Breaking News Thread Version 2.0

[Peelz]

News icon Walter Cronkite dies at 92

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/deaths/6535009.html

Will we see the same hullabaloo we saw about that useless moron MJ? Doubtful. Guess you have to be a dipshit and squander your money, touch little boys, and act like an all around dufus to get any postmortem recognition in our country.

[Colorado700R]

News icon Walter Cronkite dies at 92

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/deaths/6535009.html

Will we see the same hullabaloo we saw about that useless moron MJ? Doubtful. Guess you have to be a dipshit and squander your money, touch little boys, and act like an all around dufus to get any postmortem recognition in our country.

therefore your funeral will be epic

[Peelz]

News icon Walter Cronkite dies at 92

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/deaths/6535009.html

Will we see the same hullabaloo we saw about that useless moron MJ? Doubtful. Guess you have to be a dipshit and squander your money, touch little boys, and act like an all around dufus to get any postmortem recognition in our country.

therefore your funeral will be epic

I hate you so much at this very moment. 

[Hefe]

I hate you so much at this very moment. 

[Peelz]

I have some hatred left for you too Hefe.

[Krandall]

Go to the site to watch the vid. Awesome! 

http://gizmodo.com/5320173/prankster-gets-verizons-ceo-private-address-visits-him-to-discuss-privacy

John Hargrave tracked down Verizon CEO's private address and cellphone number. Then he went to his home—megaphone in hand—to ask him to stop Verizon's lousy privacy policies. The video is quite funny and his message is clear:

When we don't have privacy, then freaks with bullhorns start showing up. Keep our phone numbers unlisted. Keep our cellphone records private. Keep us safe in your loving arms, Ivan.

So damn right. To give you an idea about how easy it was to get this information, the only thing that John did was sign up for one of those "free cell phone records" listings and scan it for the cells and home addresses of the CEOs from the big three: Randall Stephenson of AT&T, Dan Hesse of Sprint Nextel, and Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon. There were a lot of Stephensons and Hesses, but only one Ivan Seidenberg. He confirmed the information and off he went in his car, ready to deliver his message about how important privacy is by showing him exactly how these awful information keeping policies could affect us.

[Krandall]

my favorite bird.

Cutting the Fat from the US Defense Budget is Green: Obama Scraps the F-22



It doesn't take a green blogger to tell you that the government's defense budget is bloated--and that we're manufacturing way more weapons and vehicles than necessary. Which is why it's good news that the senate voted in favor of halting production of seven F-22 Raptors, supporting Obama's agenda. Not only will the materials that constitute the planes and the energy required for their production be saved--but so will $1.75 billion.

And before everyone gets on my back for being a liberal, naive, give-peace-a-chance hippie, consider this: the Republican, Bush appointed Secretary of Defense was in favor of scrapping the planes. They're simply not useful in the current kind of warfare the US is engaged in--and would be produced essentially only to gratify the massive defense contractor Lockheed Martin (and the more-massive body of employees who would build them).

From Politico:

"The president really needed this vote, not just in terms of the merits of the F-22 itself but in terms of his reform agenda," said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) told POLITICO: "We have got to be a leaner, meaner government. We have to be more efficient."
Indeed. Also encouraging were the presidents words after the vote landed in favor of his agenda:
In his own remarks after the vote, Obama stressed too that defense spending is now "a zero-sum game" and the F-22 an "inexcusable waste of money" at a time when the U.S. is "fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit."
This attitude is refreshing, especially when it's focused on such politically hallowed ground as the US defense budget. After all, defense spending is at a whopping $515 billion (Obama actually increased it this year)--around 4.7% of the entire US GDP. And the military can launch as many campaigns to "go green" as it wants--the fact remains that cutting the proverbial large-scale fat (like now-useless fighter plane contracts) off of military spending will do more to conserve resources, energy (the military uses the most energy in the US), and money than, say, acquiring rubber tracks for military vehicles.

[Peelz]

emergency landing in the bigger town north of us. Iowa City.
Pretty sweet.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090722/NEWS/90722014

[Colorado700R]

my favorite bird.

Cutting the Fat from the US Defense Budget is Green: Obama Scraps the F-22



It doesn't take a green blogger to tell you that the government's defense budget is bloated--and that we're manufacturing way more weapons and vehicles than necessary. Which is why it's good news that the senate voted in favor of halting production of seven F-22 Raptors, supporting Obama's agenda. Not only will the materials that constitute the planes and the energy required for their production be saved--but so will $1.75 billion.

And before everyone gets on my back for being a liberal, naive, give-peace-a-chance hippie, consider this: the Republican, Bush appointed Secretary of Defense was in favor of scrapping the planes. They're simply not useful in the current kind of warfare the US is engaged in--and would be produced essentially only to gratify the massive defense contractor Lockheed Martin (and the more-massive body of employees who would build them).

From Politico:

“The president really needed this vote, not just in terms of the merits of the F-22 itself but in terms of his reform agenda,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) told POLITICO: “We have got to be a leaner, meaner government. We have to be more efficient.”
Indeed. Also encouraging were the presidents words after the vote landed in favor of his agenda:
In his own remarks after the vote, Obama stressed too that defense spending is now “a zero-sum game” and the F-22 an “inexcusable waste of money” at a time when the U.S. is “fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit.”
This attitude is refreshing, especially when it's focused on such politically hallowed ground as the US defense budget. After all, defense spending is at a whopping $515 billion (Obama actually increased it this year)--around 4.7% of the entire US GDP. And the military can launch as many campaigns to "go green" as it wants--the fact remains that cutting the proverbial large-scale fat (like now-useless fighter plane contracts) off of military spending will do more to conserve resources, energy (the military uses the most energy in the US), and money than, say, acquiring rubber tracks for military vehicles.

I don't know about you, but I'm all for arming our troops with the best possible weapons available.  As for the $1.75 billion, if it lets 1 Airmen come home to his family that otherwise would not, it's worth every penny.

Aaron

[Lady4Fiddy]

^^^^ True Dat!

[ctateusa]

Im still in favor of just blowing the hell outta them and call it a day

[Krandall]

I understand where your coming from. And Im on both sides sort of.. You can't have an unlimited funds acct. I still think there needs to be some sort of "Checks and Balances" kind of thing. But.. I don't want our guys going in w/ muskets either.

[Alkire193]

my favorite bird.

Cutting the Fat from the US Defense Budget is Green: Obama Scraps the F-22



It doesn't take a green blogger to tell you that the government's defense budget is bloated--and that we're manufacturing way more weapons and vehicles than necessary. Which is why it's good news that the senate voted in favor of halting production of seven F-22 Raptors, supporting Obama's agenda. Not only will the materials that constitute the planes and the energy required for their production be saved--but so will $1.75 billion.

And before everyone gets on my back for being a liberal, naive, give-peace-a-chance hippie, consider this: the Republican, Bush appointed Secretary of Defense was in favor of scrapping the planes. They're simply not useful in the current kind of warfare the US is engaged in--and would be produced essentially only to gratify the massive defense contractor Lockheed Martin (and the more-massive body of employees who would build them).

From Politico:

"The president really needed this vote, not just in terms of the merits of the F-22 itself but in terms of his reform agenda," said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) told POLITICO: "We have got to be a leaner, meaner government. We have to be more efficient."
Indeed. Also encouraging were the presidents words after the vote landed in favor of his agenda:
In his own remarks after the vote, Obama stressed too that defense spending is now "a zero-sum game" and the F-22 an "inexcusable waste of money" at a time when the U.S. is "fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit."
This attitude is refreshing, especially when it's focused on such politically hallowed ground as the US defense budget. After all, defense spending is at a whopping $515 billion (Obama actually increased it this year)--around 4.7% of the entire US GDP. And the military can launch as many campaigns to "go green" as it wants--the fact remains that cutting the proverbial large-scale fat (like now-useless fighter plane contracts) off of military spending will do more to conserve resources, energy (the military uses the most energy in the US), and money than, say, acquiring rubber tracks for military vehicles.

I don't know about you, but I'm all for arming our troops with the best possible weapons available.  As for the $1.75 billion, if it lets 1 Airmen come home to his family that otherwise would not, it's worth every penny.

Aaron

I disagree, the type of warfare we deal with today is a ground one on one warfare with occasional larger explosions when we really arent smart enough to make an intelligent strike. This fighter came during a time when the Bush presidency was looking to "all over" make our military a solid one. So that we would not get caught with our pants down if things escalated to North Korean warfare, or even some sort of spat with the Russians. We also have to look at the fact that the F-15E is one amazing piece of work that just got a major overhaul and was fielded in Afghanistan. The whole of the Air Force has not been completely upgraded to the F-15E, however its payload and manuverability is more than what is necessary for todays forces.

And....if there is the necessity for America to be armed with a highly manuverable air - air fighter. We already have the capability to field the F-22 because the construction facilities, pilots, and maintainters are already trained and the bugs have been worked out to construct and field this fighter with a quickness.

[Colorado700R]

F-15E and other models are nearing end term of service life due to structural distress.  And only preparing for an engagement your already in makes you voulenrable to the battle you will fight next.

China, NK, Iran, etc comes to mind.

[Krandall]

We need Brian's expertise