Home » Air » Pray For NG Tanker Or Else!

Pray For NG Tanker Or Else!

By Colin Clark Wednesday, January 6th, 2010 5:46 pm
Posted in Air, International, Policy

Only in America. We’ve got a story where the players are God, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Velma Jackson, a Mobile, Ala. woman. Ms. Jackson went before the Mobile City Council and delivered what she said was the word of God: pray for Northrop every Wednesday to get the contract or face floods and, well, all sorts of bad stuff.

The wet members of the City Council failed to heed Ms. Jackson’s words, hiding behind the oldest of bureaucratic excuses. They couldn’t give her a permit. However, the city’s mayor clearly possessed much greater wisdom: “I’ve been praying every Wednesday for a long time.”

In light of God’s apparent intervention on behalf of Northrop, perhaps other extraordinary events will take place. For example, completely spurious rumors are everywhere on Capitol Hill that Rep. Norm Dicks is already reconsidering his support for Boeing. It’s too early to predict how extensive the political fallout might be.

Join the Conversation

	Curlyf January 7th, 2010 at 12:31 am There are all kinds in the world. Some of them really believe what they say and others have other reasons. Most are a little bit crazy, I think, though.
	Godanov January 7th, 2010 at 12:54 am The only way NG is going to get the tanker contract is an ‘act of God’.
	William C. January 7th, 2010 at 3:18 am I think God became a Boeing supporter back when that 707 did a barrel roll all of those years ago.
	Byron Skinner January 7th, 2010 at 3:38 am Good Evening Folks, Since I’m a Liberal Agnostic, Secular Humanist I take offense at Colin’s use of the term God, but since us Liberals have been abused with every pejorative imaginable and a few more since the 1940’s by Conservatives we have kinda blown off those who are of that peculiar institution know as Conservatives. The tanker program is simply not needed. If anybody bother to look at the daily Air Summary’s for the past two months the will see that daily tanker use world wide is between 25–44 sorties a day. Here is yesterdays in S. Asia for January 5, 1010. This information is from Official sources. USAF Airlift 157 sorties USN/USAF air support Afg. 79 “ USN/USAF air support Iran 14 “ ISR Sorties Afg. 29 “ ISR Sorties Iraq 18 “ Ariel Refueling 45 “ Med Evac out of country 1 “ Fuel Delivered 3.1 million lbs. aircraft refueled (both) 227 With a fleet of 500 air tankers I clearly don’t see any need at this time to contract for any more. The statement that the current fleet is getting to old and is quickly wearing has been disputed by an Air Force study. The US has more then enough air to air refueling capacity. I sure that if there is a God somewhere that she has better things to do then concern herself with this Conservative corporate welfare. If anybody is going to waste their time at prayer why not skip tankers and pray for peace. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	William C. January 7th, 2010 at 5:00 am You take offense at the use of the word God? Are you joking? You godless liberals are such pathetic whiners. I can’t help but imagine you are one of those fools who whines about “In God we Trust” on the dollar for example. God help us when there are people like yourself trying to run the country. You don’t want to pay for a new tanker, new aircraft, new guns, new vehicles or anything Byron? So what are you willing to fund when it comes to national defense? A hundred men armed with bolt action rifles? I suppose we will have people like yourself to thank when the first KC-135 crashes due to fatigue reasons. The facts are that the costs to fly, maintain, and operate the KC-135 fleet (which are on average 45 years old) have doubled or tripled since the mid 1990s. The facts are that by 2018 the alloy skin on the wing of the aircraft will have to be replaced. The KC-135 fleet is flying double their planned values to meet operational requirements. If these factors aren’t enough of a reason to replace 45 year old aircraft Byron, than you simply aren’t thinking clearly. A strong national defense helps to keep the peace Byron and the only welfare going on here is the kind the Democrats are slicing up the military budget to fund.
	Daniel Russ January 7th, 2010 at 6:47 am Byron, I think it’s odd that people who spit invective like “you Godless Liberals” never read the Bible. They can’t remember passages like “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shall beat thy swords into ploughshares and thou shalt make war no more”, or “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”, or “Judge not lest ye be judged,” or “Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone”. All they can remember is “eye for an eye” and “thou shalt not suffer a homosexual to live.” These faux Bible thumpers don’t remember that Jesus hung out with the prostitutes and the poor and the lepers and the disenfranchised. No where does it reference Jesus hanging out with the Lobbyists or the Political Action Committees or the Congressmen or the Generals. They also don’t realize that Americans are fighting and dying for the right to hold their own opinions and disagree with idiots like Sarah Palin, or Limblob, or any of the other non thinkers in the world. So much for freedom. You better believe in God like William C does or you will be damned to Hell. Well if Heaven is filled with people like William C, then please send me to the other place. I mean how dare you think for yourself? William C seems to think that spending money like a drunken sailor ( excuse the pun) on things we might not need is patriotic, but in fact it is a very unpatriotic thing to do. William C gives us a false choice, spend like the generals say without question or you’re supporting the Terra-ists. If generals said we all need neon T-shirts, and Obama questioned it, the so called patriots would be all up in arms yelling “we need neon T-shirts you Godless liberals!!!”. The fact is only a patriot questions authority and insiders deals and wasteful tax payer dollars, and someone who doesn’t question waste is in fact quite unpatriotic. That said, I will bet you a million bucks that William C is either on Medicare or Medicaid or goes to the VA or follows regulations from the FCC, the TSA, the FAA, the EPA, you…know..those socialistic programs that benefit all of us. Willam C doesn’t speak for God. he is as far away from divine principle as a man can be. Respectfully, Daniel Russ Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com And God Bless America, and God Bless President Obama.
	mike j January 7th, 2010 at 6:53 am I don’t have to carry Byron Skinner’s water for him, but I’ll point out that he thinks the future is in long endurance UCAVs, which won’t need much tanker support. He’s probably right more-or-less. For example, there’s more news today of the legs getting kicked out from under the F-35, shifting money and time lines, more excuses etc. You, on the other hand, apparently can’t imagine a world where we don’t do “same as before, but better!” We’re paying more than we ever have for a military that’s smaller than at any point since the end of WWII. Obama is on pace to outspend Reagan on defense. Go ahead and explain it all away.
	William C. January 7th, 2010 at 7:34 am Please tell me how we are going to fit enough fuel in this UCAV for a 5,000 km radius while keeping the cost lower than a 5th generation manned fighter? One of the advantages the of UCAVs is a low cost enabling greater numbers, but you won’t get that if each is the size of a B-2. These UCAVs are going to need tankers even if they have twice the internal fuel of a F-22, and 45 year old KC-135s are not cut out to be serving into 2020. And how much of the F-35 delays are due to changing requirements, economic concerns, government interference, and increased expectations? You think all of the problems are on Lockheed’s end but this simply isn’t the case. I mean how many times has the F-136 been killed and saved by congress now? Thanks to those who killed the F-22 the F-35 is extremely critical. There is no realistic alternative. Go ahead and argue we don’t need the F-22 or F-35 based on this idea that aircraft never age and we will never fight a conventional war again. But saying we don’t need to replace 45 year old tankers that serve as the backbone of our long range airpower is sheer lunacy. Byron apparently opposes every single program that is not unmanned despite the need and the fact that relying solely on unmanned systems is a strategic weakness. Much of what we must do is “same as before, but better” because the need for tanks, air superiority aircraft, warships, and everything else he wants to halt development of is still needed. 1. We must maintain the industrial and technological base for such systems. 2. We must replace aging equipment that will sooner or later be outclassed by their foreign counterparts. 3. This “wasted” development in conventional warfare is what enabled us to smash the Iraqi military in both 1991 and 2003. This idea that every war in the future will be some sort of COIN campaign is misplaced. Our military can’t consist solely of MRAPs, infantry, and Predators UAVs. Look at what we are paying as a % of the GDP and how much of what we pay are personnel costs. The DoD budget is driven by personnel costs. The amount spent on procurement, research, and development is as large as you may believe. We need to get more out of our money by cutting waste, but we shouldn’t reduce overall funding or cut every program at the first sign of problems. At least under Reagan we got far more results, new Abrams tanks, Bradleys, B-1s, you name it.
	chuteok January 7th, 2010 at 7:51 am Everyone else is buying and we in Australia bought the 1st EADS Tanker, transporter Multi-role, with Probe and hose and probe, it makes sens for the US to build the factory and make them there. Hell trying to keep the C-17 , Galaxy, and even Herky fleets going is going to need this wonderful plane, but it seems if it does not have a Boeing stamp or made inthe USA then do not but it, {give back the Harrier and Goshawk as well as the Lokum helo and C-27 while your at it. Hell politics„„no one is better:-}
	chuteok January 7th, 2010 at 7:55 am William C has the point here, it cannot all be UAV’s and Satelittes etc, you need men on the ground, tanks, APC’s and other new weapons systems which by the way the allies and US are making good use of in the Ghan, the Liberal tossers in the press of course says we are loosing there, my mates coming back from each tour say otherwise.
	Fred January 7th, 2010 at 12:43 pm The Enter text right here!The Airbus — Boeing debate has interested me since the beginning. One point every one is missing is that an Airbus is a throwaway air frame and a Boeing lasts for decades. I obtained my information by talking to mechanics that work on both airframes.
	GGG January 7th, 2010 at 3:17 pm Fred, to be fully correct, you should say that a Boeing built in 1958 lasts for decades. All modern aircraft makers use similar techniques and materials. In Boeing’s case, large portions of their “domestic” aircraft are manuafactured in China, including most of the fuselage components of the vaunted (and late, and over cost) “Dreamliner” which are manufactured by Harbin, using technology that Boeing gave them to allow cheaper labor in manufacture. Point is, past performance is no indicator of future performance — look at the 737 tanker record for evidence of this.
	LeoC January 7th, 2010 at 3:57 pm I think you mean the B767 tanker. I think Boeing tried to develop this program on the cheap. Without putting the needed upfront money for the tanker modifications, the result is protracted development and late delivery.
	CharlesHouston January 7th, 2010 at 5:09 pm Will the military of the future include any long distance cargo aircraft? If we send people to SWA, will we ask them to live off of the land? Amateurs need to read up on the military before thinking that the only aircraft that would need refueling is a fighter. Ever heard of Operation Nickel Grass? The Berlin Airlift?
	William C. January 7th, 2010 at 6:34 pm Amazing the presumptions you make. I don’t want our soldiers to be killed or maimed. Yet as the saying goes “If you want peace, prepare for war”, and this a lesson you and others are horribly ignorant of. When attacked as we were on December 7th 1941, and September 11th, 2001 we struck back. Not because we are bloodthirsty savages but because if we hadn’t what would become of our nation? Would we not be destroyed if we didn’t care enough to defend our homes and families? Does the fact that Jesus helped the sick and poor mean we shouldn’t care about the survival of our nation, our constitution, our freedoms and beliefs? What is the point your tying to make here? I know Americans are fighting and dying and I want them to be supplied with the best equipment possible. Everything from new guns and tanks to aircraft and ships. Daniel Russ your free to go to hell if you want but if you don’t believe in God, don’t go shouting it out and whining when somebody says God like Byron Skinner here. I apologize if thinking for myself offended you. And I apologize that some people like Rush Limbaugh use 1st Amendment rights which are only reserved for card carrying liberals. I give you the choice? No I don’t because I am not the President or any government official. Yet the choice is the same, modernize our military, or scrap much of it and waste that money on false promises and an attempt to turn the United States into another Western European nation. If a general did say we need neon-T shirts than he probably has a damn better idea why than all of the liberal bloggers saying no simply because they don’t believe in any new military spending. I am not on Medicare or Medicaid ‚don’t benefit from unions at my workplace or EPA regulations threatening to increase my energy costs. But I apologize for thinking that the decisions of our new Czars may not benefit us. If I am as far away from divine principles as a man can be not wanting to see our country decline and the world become even more of a nightmare, than what are you divine principles? Vote Democrat I guess. God Bless America and God Bless the men and women in uniform.
	O. Leo Leahy January 7th, 2010 at 6:37 pm Given our proclivity for TLAs (three letter acronyms), we have designated people like Ms Jackson RNBs (religious nut bags).
	mike j January 7th, 2010 at 6:43 pm …What tankers did they have in the Berlin Airlift? Oh, right, none. Let’s look around the map and try to find some modern (i.e. not Cold War) scenarios where the US will become the soul guarantor of supplies via airbridge. Never said we’d need no tankers, only fewer. And in any case, is this big skunkfight they’re having over going with Boeing or NG justified by the requirement?
	mike j January 7th, 2010 at 7:23 pm You just can’t make an argument without putting words in someone else’s mouth. I don’t defend things I never said. Here’s what I do think: The US lacks a grand strategic plan to design our strategies, tactics, and systems around. There is no system that can save us without a good plan for its use. We won the Cold War by following a strategy of containment, for the most part. We’ve lost the ensuing peace by having no plan. The trouble we’re having in designing and fielding systems for this new situation is an outgrowth of that lack of planning. The DOD, military industry, and congress will continue doing what they’ve always done, regardless of effect or consequence, until something forces them to change.
	CharlesHouston January 7th, 2010 at 7:24 pm MikeJ shows that he is no historian, the Berlin Airlift was a primary motivator for obtaining aerial refueling capability. That was a time when we needed them but didn’t have them — a scenario that MikeJ apparently longs to return to. He also has never heard of Operation Nickelgrass — the air bridge of supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. That was not a Cold War conflict and something like that could happen again. A fight is unfortunate but only the disconnected optimist would say that we can do without aerial refueling, or that we can continue to keep the KC-135 flying for another 50 years. If MikeJ or Byron had a child who was a military KC-135 crew — would they want them flying in aircraft that were so old? Can they accept that lots of our Air Force people will be flying in them for another decade? We owe those aircrew a more reliable airframe.
	mike j January 7th, 2010 at 7:43 pm You’re retired Air Force, you oughta know it’s more about the hours on the airframe than build-date. People fly old planes all the time, and safely. I wouldn’t mind having some new tankers, either. Op Nickle Grass, where we justified our rearmament of the Israelis by saying that it was to stop them from “going nuclear.” And the Soviets were resupplying the Arabs at the same time… kinda sound like a proxy war, doesn’t it? Something like that could happen in the world, sure. Is it going to be us on the hook for the resupply mission, and what will likely be needed to achieve the mission? Much more important questions than your ‘OMG what if?!?!?’ scenario, which can justify anything. As for the Berlin Airlift, we found a way to make do, and did a damn good job. We used to be good at that.
	Byron Skinner January 7th, 2010 at 2:47 pm Good Morning Folks, Since those who favor a tanker program, ignored addressing the FACTS simply means they have no arguments to support this wasted of money. All that’s is left for them is personal attacks, which I can’t respond to under my ROE as imposed by management, no biggie, I don’t need it, and idle speculation about some future need(s) that may or most likely may not mature. Contrary to what is said here I never indicated that that there is no need for ariel refueling. We already have 500 air frames dedicated to that task. Since in a typical war day there is less then 50 sorties flown, most likely by about a dozen aircraft, it would appear we are well covered. The air forces own study on this issue says that the current fleet of refuelers should be adequate for the needs of the Air Force and the Navy until about 2025. It must be noted that the first bid on this project called for 500 aircraft, now it’s down to less then 200 which is as strong indicator of the recognition by the Air Force and Navy that the future needs for ariel refueling are on the decline. The United States is facing funding many social programs that has not been addressed since 1980 and the Reagan administration, such as Healthcare, increasing funding for post secondary education, Social Security etc. to be spending money in the hundreds of billions on needless defense programs is simply not in the nations best interest. I agree 100% if it’s need for the current wars buy it and get it in the field as soon as possible, if the platform/system brings nothing to the current fight we can probably do with out it in the short, medium and long runs. As for references to GOD, as an Agnostic, Secular Humanists, Liberal, I simply don’t care, use it/abuse it if you like, I was making a point to management, not to posters. I have always found it amusing that non believers have way more tolerance then those who CLAIM to be believers. What the (I can’t say any more) is harping on UAV’s it appears that they have failed to realized that they will need air refueling also but hopefully from another UAV. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	John King January 7th, 2010 at 8:40 pm Gentlemen! Gentlemen! (Part 1 of 2) If the discussion is about replacing worn out refueling tankers with new aircraft, that is simply a function of ageing and maintenance over time. The Air Force has tables laying out the time-phased replacement schedule. Airframes do crack from metal fatigue and need replacing. But, rather than a new design aircraft, we could also mimic the B-52 program and basically “replace” the aircraft piecemeal through extensive periodic overhauls. If the discussion is about substitution of aircraft tactics — more UAVs/UCAVs; less manned aircraft — that can be mapped out, cutting refueling aircraft requirements. We can forego replacing the oldest tankers, giving us more time to get the replacement solution right. If the discussion is about the cost or competition for procuring those replacement aircraft, check out my op-ed in the November 9, 2009 Defense News http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4366299&am… where I use the Joint Strike Fighter as an example where dual sourcing can save taxpayers substantial money.
	CharlesHouston January 7th, 2010 at 9:01 pm Byron — too bad your ROE (imposed by the management due to what???) do not restrain you to only using common sense in your replies :-( You say that we have to cheap out and ask our airmen to fly really old aircraft — so that we can fund post secondary education? I guess for airplane designers who can watch as their friends fly the best that 1960 could provide? Maybe the “need” to spend on high speed rail, internet for rural areas, resurfacing of Rep Murtha’s airfield — all of those take precedence over more reliable aircraft? Suddenly you inject UAVs that are aerial refuelers into the conversation? Who is developing those again, and when could they be available?? I wish that I could just imagine an answer and wish away hard choices. Why not join us in the real world, not the one where UAVs are the answer to every question?
	John King January 7th, 2010 at 9:20 pm Gentlemen! Gentlemen! (Part 3 of 2 — new math, since Part 2 didn’t upload correctly!) But the discussion shouldn’t be about not providing the tools our men and women in uniform need to protect us and our families when under threat. That’s one of the few jobs the federal government is charged with under our Constitution. And in our current national defense operating environment, refueling tankers is one of those tools.
	John King January 7th, 2010 at 9:21 pm Gentlemen! Gentlemen! (Part 2 of 2) If the discussion is about jobs (not God), that’s a function of whether the U.S. should have an industrial policy which would restrict tanker procurement to a U.S company. But what’s the difference between Boeing outsourcing some component manufacturing to foreign countries and a foreign-owned company locating in the U.S.? Not much. Plus, why shouldn’t we buy their tanker if they buy our fighter jets? If the discussion is about the Pentagon buying what it doesn’t need or squandering money, I agree. We pay too much and don’t get enough product. I handled $60 billion for hundreds of Navy and Marine Corps research and development, procurement, construction and operation and maintenance programs for over 25 years, cutting where I could. The Pentagon has its own pork making machine — hidden in the basement. ;-)
	John King January 7th, 2010 at 9:27 pm Gentlemen! Gentlemen! (Part 1 of 2) If the discussion is about replacing worn out refueling tankers with new aircraft, that is simply a function of ageing and maintenance over time. The Air Force has tables laying out the time-phased replacement schedule. Airframes do crack from metal fatigue and need replacing. But, rather than a new design aircraft, we could also mimic the B-52 program and basically “replace” the aircraft piecemeal through extensive periodic overhauls. If the discussion is about substitution of aircraft tactics — more UAVs/UCAVs; less manned aircraft — that can be mapped out, cutting refueling aircraft requirements. We can forego replacing the oldest tankers, giving us more time to get the replacement solution right. If the discussion is about the cost or competition for procuring those replacement aircraft, check out my op-ed in the November 9, 2009 Defense News http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4366299&am… where I use the Joint Strike Fighter as an example where dual sourcing can save taxpayers substantial money.
	CharlesHouston January 7th, 2010 at 5:03 pm Byron again shows how he can read — but misunderstand — statistics. And I’d like to see what Air Force study disputes the fact that the current tankers are getting old! Does an Air Force study show how time is standing still? Anyway, there are two reasons that we need a new tanker — time does proceed only one direction and the current tankers are so old that the pilots are flying the same airframes that their grandfathers flew. We have upgraded engines and avionics but that only goes so far. Many tanker flights just extend the range of airlifters — permitting long distance transfer of people, vehicles, logistics, etc. Many tanker flights from Europe and the CONUS are needed to resupply forces in SWA and even in Korea. If the Administration tells thousands of American folks to go to SWA, they have to supply them! UAVs do not carry cargo.
	GGG January 8th, 2010 at 12:41 am You’re correct LeoC; I did mean the 767. I point at it as an example of how not to build a tanker — especially one that might be needed quickly. Ask the Italians — at the Paris Air Show, an Italian Air Force general was so ticked at Boeing, he wouldn’t visit their booth, even when invited.
	Byron Skinner January 7th, 2010 at 10:44 pm Good Evening Folks, Once again I see that my critics are either to ______ or really just disinterested in the top to research the AF study, the topic is closed. I can see no creditable or viable arguments in support of this issue from those who are of that peculiar institution of 21st. Century Conservatives. The same old airframes…that some of their grandfather flew, is only a supposition that even if true is meaningless to the debate at hand. The fact is the AF is flying the current fleet of tankers and the numbers indicated along with the reduced number in the bid that they are widely under used and several should be sent to Davis Monthan AFB and their crews retired. Any money spent on new tankers at this time os money thrown into a rat hole as Senator Jessie Helms use to say. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	William C. January 8th, 2010 at 9:32 pm Byron no matter how many times you or Al Gore say “the debate is over” or “the topic is closed”, it doesn’t make it true. The reduced numbers of the KC-X purchase are explained by the fact that the USAF wants to replace the KC-135 fleet in phases. KC-X would be followed by KC-Y and finally KC-Z which would replace all the remaining KC-135s as well as the KC-10 fleet. The KC-135R model has at least another decade of good service to provide to the USAF. This is not the case with the older KC-135E model however which is aircraft the KC-X is supposed to replace.
	anonymous0913 January 11th, 2010 at 3:44 pm I never comment here, but I will today, William. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects a citizen’s speech from prosecution by the government. It does not protect limbaugh’s, or anyone else’s speech from one another. In other words, the 1st Amandment does not protect anyone from lible. You are misrepresenting the Constitution of The United States. I will accept your apology ‘assumed without comment’ as I believe Skinner and others elecit a rash response from you occasionally.
	anonymous0913 January 11th, 2010 at 3:49 pm Charlie, are you saying that the tankers are “unreliable”. That’s what it sounds like, but I know you are not. Like William C, you are letting Skinner get to you.
	CharlesHouston January 11th, 2010 at 4:51 pm Anon — First, those of us that must protect our identity have to stick together! Not all people who read this site have the luxury of retirement. Sigh. My comment about really old aircraft was meant to refer to flight restrictions and potential groundings for safety reviews. It would be most fun to lay out various points and provide justification for each, this format lends itself only to talking about points in isolation. The recent experience with the F-15 fleet, where they were all grounded to inspect the longerons around the cockpit, is an example of how our older aircraft are at risk for sudden groundings — it affects confidence in their availability. I do feel that even the older KC-135Es are reliable, as long as they are flown within flight restrictions. But as time goes by those restrictions tighten. We do have to guard against reacting to broad statements from our less responsible respondents and have to live within the limits of this site. Still, it does provide a good chance to learn and test our contentions.
	William C. January 12th, 2010 at 2:57 am It seems you have failed to understand my post. The 1st Amendment protections the right of everyone, including Rush Limbaugh, to say what they wish. It does not only protect card-carrying liberals like Byron Skinner here seems to think. Why would I apologize to you Mr. Anonymous when I have made no mistake? It is “assumed without comment” you have already done this. And yes I will admit to occasionally responding rashly to posts from fools like Russ and Skinner who cannot back up their arguments without making personal attacks.
	anonymous0913 January 12th, 2010 at 2:58 pm You would apologize to the Founders of this country and the persons who crafted the ideas found in that Document. No one, not limbaugh, not skinner, is protected from defaming a person. If limbaugh calls a President a liar, he has commited a crime, unless he can prove in a court of law that the President in question is a liar. If you reference limbaugh, you support his supposition that the President is a liar. Understand, Sir? Also, the 1st Amendment does not “protect” anyone, including skinner, on this board. This board is run by an entity that can censor anyone it chooses to, which is why skinner is sensored and why several of us are Annonymous, including yourself, Mr “C”.
	William C. January 13th, 2010 at 4:55 am I think a history lesson is in order Mr A. During our previous President’s eight years in office think back about what he was called. Nazi, child-murderer, you name it, and GWB was called it. Yet I didn’t see any of these left wing loons put before a court and asked to prove Bush was indeed a member of the Nazi party or any “neo-Nazi” organizations related to it. To put it simply the line between what is considered “free-speech” and what is considered libel is awfully blurred in this day and age. In fact the issue isn’t brought up very much outside of lawsuits. Yet considering how unpopular the sedition act was, I doubt any president would go around dealing with all of his critics in such a manner. Indeed 1st Amendment rights don’t apply universally. Yet I wasn’t talking about these boards, I was referring to Mr. Skinner’s opinion that conservatives shouldn’t have the right to share their opinions. Now I have plenty of reasons to doubt this idea that Mr. Skinner here is being censored because he knows too much. It sounds like a petty attempt to glorify his opinions. But I suppose he could be censored based on his past poor behavior.
	murpheysboro January 13th, 2010 at 3:34 pm goddammitttt!

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

Pray For NG Tanker Or Else!

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments