A better question is who do you think should continue to run it? |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
On 3/28/13 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:59:14 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/28/13 7:49 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:23:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013 The U.S. Navy’s troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel intended to be small and speedy for use in shallow waters close to shore, lacks the firepower it needs, a top U.S. navy commander said in a classified memo. Did you ever see the movie "Pentagon wars"? It is worth the rental. This looks like the same deal. ... and yet these guys can't find $30 billion of waste anywhere without withdrawing a carrier battle group from the middle east. It is why I think we can't trust our government with our money. Yeah, we should turn our economy over to the Wall Street banksters... Who do you think runs it now? Precisely. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
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? |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
|
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
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? You couldn't qualify for a job picking up trash at a shipyard. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 23:36:18 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote: 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? Maybe you're just completely full of ****. http://americanmanufacturing.org/blo...-american-soil |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:18:09 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:54:43 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:49:03 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:59:14 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: It is why I think we can't trust our government with our money. Yeah, we should turn our economy over to the Wall Street banksters... 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. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
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... |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
|
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
|
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
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). |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
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. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
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. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
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. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
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. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
|
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
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. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
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. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
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. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
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? |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
|
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
In article , says...
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? That's righ, who has the deeper pockets? You don't keep your Senate seat unless you pull in $10,000 a week in contributions to your next race. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
In article ,
says... On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:31:48 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:06:31 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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? That's righ, who has the deeper pockets? You don't keep your Senate seat unless you pull in $10,000 a week in contributions to your next race. Actually in the 2010 election retaining a senate seat was more like $30,000 a week. (average was $9.4M per incumbent) A house seat was $10,000 a week.($1.4M) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ntage-congress But I'm guessing you all think that's just for the left, eh? |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:31:48 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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? That's righ, who has the deeper pockets? You don't keep your Senate seat unless you pull in $10,000 a week in contributions to your next race. Thus, all senators are corrupt, never do anything for the people they represent, and ****, it's a Stalinistic state. yeah you're paranoid and stupid. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:02:51 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:31:48 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:06:31 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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? That's righ, who has the deeper pockets? You don't keep your Senate seat unless you pull in $10,000 a week in contributions to your next race. Actually in the 2010 election retaining a senate seat was more like $30,000 a week. (average was $9.4M per incumbent) A house seat was $10,000 a week.($1.4M) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ntage-congress But I'm guessing you all think that's just for the left, eh? you don't have to guess |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:03:35 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:46:10 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:23:51 -0400, wrote: What's wrong with due process? Answer the ****ing question. OK you are not willing to read the report but the short answer is these people were captured on the battle field. There is no chain of evidence and no real way to sustain charges. Not all of them unless you want to claim all of Iraq or Afg. is a battle field. It was when these guys were captured Agreed. But some of them were "turned in" by their own enemies and have since been found to not have any connection of substance with the terrorists. These were soldiers, not trained police officers who understand the rules of evidence. They would never sustain a criminal charge in the US. You don't know that. You're just talkin. I am just repeating what Holder says You keep saying that, but you don't provide any details. Holder's said lots of stuff. It is also clear that if we turn them loose, they will be back plotting against us, like most of the others that we have turned loose. All of them? Nope. Not even close. How many then? Cite it Here's a link from an ex-bush official. He should know I think. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-bay-innocent/ We have already turned loose everyone that we thought were minimally dangerous and many of them turned up shooting at us again. That report says we now have the worst of the worst left and 46 of them are hard core terrorists. We just do not have the evidence necessary to actually get a conviction in a US criminal court. This is Eric Holder talking, not me. You're misquoting him. There are several that have done nothing and only lack a place to go. Did you read the report ... i didn't think so. See previous. Are you capable of looking **** up? I didn't think so. Who are "those on the right"? You also used the term GOP several times but I am trying to trim these threads to a manageable size. I suppose I can go back and quote it to you but you think everything is the GOPs fault so it would be redundant. Yes, and it's true. They obstructed the closure. They weren't alone, but they did it. Try again. Cloture? There was never a filibuster The DEMOCRATS scuttled closing Gitmo, It said so in YOUR ****ING CITE Closure.... closure of Gitmo. Not cloture. Never said fillibuster either. The Dems contributed to the CLOSURE of Gitmo. I've said this several times. MY ****ING WORDS. DELIBERATE IDIOT. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
In article ,
says... On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:02:51 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:31:48 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:06:31 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... 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? That's righ, who has the deeper pockets? You don't keep your Senate seat unless you pull in $10,000 a week in contributions to your next race. Actually in the 2010 election retaining a senate seat was more like $30,000 a week. (average was $9.4M per incumbent) A house seat was $10,000 a week.($1.4M) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ntage-congress But I'm guessing you all think that's just for the left, eh? If you looked at the link you would see this is the average for everyone and the GOP actually spent more money. I fully understand that, but that's not what I asked. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
|
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
|
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:22:14 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote: On 4/4/2013 5:00 PM, wrote: On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:58:44 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: I thought I was kevin or loogy or wait... you're just a ****ing moron. He's gone insane like Scotty, so in his babble, everyone is kevin, harry or plume. Asshole does seem to be a clone of Plume. You are simply Kevin by default. If you have another name, tell us. He knows that, he just can't help crying every time someone brings it up. What you "bring up" is that smelly **** that happens every time you belch your insanity. |
Yet Another U.S. Navy Screw Up...Boating Related
In article ,
says... On 4/4/2013 5:00 PM, wrote: On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:58:44 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: I thought I was kevin or loogy or wait... you're just a ****ing moron. He's gone insane like Scotty, so in his babble, everyone is kevin, harry or plume. Asshole does seem to be a clone of Plume. You are simply Kevin by default. If you have another name, tell us. He knows that, he just can't help crying every time someone brings it up. It's kevin, it's harry, it's plume. Look..... behind you.... BOOO! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:00 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com