BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ... Full Story

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155271 May 11, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You like my work, I take it. Thank you, uh...thank ya vermuch
13 words and not one single profanity or filth. Losing your touch?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155272 May 11, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
No tankers? Prove it. And, had there been tankers, how would that have helped? How long for deployment orders to go down the command chain, then how long to deploy the tankers and have them rendez-vous with the figthers and helicopters (what would the fighters do, bomb the terrorists and Americans at the same time?- or again fuel the helicopters and how long will they take to get there and once there...too late).
Aircraft carriers? Deploy aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean to guard the American cultural centre? Are you nuts?
Reduction of US carriers has no bearing on this unfortunate disaster in Benghazi and you know it. BTW, if your figures are correct, though there is no way of knowing, 4 deployed aircraft carriers around the globe is still FOUR MORE than China, Russia, North Korea each have deployed around the world. Why? because they have none. Neither does the UK BTW.
Yes, the US had 7 aircraft carriers when Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese. None were in port at the time of the attack and all 7 participated in the destruction of the Japanese navy. Would more have made a difference? The important thing was that the US had sterling men like Adm Nimitz, Spruance, Halsey, Fletcher and Cunningham, to name a few. Great strategists, with the nod as the best, in my opinion, to Spruance who turned out to be Nimitz's stroke of genius. From desk jockey to brilliant active command.
As far as the lack of tankers, the only reference I have is what I heard on Fox News. Next, aircraft acciers/.
We for decade maintained at least one carrier task force in the mediterranean. We do not have the assets to do that today. Again, we have only ten operation carriers. Four are deployed to places the the Arabian coast just south of the Persian Gulf. We have two in a training cycle which could respond on short notice (one to two weeks). We then have four in maintenance two of are short, less than six months) and two long, 6-12 months (reactor refueling).
Lets say you want to change your spark plugs on your car. Do you start to work on it just as soon as you return from a short time while the engine is hot or do you wait an hours? Well, reactors take a few MONTHS to cool before you can start to refuel them.
Oh, the USS Enterprise could possibly returned to service in about six months but a war can be lost in six months.
http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/carrier-g...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155273 May 11, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, having a huge, state-of-the-art carrier armed to the teeth sitting right off one's coast has no effect. LMAO! Good one squidboy!! LMAO! And four carriers simply aren't enough. I say we need 10. But, none the less, GOOD ONE SQUIDBOY!
You really have no substantial/intelligent reply, do you? As has once more been shown, don't you think it would be preferable to keep quiet?

And slithering under a rock does not make one a geologist.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155274 May 11, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, having a huge, state-of-the-art carrier armed to the teeth sitting right off one's coast has no effect. LMAO! Good one squidboy!! LMAO! And four carriers simply aren't enough. I say we need 10. But, none the less, GOOD ONE SQUIDBOY!
WE need at least eight deployed carrier task forces which would require at least a dozen carriers and their support ships.
I wrote a paper just a few months ago where I think we should downsize out next carriers to the size of the Brits' new HMS QEII which is about 65,000 tons compared to our current 100,000 ton Nimitz class ships.
The Nimitz use to carry about 85 aircraft but today can handle about 100 because they planes are smaller. The F-14s and A-6s have been replaced by F/A-18s which will be replaced by the F-35s. We know from our experience during WWII the optimum number for large carriers is about 75-80. More than that you have traffic pattern problems trying to launch and recover the greater number.
The actual number the QEII will hold is about 60 so I would like to see a new class of carriers at about 75,000 tons and about 75 aircraft. The old Panamax limits ships to be no wider than 106 feet but the nex Panamax can handle ships up to 180 feet with our current carriers being 240 odd feet wide at the flight deck.
Here is a picture of the HMS QE!!
http://www.google.com/imgres...
I also think we can make them the New Panamax size

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155275 May 11, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as the lack of tankers, the only reference I have is what I heard on Fox News. Next, aircraft acciers/.
We for decade maintained at least one carrier task force in the mediterranean. We do not have the assets to do that today. Again, we have only ten operation carriers. Four are deployed to places the the Arabian coast just south of the Persian Gulf. We have two in a training cycle which could respond on short notice (one to two weeks). We then have four in maintenance two of are short, less than six months) and two long, 6-12 months (reactor refueling).
Lets say you want to change your spark plugs on your car. Do you start to work on it just as soon as you return from a short time while the engine is hot or do you wait an hours? Well, reactors take a few MONTHS to cool before you can start to refuel them.
Oh, the USS Enterprise could possibly returned to service in about six months but a war can be lost in six months.
http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/carrier-g...
That's FoxNews.com for you. If they have a doubt, you can bet your bottom dollar it'll be Obama-negative.

So you don't have carriers in the Mediterranean. No one except the French with their one carrier has any in the Mediterranean. How many carriers do China and Russia have? ZERO! Et alors?

Spark plugs? What kind of analogy is that? And if you're talking about badly-planned long-term maintenance, why don't you start with the Navy, not the president. They have a budget, up to them to work it out.

Since the 2nd WW, how many wars have aircraft carriers helped to win? Aircraft carriers are like dinosaurs, Rogue. With missiles of all kinds, all ranges, multiple warheads, long-range bombers, air-refuelling-able fighter bombers, forward bases in the Atlantic, the Pacific, Indian Ocean, West and Eastern Europe, in the Middle East (Bahrain, etc) and Alaska, sophisticated drones, what you are short of but need more than aircraft carriers, I figure, are landing crafts that can disembark troops and equipment rapidly. Just as battleships became obsolete after WW1, so are aircraft carriers quickly becoming so and that is no doubt why other world powers are eschewing them.$6 billion per ship plus manning, maintenance, equipment, etc, and what a target! Can you really afford that? In the final analysis, what's going to be left to protect? The USSR is a case in point. Armed to the teeth in 1989, they nevertheless collapsed like a house of cards. All they could manufacture were armaments. No need to emulate them.
Grand Birther

Louisville, KY

#155276 May 11, 2013
Democrats in decline?

“Since Obama was elected President, the Democrats have lost nine governorships, 56 members of the House and two Senate seats,” Doug Sosnik, the political director in Bill Clinton’s White House, writes in a new memo.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/dem-str...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155278 May 11, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
WE need at least eight deployed carrier task forces which would require at least a dozen carriers and their support ships.
I wrote a paper just a few months ago where I think we should downsize out next carriers to the size of the Brits' new HMS QEII which is about 65,000 tons compared to our current 100,000 ton Nimitz class ships.
The Nimitz use to carry about 85 aircraft but today can handle about 100 because they planes are smaller. The F-14s and A-6s have been replaced by F/A-18s which will be replaced by the F-35s. We know from our experience during WWII the optimum number for large carriers is about 75-80. More than that you have traffic pattern problems trying to launch and recover the greater number.
The actual number the QEII will hold is about 60 so I would like to see a new class of carriers at about 75,000 tons and about 75 aircraft. The old Panamax limits ships to be no wider than 106 feet but the nex Panamax can handle ships up to 180 feet with our current carriers being 240 odd feet wide at the flight deck.
Here is a picture of the HMS QE!!
http://www.google.com/imgres...
I also think we can make them the New Panamax size
We must have different sources of information. The UK just decommissioned its last carrier, Ark Royal. No longer required as all it could handle were jump-jet Harriers which are being phased out. The Economist goes on to say that the UK will be without an aircraft carrier until possibly 2020, but more likely 2025. The gov't would gladly scrap both new aircraft carriers, one the QE II, the other yet unnamed, but it would cost more to do that than to keep it going. My guess, if they ever complete both, is that they will immediately, after their commissioning, go into mothballs. F-35s are supposed to be based on those ships. Way things are going with that expensive lemon, best they resuscitate Spitfires and Hurricanes, at least we know they can fly. LoL.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155279 May 11, 2013
For Rogue :

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18237029&#820... ;

May 29, 2012 – Computer-generated image issued by the MoD of an aircraft carrier ... By contrast, Spain and Italy have miniature carriers with around a dozen ...

Ironic. The UK had no crane that could lift the QEII components so it bought one from...China LOL. Ironic. Think of the purpose of the ship and which country it could be used against. Ironic indeed. But money has no colour.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155280 May 11, 2013
Jay Carney tried to get both the IRS and Ben Ghazi off of the news cycle by having a "private" press conference while delaying the public one.
White House Holds Secret Briefing for Select Media on Benghazi

White House Holds Secret Briefing for Select Media on Benghazi
By Bobby Eberle May 11, 2013

Barack Obama and his team are starting to feel the heat. Despite the best efforts by the Democrats, media, and others on the left to dismiss this past week's congressional testimony on Benghazi as purely partisan politics, Obama's White House is scrambling to keep reporters from asking the tough questions. However, Friday's secret briefing with select members of the media may have done more harm than good.
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2013/05/11/whit...

But it did not work as the press beat him like a dog.

Jay Carney squirms while trying to explain changes
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155281 May 11, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
For Rogue :
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18237029&#820... ;
May 29, 2012 – Computer-generated image issued by the MoD of an aircraft carrier ... By contrast, Spain and Italy have miniature carriers with around a dozen ...
Ironic. The UK had no crane that could lift the QEII components so it bought one from...China LOL. Ironic. Think of the purpose of the ship and which country it could be used against. Ironic indeed. But money has no colour.
Link not found! I am no computer wizard but most of my links work!

By the way, we too have eight small carriers which are Wasp-class amphibious assault ships and then normally carry only SIX AV-8 Harriers! But I don't think any where in the area at the time.
They would have just a few Harriers but could also carry a SEAL team and they also have the helicopters to deploy them.
But Obama has cut back on deployments and training so he can divert money to his social programs.
Also, the Wasp-class ships are 40,000 tones and we need ones that are closer to 75,000 tons.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155282 May 11, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
For Rogue :
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18237029&#820... ;
May 29, 2012 – Computer-generated image issued by the MoD of an aircraft carrier ... By contrast, Spain and Italy have miniature carriers with around a dozen ...
Ironic. The UK had no crane that could lift the QEII components so it bought one from...China LOL. Ironic. Think of the purpose of the ship and which country it could be used against. Ironic indeed. But money has no colour.
Well, prior to about 1930, Japan bought all their large caliber naval artillery from England and Germany!
And yes, a miniature carrier is better than none.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155283 May 11, 2013
The U.K. had relied on U.S. aerial tankers like our KC-135. Sure they had "Buddy" tankers which were Vulcan bombers fitted with a kit but they were inferior to the U.S. tankers.
To get one Vulcan bomber to attack the airfield at Port Stanley during the Falkland War it took eleven buddy tankers to get ONE vulcan bomber to and from the Falklands and their base on the Ascension Islands which had a round trip of 7,800 miles.

XM607 - Falklands' Most Daring Raid


We regularly fly our B-1s, B-2s and B-52s all of this world are far greater distances using our fleet of aerial tankers. Recently a B-2 flew from its base in Missouri round trip to S. Korea.

REASSURING ALLIES

While the 20-year-old B-2 often flies for long durations - 44 hours is the record - Thursday's flight of approximately 37-1/2 hours was the plane's first non-stop mission to the Korean peninsula and back from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, Air Force officials said.

With Pyongyang threatening missile strikes on the U.S. mainland, as well as U.S. bases in Hawaii and Guam, the flight seemed designed to demonstrate how easy it would be for the United States.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/30/us-...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155284 May 11, 2013
Grand Birther wrote:
Democrats in decline?
“Since Obama was elected President, the Democrats have lost nine governorships, 56 members of the House and two Senate seats,” Doug Sosnik, the political director in Bill Clinton’s White House, writes in a new memo.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/dem-str...
Yep, and 2014 looks like it will be a bad election for the Dems in Congress. They forgot that the rewon both Houses of Congress in the election of 2006 which was the midterm of Bush's second term in the White House. And 2014 will also be a midterm in Obama's second term in the White House.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155285 May 11, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
That's FoxNews.com for you. If they have a doubt, you can bet your bottom dollar it'll be Obama-negative.
So you don't have carriers in the Mediterranean. No one except the French with their one carrier has any in the Mediterranean. How many carriers do China and Russia have? ZERO! Et alors?
Spark plugs? What kind of analogy is that? And if you're talking about badly-planned long-term maintenance, why don't you start with the Navy, not the president. They have a budget, up to them to work it out.
Since the 2nd WW, how many wars have aircraft carriers helped to win? Aircraft carriers are like dinosaurs, Rogue. With missiles of all kinds, all ranges, multiple warheads, long-range bombers, air-refuelling-able fighter bombers, forward bases in the Atlantic, the Pacific, Indian Ocean, West and Eastern Europe, in the Middle East (Bahrain, etc) and Alaska, sophisticated drones, what you are short of but need more than aircraft carriers, I figure, are landing crafts that can disembark troops and equipment rapidly. Just as battleships became obsolete after WW1, so are aircraft carriers quickly becoming so and that is no doubt why other world powers are eschewing them.$6 billion per ship plus manning, maintenance, equipment, etc, and what a target! Can you really afford that? In the final analysis, what's going to be left to protect? The USSR is a case in point. Armed to the teeth in 1989, they nevertheless collapsed like a house of cards. All they could manufacture were armaments. No need to emulate them.
Well, is is not difficult to beat the bottom dollar out of Obama. It is like Clinton jokes. If you tried the same joke of Barack and Michelle or G.W. and Laura, it would not be funny. Examply;

Did you hear Hillary had a heart attack? Bill made a pass at her.
or;
Did you hear Michelle had a heart attack? Barack made a pass at her.
or
Did you hear Laura Bush had a heart attack? G.W. made a pass at her.
only the joke about the Clintons is funny as a joke mst be based on reality to be funny. We all know Hillary "The Boner Shrinker" Clinton and Bill "The Bent Crank" Clinton, don't we!!!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155286 May 11, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Link not found! I am no computer wizard but most of my links work!
By the way, we too have eight small carriers which are Wasp-class amphibious assault ships and then normally carry only SIX AV-8 Harriers! But I don't think any where in the area at the time.
They would have just a few Harriers but could also carry a SEAL team and they also have the helicopters to deploy them.
But Obama has cut back on deployments and training so he can divert money to his social programs.
Also, the Wasp-class ships are 40,000 tones and we need ones that are closer to 75,000 tons.
If, if if, Rogue. If my aunt had balls, she's be my uncle. AV-8 Harriers can only carry one pilot, no seals. And if the US has eight of those, where were they? Well, Rogue, even if you have 50 of them, they cannot be all over the map.

Social programs vs military? You'd put the military ahead of health care, pensions, social security, education and other programs? What will you have left to protect? As it is, the US defence budget is bigger than that of Russia, China and the UK combined. How much do you need? How do all those armaments prevent and defeat the biggest threat of them all, terrorism? Who you gonna attack with all those weapons? Big arsenals used to impress rogue states. No more.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155287 May 11, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Link not found! I am no computer wizard but most of my links work!
By the way, we too have eight small carriers which are Wasp-class amphibious assault ships and then normally carry only SIX AV-8 Harriers! But I don't think any where in the area at the time.
They would have just a few Harriers but could also carry a SEAL team and they also have the helicopters to deploy them.
But Obama has cut back on deployments and training so he can divert money to his social programs.
Also, the Wasp-class ships are 40,000 tones and we need ones that are closer to 75,000 tons.
You wrote : "Link not found! I am no computer wizard but most of my links work"

I'm sorry, but I can't figure why none of them work. Very frustrating, but knowing this, it's why I post the link AND the ensuing paragraph to help you locate it should you so desire. But you certainly do not have to, up to you, as I know I've got my evidence or proof or confirmation or whatever. I'm even less a computer expert than you are.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155288 May 11, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
The U.K. had relied on U.S. aerial tankers like our KC-135. Sure they had "Buddy" tankers which were Vulcan bombers fitted with a kit but they were inferior to the U.S. tankers.
To get one Vulcan bomber to attack the airfield at Port Stanley during the Falkland War it took eleven buddy tankers to get ONE vulcan bomber to and from the Falklands and their base on the Ascension Islands which had a round trip of 7,800 miles.
XM607 - Falklands' Most Daring Raid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =40knj0qg_UsXX
We regularly fly our B-1s, B-2s and B-52s all of this world are far greater distances using our fleet of aerial tankers. Recently a B-2 flew from its base in Missouri round trip to S. Korea.
REASSURING ALLIES
While the 20-year-old B-2 often flies for long durations - 44 hours is the record - Thursday's flight of approximately 37-1/2 hours was the plane's first non-stop mission to the Korean peninsula and back from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, Air Force officials said.
With Pyongyang threatening missile strikes on the U.S. mainland, as well as U.S. bases in Hawaii and Guam, the flight seemed designed to demonstrate how easy it would be for the United States.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/30/us-...
That's what I meant by air-refuelling and long-range bombers making aircraft carriers almost obsolete. And, don't forget, in case of conflict with N.Korea, B2s and all other fighters and bombers don't have to deploy from the U.S. Cripes, like during the Korean war, from Japan and South Korea for starters, no mid-air refuelling required or very little.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155289 May 11, 2013
PS : Vulcan have been replaced by A-330 Airbuses. Vulcans, VC10s and retrofitted Comets were used as military refuellers and transports and British-kind AWACS just to keep their military local and foster employment in the defence sector. They were ridiculously old and the maintenance!

I did loved the VC10, flew it many times - what an aircraft. Too bad it never had much success. It was made for short-field operations, specially in developing countries, but longer runways were built in any case and the short-field requirement was not necessary. That's when the 707 and DC87 killed the Comet and VC10.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155290 May 11, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
That's FoxNews.com for you. If they have a doubt, you can bet your bottom dollar it'll be Obama-negative.
So you don't have carriers in the Mediterranean. No one except the French with their one carrier has any in the Mediterranean. How many carriers do China and Russia have? ZERO! Et alors?
Spark plugs? What kind of analogy is that? And if you're talking about badly-planned long-term maintenance, why don't you start with the Navy, not the president. They have a budget, up to them to work it out.
Since the 2nd WW, how many wars have aircraft carriers helped to win? Aircraft carriers are like dinosaurs, Rogue. With missiles of all kinds, all ranges, multiple warheads, long-range bombers, air-refuelling-able fighter bombers, forward bases in the Atlantic, the Pacific, Indian Ocean, West and Eastern Europe, in the Middle East (Bahrain, etc) and Alaska, sophisticated drones, what you are short of but need more than aircraft carriers, I figure, are landing crafts that can disembark troops and equipment rapidly. Just as battleships became obsolete after WW1, so are aircraft carriers quickly becoming so and that is no doubt why other world powers are eschewing them.$6 billion per ship plus manning, maintenance, equipment, etc, and what a target! Can you really afford that? In the final analysis, what's going to be left to protect? The USSR is a case in point. Armed to the teeth in 1989, they nevertheless collapsed like a house of cards. All they could manufacture were armaments. No need to emulate them.
And when a carrier task force arrives off the coast of a rogue country, they notice. And then why is the U.K. building two new carriers? And why is China working to deploy their first carrier?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155291 May 11, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, is is not difficult to beat the bottom dollar out of Obama. It is like Clinton jokes. If you tried the same joke of Barack and Michelle or G.W. and Laura, it would not be funny. Examply;
Did you hear Hillary had a heart attack? Bill made a pass at her.
or;
Did you hear Michelle had a heart attack? Barack made a pass at her.
or
Did you hear Laura Bush had a heart attack? G.W. made a pass at her.
only the joke about the Clintons is funny as a joke mst be based on reality to be funny. We all know Hillary "The Boner Shrinker" Clinton and Bill "The Bent Crank" Clinton, don't we!!!
??????????

It this your way of admitting that you're out of ammo?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 min IBdaMann 49,189
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Frank 1,154,018
abby 12-20 22 min cheluzal 3
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 24 min boundary painter 362
amy 12-20 26 min cheluzal 3
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 28 min boundary painter 719
horny!! 48 min leah white 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 55 min PEllen 98,852
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:28 am PST

Bleacher Report11:28AM
Jay Cutler Rumors: Latest Details, Speculation on Bears QB's Future
Bleacher Report11:39 AM
Complete Week 16 Preview for Indianapolis
NBC Sports12:33 PM
1 thing even Rahm can't fix: Da Bears - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 1:01 PM
Cowboys' Murray listed as questionable for Colts - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 8:26 AM
Report: Executives suggest Bears could have to attach a draft pick to move Cutler