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
Grand Birther

Cleveland, OH

#155261 May 11, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey spudmeister! I grew up around oil rigs, went to college and studied Geology as did my father and brother. At last count we've drilled about 900 wells. Now, you're right, one of us is a dumbshyt but it isn't me. LMAO! taterhead! Psst, hey taterhead, you do realize these companies are finding and producing oil/gas from our own soil, right? Which in turn makes us less dependent on foreign oil. Of course you understand that, right? LMAO! Maybe you'd prefer to be cold and in the dark? Hmmm?
LOL, sure you did. Everyone believes the incorrigible liar Louisiana Loser.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#155263 May 11, 2013
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, sure you did. Everyone believes the incorrigible liar Louisiana Loser.
So typical for your dumbazz. If you don't like something you just call it a lie. Brilliant! Go change your Depends, stinky! LMAO! squidlips

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155265 May 11, 2013
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, sure you did. Everyone believes the incorrigible liar Louisiana Loser.
Geologist, LRS? Ha ha, LMAO (LRS tm reg'd). Sample of typical University graduate language as used in his last post to you : "dumbshyt, taterhead! Psst, hey taterhead" (actually, that was kinda mild).

And when the day ends, the slug will brag that he "clownstomped" you with his sophisticated and intelligent choices. all drawn from his vast vocabulary reservoir.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155266 May 11, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
So typical for your dumbazz. If you don't like something you just call it a lie. Brilliant! Go change your Depends, stinky! LMAO! squidlips
More literary brilliance from the under-rock geologist LMAO (LRS tm reg'd) poet, and all in a mere 2 lines :

dumbazz
Depends
stinky
squidlips (bravo, your invention).
Grand Birther

Louisville, KY

#155267 May 11, 2013
WHITE HOUSE PRESS ROOM EVACUATED -- FOR SMOKE!

Yep, where there's smoke there is FIRE!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#155268 May 11, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts are, we had the planes, but no tankers to refuel them in flight.
We are also down to just ten aircraft carriers. Only four are currently deployed, two in training cycle, two in medium term maintenance and two in long term maintenance (reactor maintenance). We use to keep an aircraft carrier task force in the Mediterranean at all times but know we can not.
It is a fact that the USS Enterprise was suppose to be in service until 2016 when the USS Gerald Ford goes into service but Obama took it out of service last year.
The last time we had less than seven operational aircraft carriers was in ..... 1941!!! And we all know when Pearl Harbor was attacked, don't we!!!
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.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#155269 May 11, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
More literary brilliance from the under-rock geologist LMAO (LRS tm reg'd) poet, and all in a mere 2 lines :
dumbazz
Depends
stinky
squidlips (bravo, your invention).
You like my work, I take it. Thank you, uh...thank ya vermuch
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#155270 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.
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!

“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-...

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) 5 min gcaveman1 46,671
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min shinningelectr0n 1,110,408
IL Who do you support for Lieutenant Governor in I... (Oct '10) 7 min Pubes 153
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 18 min texas pete 4,712
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 20 min Mandela 68,489
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 38 min _Zoey_ 7,782
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 40 min NevadaBob 1,927
Amy 9-18 3 hr pde 25
Amy 9-16 6 hr ralph 58
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 7 hr billyh 98,228
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••