Obama Admin Boosting Staff for Massive Criminal Pardon Effort

[Joe Cooper]

Experts: End of presidency bid could free up to
20,000 convicted criminals

The Obama administration is seeking to significantly boost the number of
staffers in the Department of Justice’s pardon office, leading some to
speculate that the president is getting set for an end-of-administration
effort to grant clemency to a range of criminals.

The Justice Department recently posted on its website a job listing
seeking 16 lawyers for new spots in its Office of the Pardon Attorney,
which codifies petitions for clemency and makes recommendations to the
attorney general for clemency.

The new lawyers will assist “the President in the exercise of executive
clemency,” according to the job description.

The department’s move to beef up staff in the pardon office has prompted
speculation that President Obama will pursue a final term effort to grant
clemency to a range of criminals, particularly drug offenders.

The Justice Department has been working for more than a year now on a new
clemency initiative that outside organizations predict could free up to
20,000 convicted inmates from federal prisons. The effort has been
described in news reports as “an unprecedented use of clemency power.”

The department says the new pardon office lawyers will work on this
initiative and focus only on non-violent offenders.

“The Justice Department announced a new clemency initiative to encourage
appropriate candidates to petition for executive clemency in order to
have their sentences commuted by the President,” the job listing states.
“The Initiative invites petitions for commutation of sentence from non-
violent inmates who are serving a federal sentence, who by operation of
law, likely would have received a substantially lower sentence if
convicted of the same offense today.”

Thus far, “thousands of inmates” have filed petitions to have their
sentences commuted and “more are likely to do so,” according to the
Justice Department. “Evaluating these petitions for recommendations to
the President is a high priority for the Justice Department.”

The attorneys will “review and evaluate petitions” submitted by prisoners
and confer with Justice Department officials, as well as other
administration agencies, to decide who meets the criteria to receive a
pardon, according to the job description.

Government oversight organizations and experts are questioning the
administration about the possibility that it could release those in the
country illegally or those who have committed major drug offenses.

One congressional source familiar with the effort criticized Obama for
abusing the presidential right to grant pardons.

“This fits perfectly with the administration’s two-term agenda of eroding
the rule of law in America,” the source told the Washington Free Beacon.
“While the president certainly has the constitutional power to pardon, I
shudder thinking about how he plans to use it, given his determination to
release dangerous criminals.”

Judicial Watch, a legal organization that has sought disclosure on the
issue, petitioned the Justice Department in July through a Freedom of
Information Act request to release all records discussing the clemency
project.

Judicial Watch has predicted that the major clemency initiative “would
empower President Obama to grant mass clemency to as many as 20,000
convicted felons now serving time for drug-related sentences.”

The clemency program is just one “part of the Obama administration’s
effort to end alleged racial discrimination in drug-related sentences,”
according to Judicial Watch.

Republican lawmakers also have expressed concern over the initiative.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, accused Obama at the time of
“abusing his authority” under the Constitution to pardon prisoners.

“This is an example of the imperial presidency at its worst, and the
American people have a right to know who is behind his errant usurpation
of power,” Fitton said in a statement at the time.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for more
information on the initiative.

Update 1:58 p.m.: A previous version of this article said the Office of
the Pardon Attorney recommended candidates for parole. The Office does
not recommend candidates. It makes recommendations to the attorney
general for clemency. The article has been updated to correct this.

Source: http://bit.ly/1n4X70Q

--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS."
ISIS: "We've contained Obama."

"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)

"No doubt Hillary would like to call [Paula] Jones a liar, but Bill paid
Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment suit. Can you imagine the
fun Donald Trump, for one, would have with that? Plus, it was Bill
Clinton, not Paula Jones, who was found by the presiding federal judge to
have committed perjury."--John Hinderaker

[Truth and honesty]

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 21:54:23 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:

> The Justice Department has been working for more than a year now on a new
> clemency initiative that outside organizations predict could free up to
> 20,000 convicted inmates from federal prisons. The effort has been
> described in news reports as “an unprecedented use of clemency power.”

That would save a lot of money.



--
“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would
do this, it would change the earth.”
― William Faulkner

[Joe Cooper]

Truth and honesty <Truthan...@bluetooth.com.au> wrote in
news:13840nbo8fsi5....@40tude.net:

> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 21:54:23 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:
>
>> The Justice Department has been working for more than a year now on a
>> new clemency initiative that outside organizations predict could free
>> up to 20,000 convicted inmates from federal prisons. The effort has
>> been described in news reports as ¶"an unprecedented use of clemency
>> power.¶"
>
> That would save a lot of money.

Indeed it would, and if that is the yardstick, then disbanding the
military would REALLY save a lot of money!

Throw in federal, state, country and municipal police and you'll save a
SHITLOAD of cash!

I think you're on to something!

[PaxPerPoten]

On 1/7/2016 10:19 AM, Joe Cooper wrote:
> Truth and honesty <Truthan...@bluetooth.com.au> wrote in
> news:13840nbo8fsi5....@40tude.net:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 21:54:23 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> The Justice Department has been working for more than a year now on a
>>> new clemency initiative that outside organizations predict could free
>>> up to 20,000 convicted inmates from federal prisons. The effort has
>>> been described in news reports as ¶"an unprecedented use of clemency
>>> power.¶"
>>
>> That would save a lot of money.
>
> Indeed it would, and if that is the yardstick, then disbanding the
> military would REALLY save a lot of money!
>
> Throw in federal, state, country and municipal police and you'll save a
> SHITLOAD of cash!

Actually disbanding the Secret Service would save a lot more as it would
leave the President, the Congress and the Senate vulnerable to
direct complaints when they don't please the citizens with their
actions. Also exPresidents etc would be liable to answer to the man on
the street for past actions. Just think ..No big assed political
retirement checks,No fancy political libraries to fund. We would finally
achieve a Government that fears the people, rather then a people that
fears the Government.

--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[Siri Cruz]

> > Indeed it would, and if that is the yardstick, then disbanding the
> > military would REALLY save a lot of money!

Disbanding most of the military would save massively, not just on the standing
army but also the follow on costs as presidents play soldier with _their_ army.

If the purpose of the DoD is well and truly defence, our fine assortment of
nuclear weapons will prevent any military invasion. Maybe a few small speciality
units like Seals and Rangers for diplomacy by other means. But aircraft carriers
and most of the military exists solely to interfere with the national
sovereignity and selfdetermination of whomever it is thought profitable to
kneecap this week.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we
cannot prove the consistency. ~~ Morris Kline

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 01/08/2016 11:12 AM, coo...@loon.com wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 02:31:21 -0600, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>
>> Actually disbanding the Secret Service would save a lot more as it would
>> leave the President, the Congress and the Senate vulnerable to
>> direct complaints when they don't please the citizens with their
>> actions.
>

> Oh, but that's only relevant when Obama is in office, PottyPax.
>
> The liar-in-chief ronnie raygun, the venerated drooler of your dreams,
> would have been accorded and entire army to keep him safe.

Didn't help Reagan, a crazed Liberal genius shot Reagan....


It seems the Secret Service must have been out to lunch or hung over
from all the partying or playing with hookers in their hotel room that day.




--
That's Karma

If a marriage license *can't* tell you who you *must marry*
depending on sexual identity... how can a business license tell
you who you *Must engage in commerce with* depending on sexual
identity?

*Liberalism is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

O's gonna let all the rapists n perverts out if they go to Maine

[Joe Cooper]

PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote in news:n6nrvc$fg$1...@dont-email.me:

> Actually disbanding the Secret Service would save a lot more as it would
> leave the President, the Congress and the Senate vulnerable to
> direct complaints when they don't please the citizens with their
> actions. Also exPresidents etc would be liable to answer to the man on
> the street for past actions. Just think ..No big assed political
> retirement checks,No fancy political libraries to fund. We would finally
> achieve a Government that fears the people, rather then a people that
> fears the Government.

That is an excellent idea. After all, Democrats continue to insist that
guns are evil, so making them safer by disarming their security details
makes perfect sense. It's right up there with declaring Washington, DC a
Federal Gun Free Zone. Both will make Americans MUCH safer!

[PaxPerPoten]

On 1/8/2016 3:15 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> Indeed it would, and if that is the yardstick, then disbanding the
>>> military would REALLY save a lot of money!

Interesting thought. But how do we re-employ the Million or so of the
standing military or the several million reservists or the many millions
that provide arms, logistics and massive amounts of everything from nuts
to bolts? How do we replace DARPA? The so called nuclear deterrent
would soon age and wither...What then? Would Rome have lasted as long as
it did with your strategies? Please think real hard on this before you
answer, as this is important. Our survival depends on good planning and
carry through. We will need our National Guard when the unemployment
rate creates food riots etc. And our Military when China comes to
collect a couple of $trillion in loans.

[PaxPerPoten]

On 1/8/2016 10:36 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> On 01/08/2016 11:12 AM, coo...@loon.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 02:31:21 -0600, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually disbanding the Secret Service would save a lot more as it would
>>> leave the President, the Congress and the Senate vulnerable to
>>> direct complaints when they don't please the citizens with their
>>> actions.
>>
>> Oh, but that's only relevant when Obama is in office, PottyPax.
>>
>> The liar-in-chief ronnie raygun, the venerated drooler of your dreams,
>> would have been accorded and entire army to keep him safe.

Actually one of the most popular presidents of the era. Its true you
Commy/Bolsheviks didn't like him..But Hell it is the Conservative
tolerance of the State you live in that allows you to keep breathing.

>
> Didn't help Reagan, a crazed Liberal genius shot Reagan....

And that was accomplished to impress an actress he admired.
But that was ages ago..We are in the here and now. Our problems are very
pressing and the Idiot in Chief plays golf and writes moronic illegal
immoral Executive orders instead of taking on the real world problems.

>
>
> It seems the Secret Service must have been out to lunch or hung over
> from all the partying or playing with hookers in their hotel room that day.

A secret Service agent was also shot.

[DoD]

"PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
news:n6qap1$7nu$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 1/8/2016 3:15 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>> Indeed it would, and if that is the yardstick, then disbanding the
>>>> military would REALLY save a lot of money!
>
> Interesting thought. But how do we re-employ the Million or so of the
> standing military or the several million reservists or the many millions
> that provide arms, logistics and massive amounts of everything from nuts
> to bolts? How do we replace DARPA? The so called nuclear deterrent would
> soon age and wither...What then? Would Rome have lasted as long as it did
> with your strategies? Please think real hard on this before you answer, as
> this is important. Our survival depends on good planning and carry
> through. We will need our National Guard when the unemployment rate
> creates food riots etc. And our Military when China comes to collect a
> couple of $trillion in loans.

Why indulge that idiot Siri? She is dumb as a box of rocks....

[PaxPerPoten]

While she is reading and trying to comprehend..she is not scratching her
crotch crickets. ;-)

[Siri Cruz]

In article <n6qap1$7nu$1...@dont-email.me>, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

> On 1/8/2016 3:15 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> >>> Indeed it would, and if that is the yardstick, then disbanding the
> >>> military would REALLY save a lot of money!
>
> Interesting thought. But how do we re-employ the Million or so of the
> standing military or the several million reservists or the many millions

Interesting place to visit is Pinnacles National Monument. It has lots of trails
constructed as make-work projects of WPA to reduce unemployment. The trails are
still in use today, openning that Elfland to all the world.

Subsequent aircraft carriers, bombers, tanks, even from as recently as the 1960s
have all been thrown away, with all that investment rusting away, of no use to
anyone.

Truth be told if all you want is make-work, turning those soldiers into a public
works project could make improvements that will serve the country for a century
for a fraction of the cost of monuments to entropy that rust away on runaways.

> that provide arms, logistics and massive amounts of everything from nuts
> to bolts? How do we replace DARPA? The so called nuclear deterrent

For a fraction of the military budget, NASA could have colonies on the Moon.

Maintaining the nuclear deterrent requires a small part of the military budget.
It does not require DARPA--we know everything we need to know about
thermonuclear weapons. What if we used DARPA's budget to develop battery
technology that give us cars that did not choke us on crowded city streets?

> would soon age and wither...What then? Would Rome have lasted as long as
> it did with your strategies? Please think real hard on this before you

The western empire collapsed because its taxes were too high. Its taxes were too
high because of the constant warfare along the Rhine and Danube with the German
tribes. Do you think your taxes are too high? What does it cost to keep a
soldier in Afghanistan for a year? What does it cost if only part of them comes
back?

Also the Romans lacked a nuclear deterrent. Whether Germans had feared that,
Romans to have incinerated whole tribes for the cost of less than one legion. As
long as the US has a nuclear deterrent it cannot be invaded by another military.

> answer, as this is important. Our survival depends on good planning and
> carry through. We will need our National Guard when the unemployment
> rate creates food riots etc. And our Military when China comes to
> collect a couple of $trillion in loans.

China knows and the US knows and both sides know the other side knows that any
war would escalate until China and the US are both reduced to clinker and ash.
Assuming the people who claw their way to the top of either country are too
narcisitic to be suicidal, it's a good bet there will be no war for either
military to fight.

Russia got very angry with Turkey just a month ago, but quickly veered away from
any military confrontation. An attack on Turkey would be an attack on the US
with Russia and NATO countries reduced to clinker and ash within a month. That
is also why Obama would never support Ukraine militarily just as Bush did not
support Georgia militarily.

[PaxPerPoten]

On 1/9/2016 1:49 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <n6qap1$7nu$1...@dont-email.me>, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/8/2016 3:15 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>>> Indeed it would, and if that is the yardstick, then disbanding the
>>>>> military would REALLY save a lot of money!
>>
>> Interesting thought. But how do we re-employ the Million or so of the
>> standing military or the several million reservists or the many millions
>
> Interesting place to visit is Pinnacles National Monument. It has lots of trails
> constructed as make-work projects of WPA to reduce unemployment. The trails are
> still in use today, openning that Elfland to all the world.

So you would put them on welfare. How does that save a dime?

>
> Subsequent aircraft carriers, bombers, tanks, even from as recently as the 1960s
> have all been thrown away, with all that investment rusting away, of no use to
> anyone.

Nope, sold to scrappers.

>
> Truth be told if all you want is make-work, turning those soldiers into a public
> works project could make improvements that will serve the country for a century
> for a fraction of the cost of monuments to entropy that rust away on runaways.

Nobody wants "make work". Folks want productive careers and long term
recognized jobs.

>
>> that provide arms, logistics and massive amounts of everything from nuts
>> to bolts? How do we replace DARPA? The so called nuclear deterrent
>
> For a fraction of the military budget, NASA could have colonies on the Moon.

Apparently you don't have a clue as to the cost of a moon colony and for
what gain? There is nothing to gain with a moon colony!

>
> Maintaining the nuclear deterrent requires a small part of the military budget.

You are an idiot..The cost of one nuclear device runs in the hundred
$billion mark and it has a deterioration period. it ain't forever!

> It does not require DARPA--we know everything we need to know about
> thermonuclear weapons. What if we used DARPA's budget to develop battery
> technology that give us cars that did not choke us on crowded city streets?

DARPA is not a nuclear design facility. It built the internet.. It has
brought forth modern battery technology. I can tell you no more or I
would have to kill you... Which really isn't all that bad of an idea. ;-p

>
>> would soon age and wither...What then? Would Rome have lasted as long as
>> it did with your strategies? Please think real hard on this before you
>
> The western empire collapsed because its taxes were too high.

I told you to think this out! You didn't!

Its taxes were too
> high because of the constant warfare along the Rhine and Danube with the German
> tribes. Do you think your taxes are too high? What does it cost to keep a
> soldier in Afghanistan for a year? What does it cost if only part of them comes
> back?

You better go back to college and actually take Ancient Roman history
this time!

>
> Also the Romans lacked a nuclear deterrent. Whether Germans had feared that,
> Romans to have incinerated whole tribes for the cost of less than one legion. As
> long as the US has a nuclear deterrent it cannot be invaded by another military.

That foreign Military is already here. Obama invited them in. Pakistan
just invaded and Indian province. And both countries are Nuclear armed.

>
>> answer, as this is important. Our survival depends on good planning and
>> carry through. We will need our National Guard when the unemployment
>> rate creates food riots etc. And our Military when China comes to
>> collect a couple of $trillion in loans.
>
> China knows and the US knows and both sides know the other side knows that any
> war would escalate until China and the US are both reduced to clinker and ash.

Maybe you had best run up to the South China Sea and tell the Chinese
oppressors there about that. Also China is building a Navy to rival ours
along with carrier killer missiles.. They want Taiwan and the entire
Asian rim...The same as they had back in dynasty days. We will end up in
a war with China if we weaken.

> Assuming the people who claw their way to the top of either country are too
> narcisitic to be suicidal, it's a good bet there will be no war for either
> military to fight.

Nope..there will always wars. You can take that to the bank!

>
> Russia got very angry with Turkey just a month ago, but quickly veered away from
> any military confrontation. An attack on Turkey would be an attack on the US
> with Russia and NATO countries reduced to clinker and ash within a month. That
> is also why Obama would never support Ukraine militarily just as Bush did not
> support Georgia militarily.

We broke our word to kill NATO when the Russian satellites disbanded!
Georgia had no value and definitely would have caused a war. Obama hates
the military and has been gutting the central command his whole 8 years.
Over 500 top officers canned or forced out. As for Turkey..Russia won't
waste resources taking Turkey out. But it will take out Turkeys
leadership and make it look like the Jews did it. The Jews will not
respond as that will make them look powerful. You very stupidly
underestimate Russia and over estimate the paper tiger called NATO.
Perhaps our next Administration will have the intelligence to see that
Russia would be a good friend and ally in the current rising of the 3rd
Caliphate that was encouraged by Obama. I am not a religious person ,
but I thank whatever Gods there might be that you are not in any seat of
negotiations or power. This is my last post involving you.
You are a waste of bandwidth.

[Siri Cruz]

In article <n6qhmb$rgg$1...@dont-email.me>, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

> >> Interesting thought. But how do we re-employ the Million or so of the
> >> standing military or the several million reservists or the many millions

> So you would put them on welfare. How does that save a dime?

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Zinger]

On 1/9/2016 3:30 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:

>
> Stupid is as stupid does.

Yes..We have all noticed that about you. We would like to impose on you
to move to one of the Countries that you believe in. Clearly it is not here.



--
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 01/09/2016 04:30 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <n6qhmb$rgg$1...@dont-email.me>, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>
>>>> Interesting thought. But how do we re-employ the Million or so of the
>>>> standing military or the several million reservists or the many millions
>
>> So you would put them on welfare. How does that save a dime?
>
> Stupid is as stupid does.
>

Liberalism never makes any sense...

[Siri Cruz]

In article <n6r7ti$3k8$1...@dont-email.me>, Zinger <"Zinger@"@badSoSad.com> wrote:

> On 1/9/2016 3:30 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>
> >
> > Stupid is as stupid does.
>
> Yes..We have all noticed that about you. We would like to impose on you
> to move to one of the Countries that you believe in. Clearly it is not here.

So you also believe that it is better to keep a standing army to provide young
people with employment instead of hiring them to do public works of lasting
benefit to provide them with employment.

How many countries has Costa Rica invaded?

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 01:15:00 -0800, Siri Cruz wrote:

>> > Indeed it would, and if that is the yardstick, then disbanding the
>> > military would REALLY save a lot of money!
>
>Disbanding most of the military would save massively, not just on the standing
>army but also the follow on costs as presidents play soldier with _their_ army.
>
>If the purpose of the DoD is well and truly defence, our fine assortment of
>nuclear weapons will prevent any military invasion. Maybe a few small speciality
>units like Seals and Rangers for diplomacy by other means. But aircraft carriers
>and most of the military exists solely to interfere with the national
>sovereignity and selfdetermination of whomever it is thought profitable to
>kneecap this week.

New sig!

Swill
--

If the purpose of the DoD is well and truly defence, our fine assortment of
nuclear weapons will prevent any military invasion. Maybe a few small speciality
units like Seals and Rangers for diplomacy by other means. But aircraft carriers
and most of the military exists solely to interfere with the national
sovereignity and selfdetermination of whomever it is thought profitable to

kneecap this week.- Siri Cruz

[Governor Swill]

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 01:08:35 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
wrote:

We could cut the defense budget in half - and be safer.

Swill
--

If the purpose of the DoD is well and truly defence, our fine assortment of
nuclear weapons will prevent any military invasion. Maybe a few small speciality
units like Seals and Rangers for diplomacy by other means. But aircraft carriers
and most of the military exists solely to interfere with the national
sovereignity and selfdetermination of whomever it is thought profitable to

kneecap this week.- Siri Cruz

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 23:49:41 -0800, Siri Cruz wrote:
>PaxPerPoten wrote:
>> On 1/8/2016 3:15 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>> >>> Indeed it would, and if that is the yardstick, then disbanding the
>> >>> military would REALLY save a lot of money!
>>
>> Interesting thought. But how do we re-employ the Million or so of the
>> standing military or the several million reservists or the many millions
>
>Interesting place to visit is Pinnacles National Monument. It has lots of trails
>constructed as make-work projects of WPA to reduce unemployment. The trails are
>still in use today, openning that Elfland to all the world.
>
>Subsequent aircraft carriers, bombers, tanks, even from as recently as the 1960s
>have all been thrown away, with all that investment rusting away, of no use to
>anyone.

The oldest US carrier in service is the Nimitz. Keel laid in 1968, it
was delivered and commissioned in 1975. Everything older than that
has been scrapped, sunk or turned into a museum somewhere.

>Truth be told if all you want is make-work, turning those soldiers into a public
>works project could make improvements that will serve the country for a century
>for a fraction of the cost of monuments to entropy that rust away on runaways.

The mothball fleet, numbering as many as thousands of ships, is all
but gone now as the Navy, in the past several years, has sold them one
at a time for scrap, museum pieces or artificial reefs.

The James River fleet, once numbering 60 ships, has been reduced by
90%.

Nearly a dozen reserve fleets no longer exist at all. A handful of
ships remain in Beaumont, TX, Bremerton, WA, Suisun Bay, CA,
Philadelphia and Pearl Harbor.

Current satellite images of, for example, Suisun Bay compared to those
taken only twenty years ago show an astounding reduction in the number
of decommissioned vessels being kept for "reactivation".

According to
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2011/07/suisun-bay-will-make-you-sober.html
the Suisun fleet alone used to number 400 but is now under 75.

Suisun fleet during Vietnam.
http://www.johnfry.com/Media/PhotoRozelle09.jpg

Suisun fleet today by looking at the latest Google Earth shows far
fewer than 75. There are no more than a dozen ships still there and
all the piers they were once anchored to are gone.

>> that provide arms, logistics and massive amounts of everything from nuts
>> to bolts? How do we replace DARPA? The so called nuclear deterrent
>
>For a fraction of the military budget, NASA could have colonies on the Moon.
>
>Maintaining the nuclear deterrent requires a small part of the military budget.
>It does not require DARPA--we know everything we need to know about
>thermonuclear weapons. What if we used DARPA's budget to develop battery
>technology that give us cars that did not choke us on crowded city streets?

DARPA has proven an invaluable source of technology and economic
activity. But, as part of this massive military structure, would it
become less or more useful if the "heavy equipment" were scrapped?

>> would soon age and wither...What then? Would Rome have lasted as long as
>> it did with your strategies? Please think real hard on this before you
>
>The western empire collapsed because its taxes were too high. Its taxes were too
>high because of the constant warfare along the Rhine and Danube with the German
>tribes. Do you think your taxes are too high? What does it cost to keep a
>soldier in Afghanistan for a year? What does it cost if only part of them comes
>back?

The western empire collapsed for a number of reasons. Emperors were
assassinated and new ones crowned with tedious regularity. To display
their power, they wasted vast sums of tax money building palaces and
other public works in the City. Technology stagnated as
what-can-we-get-now replaced investment in the future. The public,
showing two faces, complained about the wretched excess of the newest
emperor but wouldn't support investment.

>Also the Romans lacked a nuclear deterrent. Whether Germans had feared that,
>Romans to have incinerated whole tribes for the cost of less than one legion. As
>long as the US has a nuclear deterrent it cannot be invaded by another military.

Neither could Rome. It's military prowess was so great that it went
undefeated for centuries. Following the military came roads and trade
and Pax Romana. Few argued with it and rebellions were rare. The
Doves are right, prosperity follows peace and the Romans ensured peace
within the empire. But soon even that faltered as it became tougher
to put down rebellion with a weakening military and populations
disgusted with high taxes being sent to Rome for pleasure domes rather
than being invested in local infrastructure.

>> answer, as this is important. Our survival depends on good planning and
>> carry through. We will need our National Guard when the unemployment
>> rate creates food riots etc. And our Military when China comes to
>> collect a couple of $trillion in loans.
>
>China knows and the US knows and both sides know the other side knows that any
>war would escalate until China and the US are both reduced to clinker and ash.
>Assuming the people who claw their way to the top of either country are too
>narcisitic to be suicidal, it's a good bet there will be no war for either
>military to fight.

Nuclear weapons have assured the end of war as we have known it.
That's why the Cold War was fought not with guns, but with dollars.
These days, war is fought inside computers. It remains to be seen if
we can stay on top. This very fact, this new face of war, is what
makes education imperative for the nation's survival. But there are
those who devalue education, who fear knowledge will unseat their
religious values and take pride in ignorance.

>Russia got very angry with Turkey just a month ago, but quickly veered away from
>any military confrontation. An attack on Turkey would be an attack on the US
>with Russia and NATO countries reduced to clinker and ash within a month. That
>is also why Obama would never support Ukraine militarily just as Bush did not
>support Georgia militarily.

This is why Putin was able to invade Georgia, take Crimea away from
Ukraine and ultimately support rebellion in Ukraine. It wasn't a NATO
member. Putin has proven to all the world the value of joining
western military and economic alliances.

This is also why so many former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact
states rushed so quickly to join NATO. They understand the security
it gives them from expansionist policies in Moscow.

Swill
--

If the purpose of the DoD is well and truly defence, our fine assortment of
nuclear weapons will prevent any military invasion. Maybe a few small speciality
units like Seals and Rangers for diplomacy by other means. But aircraft carriers
and most of the military exists solely to interfere with the national
sovereignity and selfdetermination of whomever it is thought profitable to

kneecap this week.- Siri Cruz

[Governor Swill]

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 02:54:18 -0600, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>On 1/9/2016 1:49 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:

>> PaxPerPoten wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2016 3:15 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>>>> Indeed it would, and if that is the yardstick, then disbanding the
>>>>>> military would REALLY save a lot of money!
>>>
>>> Interesting thought. But how do we re-employ the Million or so of the
>>> standing military or the several million reservists or the many millions
>>
>> Interesting place to visit is Pinnacles National Monument. It has lots of trails
>> constructed as make-work projects of WPA to reduce unemployment. The trails are
>> still in use today, openning that Elfland to all the world.
>
>So you would put them on welfare. How does that save a dime?

Hardly welfare. Work for a living is what WPA did and in the process,
built American infrastructure we still enjoy today. All the hundreds
of billions in weapons built during the same time period and since are
all gone.

>> Subsequent aircraft carriers, bombers, tanks, even from as recently as the 1960s
>> have all been thrown away, with all that investment rusting away, of no use to
>> anyone.
>
>Nope, sold to scrappers.

That was the point, Dimmy. Trillions spent building machines of war
that stopped being relevant more than half a century ago and almost
every bit of it destroyed or trashed since.

>> Truth be told if all you want is make-work, turning those soldiers into a public
>> works project could make improvements that will serve the country for a century
>> for a fraction of the cost of monuments to entropy that rust away on runaways.
>
>Nobody wants "make work". Folks want productive careers and long term
>recognized jobs.

Like building ships that will be melted down to make toasters in a
couple of decades? How is that not "make work"?

>>> that provide arms, logistics and massive amounts of everything from nuts
>>> to bolts? How do we replace DARPA? The so called nuclear deterrent
>>
>> For a fraction of the military budget, NASA could have colonies on the Moon.
>
>Apparently you don't have a clue as to the cost of a moon colony and for
>what gain? There is nothing to gain with a moon colony!

Certainly there is. Technology. The Chinese are on the way there. We
gonna let them have it?

>> Maintaining the nuclear deterrent requires a small part of the military budget.
>
>You are an idiot..The cost of one nuclear device runs in the hundred
>$billion mark and it has a deterioration period. it ain't forever!

Lie. Just a plain lie. It doesn't cost a hundred billion to make one
bomb.

>> It does not require DARPA--we know everything we need to know about
>> thermonuclear weapons. What if we used DARPA's budget to develop battery
>> technology that give us cars that did not choke us on crowded city streets?
>
>DARPA is not a nuclear design facility. It built the internet.. It has
>brought forth modern battery technology. I can tell you no more or I
>would have to kill you... Which really isn't all that bad of an idea. ;-p

You are truly ignorant. DARPA did not "build" the internet.

>>> would soon age and wither...What then? Would Rome have lasted as long as
>>> it did with your strategies? Please think real hard on this before you
>>
>> The western empire collapsed because its taxes were too high.
>
>I told you to think this out! You didn't!
>
> Its taxes were too
>> high because of the constant warfare along the Rhine and Danube with the German
>> tribes. Do you think your taxes are too high? What does it cost to keep a
>> soldier in Afghanistan for a year? What does it cost if only part of them comes
>> back?
>
>You better go back to college and actually take Ancient Roman history
>this time!
>
>>
>> Also the Romans lacked a nuclear deterrent. Whether Germans had feared that,
>> Romans to have incinerated whole tribes for the cost of less than one legion. As
>> long as the US has a nuclear deterrent it cannot be invaded by another military.
>
>That foreign Military is already here. Obama invited them in. Pakistan
>just invaded and Indian province. And both countries are Nuclear armed.

And have been in conflict ever since both countries existed.

>>> answer, as this is important. Our survival depends on good planning and
>>> carry through. We will need our National Guard when the unemployment
>>> rate creates food riots etc. And our Military when China comes to
>>> collect a couple of $trillion in loans.
>>
>> China knows and the US knows and both sides know the other side knows that any
>> war would escalate until China and the US are both reduced to clinker and ash.
>
>Maybe you had best run up to the South China Sea and tell the Chinese
>oppressors there about that. Also China is building a Navy to rival ours

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's FUNNY!

>along with carrier killer missiles.. They want Taiwan and the entire
>Asian rim...The same as they had back in dynasty days. We will end up in
>a war with China if we weaken.

While we, or at least, our war hawks on the right, want the entire
middle east. What's the difference?

>> Assuming the people who claw their way to the top of either country are too
>> narcisitic to be suicidal, it's a good bet there will be no war for either
>> military to fight.
>
>Nope..there will always wars. You can take that to the bank!

Yep, but not between the power players. Their wars will be virtual or
between proxy states.

>> Russia got very angry with Turkey just a month ago, but quickly veered away from
>> any military confrontation. An attack on Turkey would be an attack on the US
>> with Russia and NATO countries reduced to clinker and ash within a month. That
>> is also why Obama would never support Ukraine militarily just as Bush did not
>> support Georgia militarily.
>
>We broke our word to kill NATO when the Russian satellites disbanded!

And it's a good thing we did. The only east european country Russia
has applied military pressure to is the one that hasn't become a NATO
member. The Baltic States and Poland especially fell all over
themselves getting NATO membership and begging for western forces and
missiles to be based in their countries.

>Georgia had no value and definitely would have caused a war. Obama hates
>the military and has been gutting the central command his whole 8 years.

As Bush did in his time. Commanders in Chief put in place the
commanders they want.

>Over 500 top officers canned or forced out.

Or got old and retired or were just plain incompetent.

>As for Turkey..Russia won't
>waste resources taking Turkey out. But it will take out Turkeys
>leadership and make it look like the Jews did it. The Jews will not
>respond as that will make them look powerful. You very stupidly
>underestimate Russia and over estimate the paper tiger called NATO.

While you over estimate Russia and underestimate NATO.

>Perhaps our next Administration will have the intelligence to see that
>Russia would be a good friend and ally in the current rising of the 3rd
>Caliphate that was encouraged by Obama. I am not a religious person ,
>but I thank whatever Gods there might be that you are not in any seat of
>negotiations or power. This is my last post involving you.
>You are a waste of bandwidth.
>>

Better we should ally with Iran and prevent the third caliphate from
rising.

Swill
--

If the purpose of the DoD is well and truly defence, our fine assortment of
nuclear weapons will prevent any military invasion. Maybe a few small speciality
units like Seals and Rangers for diplomacy by other means. But aircraft carriers
and most of the military exists solely to interfere with the national
sovereignity and selfdetermination of whomever it is thought profitable to

kneecap this week.- Siri Cruz

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:08:15 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:

>PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote in news:n6nrvc$fg$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Actually disbanding the Secret Service would save a lot more as it would
>> leave the President, the Congress and the Senate vulnerable to
>> direct complaints when they don't please the citizens with their
>> actions. Also exPresidents etc would be liable to answer to the man on
>> the street for past actions. Just think ..No big assed political
>> retirement checks,No fancy political libraries to fund. We would finally
>> achieve a Government that fears the people, rather then a people that
>> fears the Government.
>
>That is an excellent idea. After all, Democrats continue to insist that
>guns are evil, so making them safer by disarming their security details
>makes perfect sense. It's right up there with declaring Washington, DC a
>Federal Gun Free Zone. Both will make Americans MUCH safer!

Latest poll on CNN. Support for the President's gun control orders.
Democrats - 85%
Independents - 61%
Republicans - 51%
Total - 67%

Two thirds of the public support the President's plan and XOs on gun
control.

If you don't like it, you have only yourself and the NRA to blame. NRA
and gun enthusiasts blew their chance to have a voice in the issue of
gun violence. They even went so far as to prevent the govt from even
researching the issue to get valid data on the subject, perhaps out of
fear of what the results might be.

[PaxPerPoten]

On 1/9/2016 10:09 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 02:54:18 -0600, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2016 1:49 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> PaxPerPoten wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2016 3:15 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>>>>> Indeed it would, and if that is the yardstick, then disbanding the
>>>>>>> military would REALLY save a lot of money!
>>>>
>>>> Interesting thought. But how do we re-employ the Million or so of the
>>>> standing military or the several million reservists or the many millions
>>>
>>> Interesting place to visit is Pinnacles National Monument. It has lots of trails
>>> constructed as make-work projects of WPA to reduce unemployment. The trails are
>>> still in use today, openning that Elfland to all the world.
>>
>> So you would put them on welfare. How does that save a dime?
>
> Hardly welfare. Work for a living is what WPA did and in the process,
> built American infrastructure we still enjoy today. All the hundreds
> of billions in weapons built during the same time period and since are
> all gone.

Uh huh...At what cost to the massive debt that we still have not paid
one dime on. No profit there. Maybe we should do a China and give
everyone an acre of land to feed themselves with.. ;-/

>
>>> Subsequent aircraft carriers, bombers, tanks, even from as recently as the 1960s
>>> have all been thrown away, with all that investment rusting away, of no use to
>>> anyone.
>>
>> Nope, sold to scrappers.
>
> That was the point, Dimmy. Trillions spent building machines of war
> that stopped being relevant more than half a century ago and almost
> every bit of it destroyed or trashed since.

Actually not.. recycled..

>
>>> Truth be told if all you want is make-work, turning those soldiers into a public
>>> works project could make improvements that will serve the country for a century
>>> for a fraction of the cost of monuments to entropy that rust away on runaways.
>>
>> Nobody wants "make work". Folks want productive careers and long term
>> recognized jobs.
>
> Like building ships that will be melted down to make toasters in a
> couple of decades? How is that not "make work"?

recycled. Apparently you are on welfare, thus have no clue as to value
or profit.

>
>>>> that provide arms, logistics and massive amounts of everything from nuts
>>>> to bolts? How do we replace DARPA? The so called nuclear deterrent
>>>
>>> For a fraction of the military budget, NASA could have colonies on the Moon.
>>
>> Apparently you don't have a clue as to the cost of a moon colony and for
>> what gain? There is nothing to gain with a moon colony!
>
> Certainly there is. Technology. The Chinese are on the way there. We
> gonna let them have it?

There is none...We built a complete Moon base at Space Division in the
1960's in Downey California. It takes hundreds of tons of rock to be
crushed for one small glass of water. Albino Pepper plants are the only
thing that can be grown for food. Air can be generated. The cost is
humungous. That is why the decision of America to send up the first
space station as it is easier to provision and massively cheaper. We
found no profitable use of that station and it was allowed to decay and
burn up in the Atmosphere. The Aeronautical and Space administration did
studies that show the only value of a moon station is Military.

>
>>> Maintaining the nuclear deterrent requires a small part of the military budget.
>>
>> You are an idiot..The cost of one nuclear device runs in the hundred
>> $billion mark and it has a deterioration period. it ain't forever!
>
> Lie. Just a plain lie. It doesn't cost a hundred billion to make one
> bomb.

Sorry Sonny , But it does.. The resources in Tennessee and at Sandia
costs Hundreds of Billions to produce just the raw materials. Why do you
think the Iranians, Koreans and South Africans damned near bankrupted
their nations to make the small ones they have. The stolen Nuke in 1962
was valued at $900 million. WWII Nuke program for 3 each was $4 billion.

>
>>> It does not require DARPA--we know everything we need to know about
>>> thermonuclear weapons. What if we used DARPA's budget to develop battery
>>> technology that give us cars that did not choke us on crowded city streets?
>>
>> DARPA is not a nuclear design facility. It built the internet.. It has
>> brought forth modern battery technology. I can tell you no more or I
>> would have to kill you... Which really isn't all that bad of an idea. ;-p
>
> You are truly ignorant. DARPA did not "build" the internet.

The first Internet was Swiss and DARPA did build our Internet as a
military resource. Now go fuck you ignorant self. My first Internet was
between the College research centers and the Military research centers.

>
>>>> would soon age and wither...What then? Would Rome have lasted as long as
>>>> it did with your strategies? Please think real hard on this before you
>>>
>>> The western empire collapsed because its taxes were too high.
>>
>> I told you to think this out! You didn't!
>>
>> Its taxes were too
>>> high because of the constant warfare along the Rhine and Danube with the German
>>> tribes. Do you think your taxes are too high? What does it cost to keep a
>>> soldier in Afghanistan for a year? What does it cost if only part of them comes
>>> back?
>>
>> You better go back to college and actually take Ancient Roman history
>> this time!
>>
>>>
>>> Also the Romans lacked a nuclear deterrent. Whether Germans had feared that,
>>> Romans to have incinerated whole tribes for the cost of less than one legion. As
>>> long as the US has a nuclear deterrent it cannot be invaded by another military.
>>
>> That foreign Military is already here. Obama invited them in. Pakistan

>> just invaded an Indian province. And both countries are Nuclear armed.

>
> And have been in conflict ever since both countries existed.

Not at this level. Pakistan now knows we are in no position to mediate.

>
>>>> answer, as this is important. Our survival depends on good planning and
>>>> carry through. We will need our National Guard when the unemployment
>>>> rate creates food riots etc. And our Military when China comes to
>>>> collect a couple of $trillion in loans.
>>>
>>> China knows and the US knows and both sides know the other side knows that any
>>> war would escalate until China and the US are both reduced to clinker and ash.
>>
>> Maybe you had best run up to the South China Sea and tell the Chinese
>> oppressors there about that. Also China is building a Navy to rival ours
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's FUNNY!

You did the Naval forces research a while back and know this is true.

>
>> along with carrier killer missiles.. They want Taiwan and the entire
>> Asian rim...The same as they had back in dynasty days. We will end up in
>> a war with China if we weaken.
>
> While we, or at least, our war hawks on the right, want the entire
> middle east. What's the difference?

If you don't know, I won't waste my time enhancing your knowledge.

>
>>> Assuming the people who claw their way to the top of either country are too
>>> narcisitic to be suicidal, it's a good bet there will be no war for either
>>> military to fight.
>>
>> Nope..there will always wars. You can take that to the bank!
>
> Yep, but not between the power players. Their wars will be virtual or
> between proxy states.

You are clueless. Let History be your lesson. When the shit hits the
fan..the little boys look to the big boys to settle or fight.

>
>>> Russia got very angry with Turkey just a month ago, but quickly veered away from
>>> any military confrontation. An attack on Turkey would be an attack on the US
>>> with Russia and NATO countries reduced to clinker and ash within a month. That
>>> is also why Obama would never support Ukraine militarily just as Bush did not
>>> support Georgia militarily.
>>
>> We broke our word to kill NATO when the Russian satellites disbanded!
>
> And it's a good thing we did.

If we had kept our word ..there would be no problem today.It was crass
imperialism for the forces of evil in the world. America's military is
being used to forward an evil corrupt goal..even as that military is
being destroyed.

The only east European country Russia

> has applied military pressure to is the one that hasn't become a NATO
> member. The Baltic States and Poland especially fell all over
> themselves getting NATO membership and begging for western forces and
> missiles to be based in their countries.

The others had no strategic value and are a tax on the resources of the
Anerican fed Nato. With that monstrous agreement..One of those assholes
picks a war and we can't abstain!

>
>> Georgia had no value and definitely would have caused a war. Obama hates
>> the military and has been gutting the central command his whole 8 years.
>
> As Bush did in his time. Commanders in Chief put in place the
> commanders they want.

Do you always lie about something like this, when you know better. for
shame!

>
>> Over 500 top officers canned or forced out.
>
> Or got old and retired or were just plain incompetent.

Military does its own weeding of elderly and incompetent. Obama is
gutting our military of its finest and best.

>
>> As for Turkey..Russia won't
>> waste resources taking Turkey out. But it will take out Turkeys
>> leadership and make it look like the Jews did it. The Jews will not
>> respond as that will make them look powerful. You very stupidly
>> underestimate Russia and over estimate the paper tiger called NATO.
>
> While you over estimate Russia and underestimate NATO.

NATO is a paper tiger that runs on American paychecks. Just another
corrupt international boondoggle.

>
>> Perhaps our next Administration will have the intelligence to see that
>> Russia would be a good friend and ally in the current rising of the 3rd
>> Caliphate that was encouraged by Obama. I am not a religious person ,
>> but I thank whatever Gods there might be that you are not in any seat of
>> negotiations or power. This is my last post involving you.
>> You are a waste of bandwidth.
>>>
>
> Better we should ally with Iran and prevent the third caliphate from
> rising.

I vote for you to be our one way trip, Iran representative.
>
> Swill

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Just as they were the last time that Democrats promised gun legislation
and had a humiliating loss.... the propaganda of a crisis isn't going
to fly. The Democrats will lose BIG for violating the constitution just
as they did the last time they did it with the same issue.


Guns aren't any Problem, Liberals are the problem.

--
That's Karma

[Governor Swill]

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:50:30 -0600, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

>On 1/9/2016 10:09 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 02:54:18 -0600, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2016 1:49 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>> PaxPerPoten wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/2016 3:15 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>>>>>> Indeed it would, and if that is the yardstick, then disbanding the
>>>>>>>> military would REALLY save a lot of money!
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting thought. But how do we re-employ the Million or so of the
>>>>> standing military or the several million reservists or the many millions
>>>>
>>>> Interesting place to visit is Pinnacles National Monument. It has lots of trails
>>>> constructed as make-work projects of WPA to reduce unemployment. The trails are
>>>> still in use today, openning that Elfland to all the world.
>>>
>>> So you would put them on welfare. How does that save a dime?
>>
>> Hardly welfare. Work for a living is what WPA did and in the process,
>> built American infrastructure we still enjoy today. All the hundreds
>> of billions in weapons built during the same time period and since are
>> all gone.
>
>Uh huh...At what cost to the massive debt that we still have not paid
>one dime on. No profit there. Maybe we should do a China and give
>everyone an acre of land to feed themselves with.. ;-/

At considerable cost. Look down the years at deficits and compare to
defense spending. Remove defense and the deficits go away.

>>>> Subsequent aircraft carriers, bombers, tanks, even from as recently as the 1960s
>>>> have all been thrown away, with all that investment rusting away, of no use to
>>>> anyone.
>>>
>>> Nope, sold to scrappers.
>>
>> That was the point, Dimmy. Trillions spent building machines of war
>> that stopped being relevant more than half a century ago and almost
>> every bit of it destroyed or trashed since.
>
>Actually not.. recycled..

Into toasters and cars and tools . . . Why not just build toasters
and cars and tools to start with?

>>>> Truth be told if all you want is make-work, turning those soldiers into a public
>>>> works project could make improvements that will serve the country for a century
>>>> for a fraction of the cost of monuments to entropy that rust away on runaways.
>>>
>>> Nobody wants "make work". Folks want productive careers and long term
>>> recognized jobs.
>>
>> Like building ships that will be melted down to make toasters in a
>> couple of decades? How is that not "make work"?
>
>
>recycled. Apparently you are on welfare, thus have no clue as to value
>or profit.

What profit is there in building a half billion dollar aircraft that
you're going to mothball in a decade and scrap in another?

>>>>> that provide arms, logistics and massive amounts of everything from nuts
>>>>> to bolts? How do we replace DARPA? The so called nuclear deterrent
>>>>
>>>> For a fraction of the military budget, NASA could have colonies on the Moon.
>>>
>>> Apparently you don't have a clue as to the cost of a moon colony and for
>>> what gain? There is nothing to gain with a moon colony!
>>
>> Certainly there is. Technology. The Chinese are on the way there. We
>> gonna let them have it?
>
>There is none...We built a complete Moon base at Space Division in the
>1960's in Downey California. It takes hundreds of tons of rock to be
>crushed for one small glass of water.

Gee, half a century ago, before they found water ice in the bottom of
craters on the terminator.

>Albino Pepper plants are the only
>thing that can be grown for food.

Got any newer revelations? Like from THIS century?

>Air can be generated. The cost is
>humungous. That is why the decision of America to send up the first
>space station as it is easier to provision and massively cheaper.

The US has only sent up one station and it was not the first.

The first space station was the Soviet Salyut in 1971.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_programme

Next came the first Soviet Almaz in 1973.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz#Flown_Almaz_space_stations

The next month, Skylab became the third human space station.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab#Completion_and_launch

Next came the Soviet Mir, launched in 1986, it was used for 15 years
until 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir

ISS began as a joint US/Soviet project that has been joined by other
nations (see below).
"ISS is the ninth space station to be inhabited by crews, following
the Soviet and later Russian Salyut, Almaz, and Mir stations as well
as Skylab from the US. The station has been continuously occupied for
15 years and 70 days since the arrival of Expedition 1 on 2 November
2000."

"The ISS programme is a joint project among five participating space
agencies: NASA, Roscosmos, JAXA, ESA, and CSA.[15][17] The ownership
and use of the space station is established by intergovernmental
treaties and agreements"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station

> We
>found no profitable use of that station and it was allowed to decay and
>burn up in the Atmosphere. The Aeronautical and Space administration did
>studies that show the only value of a moon station is Military.

Still stuck in the sixties?

>>>> Maintaining the nuclear deterrent requires a small part of the military budget.
>>>
>>> You are an idiot..The cost of one nuclear device runs in the hundred
>>> $billion mark and it has a deterioration period. it ain't forever!
>>
>> Lie. Just a plain lie. It doesn't cost a hundred billion to make one
>> bomb.
>
>Sorry Sonny , But it does.. The resources in Tennessee and at Sandia
>costs Hundreds of Billions to produce just the raw materials. Why do you
>think the Iranians, Koreans and South Africans damned near bankrupted
>their nations to make the small ones they have. The stolen Nuke in 1962
>was valued at $900 million. WWII Nuke program for 3 each was $4 billion.

You are such an ignorant fuck.

"In 2015, the United States has an estimated 7,300 nuclear weapons,
but the average annual per-unit cost is about $1.8 million—a 500
percent increase in per-warhead cost."
http://fpif.org/much-nuclear-weapon-actually-cost/

"How Much Does it Cost to Create a Single Nuclear Weapon?"
"The United States hasn’t built a new nuclear warhead or bomb since
the 1990s, but it has refurbished several types in recent years to
extend their lifetime. The DOE is currently refurbishing as many as
2,000 submarine-based W76 warheads at a cost of roughly $2 million
each. "
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/nuclear-weapon-cost.html#.VpNH1bYrJpg

The Brookings institution added up all the costs of America's nuclear
programs. From the Manhattan project to money paid to U.S. citizens
under the Radiation Exposure and Compensation Act of 1990
($225,000,000). From the cost of the nuclear bomber fleet to the cost
of helping Kazakhstan dismantle 104 SS-18 ICBMs carrying more than
1,000 warheads.

The total cost of all these things, including land values, clean up
costs and the cost of unused silver at Oak Ridge, divided by the total
number of nuclear missiles created in US history works out to less
than half a million per warhead.

Still think a single nuclear device costs $100B?

Currently, the US has about 7,000 warheads. In the late sixties the
stockpile consisted of 30,000.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

>>>> It does not require DARPA--we know everything we need to know about
>>>> thermonuclear weapons. What if we used DARPA's budget to develop battery
>>>> technology that give us cars that did not choke us on crowded city streets?
>>>
>>> DARPA is not a nuclear design facility. It built the internet.. It has
>>> brought forth modern battery technology. I can tell you no more or I
>>> would have to kill you... Which really isn't all that bad of an idea. ;-p
>>
>> You are truly ignorant. DARPA did not "build" the internet.
>
>The first Internet was Swiss and DARPA did build our Internet as a
>military resource. Now go fuck you ignorant self. My first Internet was
>between the College research centers and the Military research centers.

"The first recorded description of the social interactions that could
be enabled through networking was a series of memos written by J.C.R.
Licklider of MIT in August 1962 discussing his "Galactic Network"
concept."
http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet

Nothing about Switzerland here.

>>> That foreign Military is already here. Obama invited them in. Pakistan
>>> just invaded an Indian province. And both countries are Nuclear armed.
>>
>> And have been in conflict ever since both countries existed.
>
>Not at this level. Pakistan now knows we are in no position to mediate.

Certainly we are. They are now threatened by their own creation, the
Taliban, which is being driven out of Afghanistan by ISIL expansion.
We have now officially become a closer ally of India leaving Pakistan
little choice but to stay on our good side even as they face an
existential terrorist threat largely of their own creation.

>>>>> answer, as this is important. Our survival depends on good planning and
>>>>> carry through. We will need our National Guard when the unemployment
>>>>> rate creates food riots etc. And our Military when China comes to
>>>>> collect a couple of $trillion in loans.
>>>>
>>>> China knows and the US knows and both sides know the other side knows that any
>>>> war would escalate until China and the US are both reduced to clinker and ash.
>>>
>>> Maybe you had best run up to the South China Sea and tell the Chinese
>>> oppressors there about that. Also China is building a Navy to rival ours
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's FUNNY!
>
>You did the Naval forces research a while back and know this is true.

I do naval forces research fairly regularly.

What I know is you're an ignorant wad of cold fuck in a sock.

If we stopped all expansion and upgrading of our navy it would still
take the Chinese decades to catch up - if they were of a mind to. They
have one aircraft carrier. It's a small one designed in the eighties
and sold to them as an empty hull by Ukraine last century. It's
slighly more seaworthy than Russia's one aircraft carrier (sister
ships) that rarely leaves the Black Sea because it's so unreliable.

Meanwhile, we have more carriers in service than the rest of the world
combined. The Gerald Ford will be entered into service in March, the
Kennedy is under construction now and a third Ford Class carrier is in
design stages. The Navy plans to start replacing the current
submarine fleet, the world's largest and most capable, next decade.

>>> along with carrier killer missiles.. They want Taiwan and the entire
>>> Asian rim...The same as they had back in dynasty days. We will end up in
>>> a war with China if we weaken.
>>
>> While we, or at least, our war hawks on the right, want the entire
>> middle east. What's the difference?
>
>If you don't know, I won't waste my time enhancing your knowledge.

It's not my knowledge that needs enhancing.

>>>> Assuming the people who claw their way to the top of either country are too
>>>> narcisitic to be suicidal, it's a good bet there will be no war for either
>>>> military to fight.
>>>
>>> Nope..there will always wars. You can take that to the bank!
>>
>> Yep, but not between the power players. Their wars will be virtual or
>> between proxy states.
>
>You are clueless. Let History be your lesson. When the shit hits the
>fan..the little boys look to the big boys to settle or fight.

Not since the advent of the atomic, then hydrogen bomb. The US has a
stated first strike policy thus guaranteeing MAD.

>>>> Russia got very angry with Turkey just a month ago, but quickly veered away from
>>>> any military confrontation. An attack on Turkey would be an attack on the US
>>>> with Russia and NATO countries reduced to clinker and ash within a month. That
>>>> is also why Obama would never support Ukraine militarily just as Bush did not
>>>> support Georgia militarily.
>>>
>>> We broke our word to kill NATO when the Russian satellites disbanded!
>>
>> And it's a good thing we did.
>
>If we had kept our word ..there would be no problem today.

If we'd killed NATO, Putin would already have invaded Poland and the
Baltics States. Bank on it. There's a reason he's been harassing
Georgia and Ukraine. They're former Soviet Republics that haven't
joined NATO or formed close alliances with the US.

>It was crass
>imperialism for the forces of evil in the world. America's military is
>being used to forward an evil corrupt goal..

Guaranteeing our security is an evil, corrupt goal? Guaranteeing the
territorial sovereignty of our allies and friends is a corrupt goal?
How unamerican of you.

>even as that military is being destroyed.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

> The only east European country Russia
>> has applied military pressure to is the one that hasn't become a NATO
>> member. The Baltic States and Poland especially fell all over
>> themselves getting NATO membership and begging for western forces and
>> missiles to be based in their countries.
>
>The others had no strategic value and are a tax on the resources of the
>Anerican fed Nato. With that monstrous agreement..One of those assholes
>picks a war and we can't abstain!

The point is to prevent Russia from picking war with them. So far,
it's worked great!

>>> Georgia had no value and definitely would have caused a war. Obama hates
>>> the military and has been gutting the central command his whole 8 years.
>>
>> As Bush did in his time. Commanders in Chief put in place the
>> commanders they want.
>
>Do you always lie about something like this, when you know better. for
>shame!

Really? Presidents, Commanders in Chief aren't allowed to appoint
Pentagon officials and generals? Who is?

>>> Over 500 top officers canned or forced out.
>>
>> Or got old and retired or were just plain incompetent.
>
>Military does its own weeding of elderly and incompetent. Obama is
>gutting our military of its finest and best.

Hardly. Near as I can tell he's got rid of old guys, incompetents and
those who can't change with the times including that blabbermouth
Petreaus who seemed unable to stop carrying classified tales to his
girlfriend.

>>> As for Turkey..Russia won't
>>> waste resources taking Turkey out. But it will take out Turkeys
>>> leadership and make it look like the Jews did it. The Jews will not
>>> respond as that will make them look powerful. You very stupidly
>>> underestimate Russia and over estimate the paper tiger called NATO.
>>
>> While you over estimate Russia and underestimate NATO.
>
>NATO is a paper tiger that runs on American paychecks. Just another
>corrupt international boondoggle.

Then why is Putin so terrified of it?

>>> Perhaps our next Administration will have the intelligence to see that
>>> Russia would be a good friend and ally in the current rising of the 3rd
>>> Caliphate that was encouraged by Obama. I am not a religious person ,
>>> but I thank whatever Gods there might be that you are not in any seat of
>>> negotiations or power. This is my last post involving you.
>>> You are a waste of bandwidth.
>>>>
>>
>> Better we should ally with Iran and prevent the third caliphate from
>> rising.
>
>I vote for you to be our one way trip, Iran representative.

Read up. Times are changing. The Saudis perpetrated 9/11 and their
punishment is in the making.

http://www.newsweek.com/execution-shiite-cleric-leaves-saudi-arabia-flailing-412464

Swill
--
Being open-minded is merely the willingness to consider
evidence, not the willingness to accept claims without any.

[Siri Cruz]

> >>>>> Interesting thought. But how do we re-employ the Million or so of the
> >>>>> standing military or the several million reservists or the many
> >>>>> millions

> >Uh huh...At what cost to the massive debt that we still have not paid
> >one dime on. No profit there. Maybe we should do a China and give
> >everyone an acre of land to feed themselves with.. ;-/

California Conservation Corps costs about $42,000/person per year.
DoD costs about $199,000/person per year.

CCC is roughly a modern equivalent to WPA, providing employment at about a fifth
of the cost as the military while doing improvements to public lands that can
benefit the people for a century (based on WPA and NPS) or longer.

Since your primary concern was unemployment, we can continue to provide
employment at a quarter of the cost, and the benefits will be a 100 years or
longer instead of the military benefit of 20 years or less.

Which do you think will make it easier to pay off debt? Especially since massive
DoD cuts will greatly reduce the deficit.

> At considerable cost. Look down the years at deficits and compare to
> defense spending. Remove defense and the deficits go away.

The usual solution is cut military, cut entitlements, and raise taxes. I don't
know how much reducing the standing army to cadre would cut.

> >> That was the point, Dimmy. Trillions spent building machines of war
> >> that stopped being relevant more than half a century ago and almost
> >> every bit of it destroyed or trashed since.
> >
> >Actually not.. recycled..

Recycling only recovers the cost of materials, not the costs of labour, design,
development, and maintenance.

You could include as a benefit of the expenditure all people and properties in
US territories that would've be destroyed by invasion. However the US has not
faced invasion since 1945. The military has produced no defence benefit since
then. It has only been involved in unprofitable military adventures in other
countries. At least the Roman legions brought home loot, booty, and slaves to
offet their cost to Rome.

> Into toasters and cars and tools . . . Why not just build toasters
> and cars and tools to start with?

Which all have an additional benefit of creating additional profit in the
economy after their initial sale. Well....toasters.....saves burning fingers
flipping the bread on a skillet.

> >> Like building ships that will be melted down to make toasters in a
> >> couple of decades? How is that not "make work"?
> >
> >
> >recycled. Apparently you are on welfare, thus have no clue as to value
> >or profit.

My time is too valuable to collect cans and bottles for scrap. However based on
California Redemption Value stamped on bottles, its value is pennies on the
dollar.

> >There is none...We built a complete Moon base at Space Division in the
> >1960's in Downey California. It takes hundreds of tons of rock to be
> >crushed for one small glass of water.
>
> Gee, half a century ago, before they found water ice in the bottom of
> craters on the terminator.

Which means the Moon can be a fueling station for the solar system: it's far
cheaper to lift hydrogen from the Moon's surface than the Earth's. The Moon can
also have more He3 which others claim would be easier to fuse. Asteroids have
metals at the surfaces for easy mining. Robots, low energy orbit transfers, and
the Moon as fueling station might lead to a whole new mining economy.

> >Sorry Sonny , But it does.. The resources in Tennessee and at Sandia
> >costs Hundreds of Billions to produce just the raw materials. Why do you

Fixed costs are amortised, not added in full to each unit cost.

> "In 2015, the United States has an estimated 7,300 nuclear weapons,
> but the average annual per-unit cost is about $1.8 million—a 500
> percent increase in per-warhead cost."
> http://fpif.org/much-nuclear-weapon-actually-cost/

Nuclear weapons are a nightmare, and if ever used in war again h sapiens doesn't
deserve to survive. But as long as they keep being used in peace, they have
proven the most effective, and cheapest, way to prevent war we've come up.

[the Johnsons load their guns and point them at Bart.
Bart then points his own pistol at his head]

Bart: [low voice] Hold it! Next man makes a move,
the nigger gets it!

Olson Johnson: Hold it, men. He's not bluffing.

Dr. Sam Johnson: Listen to him, men. He's just crazy
enough to do it!

Bart: [low voice] Drop it! Or I swear I'll blow this
nigger's head all over this town!

Bart: [high-pitched voice] Oh, lo'dy, lo'd, he's
desp'it! Do what he sayyyy, do what he sayyyy!

[Townspeople drop their guns. Bart jams the gun
into his neck and drags himself through the crowd
towards the station]

Harriet Johnson: Isn't anybody going to help
that poor man?

Dr. Sam Johnson: Hush, Harriet! That's a sure
way to get him killed!

Bart: [high-pitched voice] Oooh! He'p me, he'p
me! Somebody he'p me! He'p me! He'p me! He'p me!

Bart: [low voice] Shut up!

[Bart places his hand over his own mouth, then
drags himself through the door into his office]

> >> You are truly ignorant. DARPA did not "build" the internet.
> >
> >The first Internet was Swiss and DARPA did build our Internet as a
> >military resource. Now go fuck you ignorant self. My first Internet was
> >between the College research centers and the Military research centers.
>
> "The first recorded description of the social interactions that could
> be enabled through networking was a series of memos written by J.C.R.
> Licklider of MIT in August 1962 discussing his "Galactic Network"
> concept."

(D)ARPA just manages research contracts. They funded ARPANET which was an
experiment in packet switched network connecting heterogenous hosts. It
connected some NATO sites and universities doing research for NATO and ARPA.
After they discoverred every way not to run a packet network, IP was designed to
do it right. IP backbones connected a variety of private and public network
which evolved into the Internet(work).

Networked computers proceeded ARPANET. They used homogenous hosts, nonadaptable
routing, small geographic extents, and other limitations.

> Nothing about Switzerland here.

HTTP and HTML came out of CERN in Switzerland, but that was years later.

> >>> That foreign Military is already here. Obama invited them in. Pakistan
> >>> just invaded an Indian province. And both countries are Nuclear armed.
> >>
> >> And have been in conflict ever since both countries existed.
> >
> >Not at this level. Pakistan now knows we are in no position to mediate.

The US is not responsible for defending India. Pakistan has not invaded US
territory. A suicidal Pakistan could try, but that would mean the death of
everyone in Pakistan in return to whatever damage they could do with their
nuclear weapons.

> Certainly we are. They are now threatened by their own creation, the
> Taliban, which is being driven out of Afghanistan by ISIL expansion.

Taliban never threatenned the US. Bush decided to invade Afghanistan on the
cheap so it wouldn't sap his war hard-on for Iraq. Rather than sending in
sufficient US force to defeat Al Qaeda and hold the Taliban at bay, the USSOF
was sent to create a civil war between drug dealing warlords and the Taliban.
The price for getting them to fight Al Qaeda, poorly as it turned out, was to
join their war on the Taliban. We made the Taliban our enemy.

> We have now officially become a closer ally of India leaving Pakistan
> little choice but to stay on our good side even as they face an
> existential terrorist threat largely of their own creation.

Sounds familar. Daesh?

> >>> Maybe you had best run up to the South China Sea and tell the Chinese
> >>> oppressors there about that. Also China is building a Navy to rival ours
> >>
> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's FUNNY!
> >
> >You did the Naval forces research a while back and know this is true.
>
> I do naval forces research fairly regularly.

In the 1800 Yankee clipper ships traded around the world. The Navy showed the
flag and challenged sea claims to protect US shipping. Few commercial ships are
US any longer, so the Navy is still doing that but to defend the commerce of
other countries. Let them build up their own navies to defend their own commerce.

The South China Sea is of little importance to the US itself. We're there to
save the Philipines and Vietnam the cost of their own navies.

> >> While we, or at least, our war hawks on the right, want the entire
> >> middle east. What's the difference?
> >
> >If you don't know, I won't waste my time enhancing your knowledge.
>
> It's not my knowledge that needs enhancing.

From time to time some idiot in China, Taiwan, or the US talks about starting a
war over Taiwan. They are quieted down (blackjack, hood, and shackles). The
people in charge are expecting an eventual rapprochment and reunion by mutual
consent. Taiwan is watching what happens in Hong Kong.

> >You are clueless. Let History be your lesson. When the shit hits the
> >fan..the little boys look to the big boys to settle or fight.
>
> Not since the advent of the atomic, then hydrogen bomb. The US has a
> stated first strike policy thus guaranteeing MAD.

Two things have changed since 1944: nuclear weapon and surveillance satellites.
They have no precedent. Military sneak attacks are impossible. A fleet leaving
Japan today can be tracked every inch until they are off Hawaii. And the
Japanese would know exactly where the carriers are northeast of Midway. And a
fleet can be incinerated completely with one nuclear weapon for a total cost of
a few million dollars, not a massive bomber attack dropping most of their
ordnance on empty water. A nuclear weapon can miss by a mile and by equally
effective. Nuclear weapons are so effective at so little cost they completely
upset the economics of warfare.

> >even as that military is being destroyed.

Every scenario of war between NATO and Warsaw Pact led to global thermonuclear
war within a month. It is the risk of mutual assured suicide that makes the US
and Russia play nice, not four million dollar tanks with an expected twenty
minute lifetime in battle.

> >>> Perhaps our next Administration will have the intelligence to see that
> >>> Russia would be a good friend and ally in the current rising of the 3rd
> >>> Caliphate that was encouraged by Obama. I am not a religious person ,
> >>> but I thank whatever Gods there might be that you are not in any seat of
> >>> negotiations or power. This is my last post involving you.
> >>> You are a waste of bandwidth.

I hope for closer and friendlier ties with Russia. We have to share this world.
We might as well have fun doing it. When Europe no longer feels threatens, NATO
will wither. I don't see a reason why the US can't make nice with Russia while
NATO stands idle behind unchallenged borders.

And the latest NATO mutual defence request had nothing to do with Russia but
with France vs Daesh. And besides getting help from NATO France is also talking
cooperation with Russia.

> Read up. Times are changing. The Saudis perpetrated 9/11 and their
> punishment is in the making.

And the US hasn't yet lept to Saudi Arabia's defence. What a shame.

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 03:44:46 -0800, Siri Cruz wrote:

>> >>>>> Interesting thought. But how do we re-employ the Million or so of the
>> >>>>> standing military or the several million reservists or the many
>> >>>>> millions
>
>> >Uh huh...At what cost to the massive debt that we still have not paid
>> >one dime on. No profit there. Maybe we should do a China and give
>> >everyone an acre of land to feed themselves with.. ;-/
>
>California Conservation Corps costs about $42,000/person per year.
>DoD costs about $199,000/person per year.

I don't trust those numbers. At all.

DoD spent about 700B last year. 700B / 330M Americans works out to
about $2,100 per year.

Swill

[Siri Cruz]

> >> >Uh huh...At what cost to the massive debt that we still have not paid
> >> >one dime on. No profit there. Maybe we should do a China and give
> >> >everyone an acre of land to feed themselves with.. ;-/
> >
> >California Conservation Corps costs about $42,000/person per year.
> >DoD costs about $199,000/person per year.
>
> I don't trust those numbers. At all.
>
> DoD spent about 700B last year. 700B / 330M Americans works out to
> about $2,100 per year.

CCC: $42,000 per employee each year.
DoD: $199,000 per employee each year.

A quick and very rough approximation of the cost of providing employment by
doing conservation compared to by doing war.

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:34:58 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> >> >Uh huh...At what cost to the massive debt that we still have not paid
>> >> >one dime on. No profit there. Maybe we should do a China and give
>> >> >everyone an acre of land to feed themselves with.. ;-/
>> >
>> >California Conservation Corps costs about $42,000/person per year.
>> >DoD costs about $199,000/person per year.
>>
>> I don't trust those numbers. At all.
>>
>> DoD spent about 700B last year. 700B / 330M Americans works out to
>> about $2,100 per year.
>
>CCC: $42,000 per employee each year.
>DoD: $199,000 per employee each year.
>
>A quick and very rough approximation of the cost of providing employment by
>doing conservation compared to by doing war.

Sorry, I just don't see the comparison as valid. Apples and oranges.

Govt spending isn't about providing work, it's about providing
services. The measure of effectiveness isn't the spending to employee
ratio.

Swill

[PaxPerPoten]

On 1/11/2016 1:26 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> Hardly welfare. Work for a living is what WPA did and in the process,
>>> built American infrastructure we still enjoy today. All the hundreds
>>> of billions in weapons built during the same time period and since are
>>> all gone.
>>
>> Uh huh...At what cost to the massive debt that we still have not paid
>> one dime on. No profit there. Maybe we should do a China and give
>> everyone an acre of land to feed themselves with.. ;-/
>
> At considerable cost. Look down the years at deficits and compare to
> defense spending. Remove defense and the deficits go away.

So will America. Of course we could let you screech at our enemie to go
away.

Actually not.. recycled..
>
> Into toasters and cars and tools . . . Why not just build toasters
> and cars and tools to start with?

No..When outside management over=runs America..We will be making weapons
out of that for them.

>>> Like building ships that will be melted down to make toasters in a
>>> couple of decades? How is that not "make work"?
>>
>>
>> recycled. Apparently you are on welfare, thus have no clue as to value
>> or profit.
>
> What profit is there in building a half billion dollar aircraft that
> you're going to mothball in a decade and scrap in another?

You tell me... I was not aware of such a project.

>
>> There is none...We built a complete Moon base at Space Division in the
>> 1960's in Downey California. It takes hundreds of tons of rock to be
>> crushed for one small glass of water.
>
> Gee, half a century ago, before they found water ice in the bottom of
> craters on the terminator.

Nothing has changed.. Other then the mold between your ears.

>
>> Albino Pepper plants are the only
>> thing that can be grown for food.
>
> Got any newer revelations? Like from THIS century?

There are none you inbred moron. Maybe you should read Aviation week and
a few others at your local library. I take it that you do not believe in
old technologies that are now utilized to run this century.
You get more like Rudy every day.

> The US has only sent up one station and it was not the first.
>
> The first space station was the Soviet Salyut in 1971.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_programme

It wasn't much of one..But I concede that..We actually sent up 2 later.

I now bore of your long winded diatribe..But it was fun making you do a
lot of research on the subjects that you had absolutely no knowledge of

[Siri Cruz]

In article <n7220f$pql$1...@dont-email.me>, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

> So will America. Of course we could let you screech at our enemie to go
> away.

Do you really think any military will invade knowing they will be nuked?

Really?

[PaxPerPoten]

On 1/12/2016 4:43 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <n7220f$pql$1...@dont-email.me>, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>

>> So will America. Of course we could let you screech at our enemies to go

>> away.
>
> Do you really think any military will invade knowing they will be nuked?
>
> Really?

When they walk into your home...Are you going to nuke your home to rid
yourself of the invaders. You need a Military to insure your borders are
secure. No go away and dither elsewhere.

[Governor Swill]

I'm conflating two aircraft, actually, and in the process, showing a
frightening trend.

The F22, the most expensive fighter to be produced to date, cost
upwards of 150M each and was ended after only three years of
production. Ostensibly, it's to be replaced by the F35 which will
cost over a trillion dollars.

Program cost US$1.3 trillion (Overall including inflation),
US$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations
& sustainment in 2012

It's been plagued by poor maneuverability, can't be flown in bad
weather because it can't deal with lightning, lack of weaponry,
delays, failures and cost overruns. Worse, the Chinese have recently
developed a radar system that can detect stealth aircraft.

The Contractor/Pentagon relationship is strained and Lockheed has been
accused by the officer in charge of gouging the government instead of
focusing on the completion of the project. Development began in 1996,
Lockheed Martin won the contract in 2001 and not one plane has been
delivered.

A 2014 Pentagon report found these issues:
First two mission data sets available November 2015, after USMC IOC.
Overall operational suitability relies heavily on contractor support
and unacceptable workarounds.
Aircraft availability reached 51% but short of 60% goal.
Fuel Tanks don't retain inerting for required 12 hours after landing.
High dynamic loads on the rudder at lower altitudes in 20-26 AoA
preventing testing.
82 pounds added to F-35B in last 38 months, 337 pounds below limit.
Transonic Roll-Off (TRO) and airframe buffet continue to be program
concerns.
572 deficiencies remain affecting Block 2B capability, 151 of which
are critical.
VSim would likely not support planned Block 2B operational testing in
2015.
Maintainability hours still an issue.
ALIS requires many manual workarounds.[151]

A 2015 Pentagon report found these issues:[192]
The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count
aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability
statistics;
Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the
majority of the fixes for capability deficiencies being discovered are
being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;
The F-35 has a significant risk of fire due to extensive fuel tank
vulnerability, lightning vulnerability and an OBIGGS system unable to
sufficiently reduce fire-sustaining oxygen, despite redesigns;
Wing drop concerns are still not resolved after six years, and may
only be mitigated or solved at the expense of combat maneuverability
and stealth;
The June engine problems are seriously impeding or preventing the
completion of key test points, including ensuring that the F-35B
delivered to the Marine Corps for IOC meets critical safety
requirements; no redesign, schedule, or cost estimate for a long-term
fix has been defined yet, thereby further impeding g testing;
Even in its third iteration, the F-35’s helmet continues to show high
false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing
pilots’ situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat;
The number of Block 2B’s already limited combat capabilities being
deferred to later blocks means that the Marine Corps’ FY2015 IOC
squadron will be even less combat capable than originally planned;
ALIS software failures continue to impede operation, mission planning,
and maintenance of the F-35, forcing the Services to be overly reliant
on contractors and “unacceptable workarounds”;
Deficiencies in Block 2B software, and deferring those capabilities to
later blocks, is undermining combat suitability for all three variants
of the F-35;
The program’s attempts to save money now by reducing test points and
deferring crucial combat capabilities will result in costly retrofits
and fixes later down the line, creating a future unaffordable bow wave
that, based on F-22 experience, will add at least an additional $67
billion in acquisition costs; and
Low availability and reliability of the F-35 is driven by inherent
design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to
fix.

>>> There is none...We built a complete Moon base at Space Division in the
>>> 1960's in Downey California. It takes hundreds of tons of rock to be
>>> crushed for one small glass of water.
>>
>> Gee, half a century ago, before they found water ice in the bottom of
>> craters on the terminator.
>
>Nothing has changed.. Other then the mold between your ears.

Or the space between yours. Did you miss the part about water ice
being found in the bottoms of craters? It's just sitting there
waiting to be scooped up and melted - not crushed out of the rock.

>>> Albino Pepper plants are the only
>>> thing that can be grown for food.
>>
>> Got any newer revelations? Like from THIS century?
>
>There are none you inbred moron. Maybe you should read Aviation week and
>a few others at your local library. I take it that you do not believe in
>old technologies that are now utilized to run this century.

No, I don't. I believe in NEW technologies for this century. You
still drive an Edsel, don't you?

>You get more like Rudy every day.

Does Rudy catch you lying and bullshitting your way through posts as
well?

>> The US has only sent up one station and it was not the first.
>>
>> The first space station was the Soviet Salyut in 1971.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_programme
>
>It wasn't much of one..But I concede that..We actually sent up 2 later.

You're wrong *again*. We sent up ONE. Skylab. Didn't last long. The
next station we sent up was our share of the ISS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_station

>I now bore of your long winded diatribe..

Translation: "I'm tired of being wrong."

>But it was fun making you do a
>lot of research on the subjects that you had absolutely no knowledge of

Translation: "Damn! If I'd known you were this good at finding
facts, I'd never have posted in the first place!"

[Governor Swill]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:36:23 -0600, PaxPerPoten wrote:
>On 1/12/2016 4:43 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:

>> PaxPerPoten wrote:
>>> So will America. Of course we could let you screech at our enemies to go
>>> away.
>> Do you really think any military will invade knowing they will be nuked?
>> Really?

>When they walk into your home...Are you going to nuke your home to rid
>yourself of the invaders. You need a Military to insure your borders are
>secure. No go away and dither elsewhere.

They won't BE walking into my home because we'll have nuked them off
the coast before their invasion starts. That's what tactical nukes
are *for*.

"U.S. Keeps First-Strike Strategy"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304620304575166263632513790

IMO, the policy needs to be expanded, not moderated.

[Siri Cruz]

In article <jbrb9btg8balt5uvh...@4ax.com>,

Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:36:23 -0600, PaxPerPoten wrote:
> >On 1/12/2016 4:43 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> >> PaxPerPoten wrote:
> >>> So will America. Of course we could let you screech at our enemies to go
> >>> away.
> >> Do you really think any military will invade knowing they will be nuked?
> >> Really?
>
> >When they walk into your home...Are you going to nuke your home to rid
> >yourself of the invaders. You need a Military to insure your borders are
> >secure. No go away and dither elsewhere.
>
> They won't BE walking into my home because we'll have nuked them off
> the coast before their invasion starts. That's what tactical nukes
> are *for*.

We need a small military. For example a Coast Guard to investigate a Russian
submarine grounded on a sandbar off Cape Cod.

It's a given that every country with nuclear weapons will use them to protect
their territorial integrity regardless of stated policy. They talk about
repelling an invasion with conventional war, but if that fails, they will nuke
the invaders. And if the invaders have nuclear weapons, both sides lose. So I
say just be honest: don't say nukes as a last resort, say they are a first
resort. No real change of policy, but it does remove the justification for a
large standing army.

[PaxPerPoten]

On 1/13/2016 12:35 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:36:23 -0600, PaxPerPoten wrote:
>> On 1/12/2016 4:43 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> PaxPerPoten wrote:
>>>> So will America. Of course we could let you screech at our enemies to go
>>>> away.
>>> Do you really think any military will invade knowing they will be nuked?
>>> Really?
>
>> When they walk into your home...Are you going to nuke your home to rid
>> yourself of the invaders. You need a Military to insure your borders are
>> secure. No go away and dither elsewhere.
>
> They won't BE walking into my home because we'll have nuked them off
> the coast before their invasion starts. That's what tactical nukes
> are *for*.

They don't seem to be working as our enemies continue invading daily.
In fact they have and are building Mosques all over the country. You of
course may be safe as you may not be worth shooting.

[PaxPerPoten]

On 1/13/2016 12:23 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:15:30 -0600, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:
>
> The F22, the most expensive fighter to be produced to date, cost
> upwards of 150M each and was ended after only three years of
> production. Ostensibly, it's to be replaced by the F35 which will
> cost over a trillion dollars.

Nope..According to Aviation and Space Mag and Military.com The cost is
locked at $85 mill. It still is a POS. The Russian SU 34 is
nice..nice..nice!

>
>> I now bore of your long winded diatribe..
>
> Translation: "I'm tired of being wrong."

No...You are a bore..Face it and move on.

[Siri Cruz]

In article <n77f4r$8lv$1...@dont-email.me>, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

> They don't seem to be working as our enemies continue invading daily.

I don't see any foreign armies marching in the streets here.

> In fact they have and are building Mosques all over the country. You of

So much for the First Amendment. Any other parts of the Constitution you want to
burn because you live your life in terror?

> course may be safe as you may not be worth shooting.

We do have a mosque down the street. They haven't shot anyone. The only murders
in the neighbourhood are Mr or Mrs Whitebread having a bad day with easy access
to a gun and killing their family and then themselves. That happens once a
decade or so.

[Governor Swill]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:30:26 -0600, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

>On 1/13/2016 12:35 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:36:23 -0600, PaxPerPoten wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2016 4:43 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>> PaxPerPoten wrote:
>>>>> So will America. Of course we could let you screech at our enemies to go
>>>>> away.
>>>> Do you really think any military will invade knowing they will be nuked?
>>>> Really?
>>
>>> When they walk into your home...Are you going to nuke your home to rid
>>> yourself of the invaders. You need a Military to insure your borders are
>>> secure. No go away and dither elsewhere.
>>
>> They won't BE walking into my home because we'll have nuked them off
>> the coast before their invasion starts. That's what tactical nukes
>> are *for*.
>
>They don't seem to be working as our enemies continue invading daily.
>In fact they have and are building Mosques all over the country. You of
>course may be safe as you may not be worth shooting.

And do you know why they come here? Because we're a better place to
live than where they're from. They don't like where they came from.

[Governor Swill]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:36:55 -0600, PaxPerPoten wrote:

>On 1/13/2016 12:23 AM, Governor Swill wrote:

>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:15:30 -0600, PaxPerPoten wrote:
>>
>> The F22, the most expensive fighter to be produced to date, cost
>> upwards of 150M each and was ended after only three years of
>> production. Ostensibly, it's to be replaced by the F35 which will
>> cost over a trillion dollars.
>
>Nope..According to Aviation and Space Mag and Military.com The cost is
>locked at $85 mill.

Got links? Or do we take your word for it?

>It still is a POS. The Russian SU 34 is
>nice..nice..nice!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have another Putin fan! Tell us, o ignorant
one, what does Vlad's ball sweat taste like?

"Three years behind schedule and some $200 billion over its original
budget, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is finally set to become
operational this month.

"The fighter jet has been in development for nearly 15 years,
weathered half a dozen years of testing and experienced myriad
hardware malfunctions and software glitches along the way. Once it's
declared ready for combat, it will be the most expensive weapons
system in world history.

"The price tag for all of these benefits, however, is nearly $400
billion for 2,457 planes [163M per] -- almost twice the initial
estimate. To maintain and operate the JSF program over the course of
its lifetime, the Pentagon will invest nearly $1 trillion, according
to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

"One report cited flaws in its fuel tank and hydraulic systems that
increase the plane’s vulnerability to lightning strikes and enemy
fire, especially at low altitudes. [. . .] In one of the most
embarrassing developments, an F-35 was pitted against an F-16 in a
dogfight in July, and the aging F-16 won."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/politics/f-35-jsf-operational-costs/

Your 85M figure is an optimistic projection of the future per unit
cost once production ramps up in 2018. So far, they've cost twice
that much.

>>> I now bore of your long winded diatribe..
>>
>> Translation: "I'm tired of being wrong."
>
>No...You are a bore..Face it and move on.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

The Muslims want to come and rape "Swill" they're tired of raping all
the assholes in their own part of the world.

--
That's Karma