On 2/22/2013 8:52 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/21/13 7:35 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/21/2013 6:54 PM, Meyer wrote:
The president is now hoping he can influence California to overturn
the ban on homosexuals marrying someone of the same gender. Doesn't he
have more important things to spend his time on?

He is in full campaign mode, just like the last 8 years... He doesn't
give one **** about us, just the sow and piglets vacations and his
golf...


You really seem to have "issues" with the family members of people you
don't like and haven't even meant. Perhaps if you didn't have so many
physical and mental health issues, you'd be a more likeable person.

Do your "sponsors" know what a real dirtbag you are? There's no doubt
you are a dirtbag, because a decent person wouldn't refer to the members
of the First Family the way you do.

Dirtbag.



So funny to watch you dig your hole... everyone here who I give a crap
about knows what you did, the rest is all laughable...

In article ,
says...

On 2/22/2013 8:52 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/21/13 7:35 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/21/2013 6:54 PM, Meyer wrote:
The president is now hoping he can influence California to overturn
the ban on homosexuals marrying someone of the same gender. Doesn't he
have more important things to spend his time on?

He is in full campaign mode, just like the last 8 years... He doesn't
give one **** about us, just the sow and piglets vacations and his
golf...


You really seem to have "issues" with the family members of people you
don't like and haven't even meant. Perhaps if you didn't have so many
physical and mental health issues, you'd be a more likeable person.

Do your "sponsors" know what a real dirtbag you are? There's no doubt
you are a dirtbag, because a decent person wouldn't refer to the members
of the First Family the way you do.

Dirtbag.



So funny to watch you dig your hole... everyone here who I give a crap
about knows what you did, the rest is all laughable...

Are you still trying to lie about that "blackmail", liar?

Harriet said:

You really seem to have "issues" with the family members of people you
don't like and haven't even meant. Perhaps if you didn't have so many
physical and mental health issues, you'd be a more likeable person.

It's mirror time again Harriet. "Haven't even *meant*"? That wasn't a
typo. It was anger, haste, and trouble collecting your thoughts. Why
don't you take a break from REC.BOATS and concentrate on resolving your
own health issues?

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:54:17 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:34:18 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The president is now hoping he can influence California to overturn
the ban on homosexuals marrying someone of the same gender. Doesn't
he have more important things to spend his time on?

Because it's not important to you, you think it's not important to
anyone?

Considering all the things going on, it is not that important.
Maybe they should be spending the same amount of energy trying to fix
the debt/deficit/employment problems.
How about the wars?

....or gas prices. Do those on welfare get a gas cost credit so those of us who pay taxes have to pay
for the gas they use in their Cadillacs, BMW's, and Mercedes?

Salmonbait
--

"That's not a baby kicking, dear Bride, it's just a fetus!"

On 2/22/13 8:59 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/22/2013 8:52 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/21/13 7:35 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/21/2013 6:54 PM, Meyer wrote:
The president is now hoping he can influence California to overturn
the ban on homosexuals marrying someone of the same gender.
Doesn't he
have more important things to spend his time on?

He is in full campaign mode, just like the last 8 years... He doesn't
give one **** about us, just the sow and piglets vacations and his
golf...


You really seem to have "issues" with the family members of people you
don't like and haven't even meant. Perhaps if you didn't have so many
physical and mental health issues, you'd be a more likeable person.

Do your "sponsors" know what a real dirtbag you are? There's no doubt
you are a dirtbag, because a decent person wouldn't refer to the members
of the First Family the way you do.

Dirtbag.



So funny to watch you dig your hole... everyone here who I give a crap
about knows what you did, the rest is all laughable...

Are you referring to your delusional claim of "blackmail" again?


--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist
racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work
for me.

The president is now hoping he can influence California to overturn
the ban on homosexuals marrying someone of the same gender. Doesn't
he have more important things to spend his time on?



Loogie wondered:
Because it's not important to you, you think it's not important to
anyone?

And who might that be?

In article om,
says...

The president is now hoping he can influence California to overturn
the ban on homosexuals marrying someone of the same gender. Doesn't
he have more important things to spend his time on?



Loogie wondered:
Because it's not important to you, you think it's not important to
anyone?

And who might that be?

Believe it or not, there are other people in the world besides you
narrow minded alleged Christian right wingers. THOSE would be the ones.

wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 11:38:18 -0500, BAR wrote:

If they want $85 billion (the sequester) they could just trim a little
off the $350 billion F35 program, a plane that really does not have a
mission.

It is the future of carrier aviation.

The future of aviation may well be drones. Our government has shown a
serious aversion to sending pilots in harms way, even if they want to
go.

Carriers are easy targets...stupid to invest in any more or new planes for
them. $350 billion is a waste.

wrote:
On 23 Feb 2013 20:42:21 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote:

wrote:

It is the future of carrier aviation.

The future of aviation may well be drones. Our government has shown a
serious aversion to sending pilots in harms way, even if they want to
go.

Carriers are easy targets...stupid to invest in any more or new planes for
them. $350 billion is a waste.

When you are talking about a 1st world country like the Russians or
Chinese, you are right. When they asked Zumwalt how long our carriers
would last against the soviets he said "a couple days".

On the other hand carriers are a great way to project power against 3d
world countries but you don't need an F-35 to do that. The FA-18 is a
very capable platform and can actually put more ordinance on target
than the F35.
They are not stealth but most of the people we bomb don't have radar.

I still think the next generation of carrier aircraft will be the
carrier drone.
The F-35 may end up being the next B-1 or B-2. Very expensive, very
capable but without a real enemy worthy of all of that capability.

If you really just want to kill every MF in a quarter mile circle, it
is hard to beat a 60 year old B-52 and they can still deliver
precision munitions. That is no doubt the best bang for the buck that
the US has ever had from a military development program.

The problem is the military wants, fast sexy plane. Wasn't it the F20
where the general said 'not one pound for guns'? What we need is a follow
on to the A10. We have decent air superiority fighters nw, but we need
Sandies. Ground support killers. The no guns was a big problem on the
original F5's in Viet Nam.

On 2/23/13 8:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On 23 Feb 2013 20:42:21 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote:

wrote:

It is the future of carrier aviation.

The future of aviation may well be drones. Our government has shown a
serious aversion to sending pilots in harms way, even if they want to
go.

Carriers are easy targets...stupid to invest in any more or new planes for
them. $350 billion is a waste.

When you are talking about a 1st world country like the Russians or
Chinese, you are right. When they asked Zumwalt how long our carriers
would last against the soviets he said "a couple days".

On the other hand carriers are a great way to project power against 3d
world countries but you don't need an F-35 to do that. The FA-18 is a
very capable platform and can actually put more ordinance on target
than the F35.
They are not stealth but most of the people we bomb don't have radar.

I still think the next generation of carrier aircraft will be the
carrier drone.
The F-35 may end up being the next B-1 or B-2. Very expensive, very
capable but without a real enemy worthy of all of that capability.

If you really just want to kill every MF in a quarter mile circle, it
is hard to beat a 60 year old B-52 and they can still deliver
precision munitions. That is no doubt the best bang for the buck that
the US has ever had from a military development program.

The problem is the military wants, fast sexy plane. Wasn't it the F20
where the general said 'not one pound for guns'? What we need is a follow
on to the A10. We have decent air superiority fighters nw, but we need
Sandies. Ground support killers. The no guns was a big problem on the
original F5's in Viet Nam.


There is no justification for spending the amounts of money being
projected to build and maintain these F35's.

--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist
racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work
for me.