Fox let Gaffney advance hate crimes falsehood: "This has to do with, ultimately, our freedom of speech in this country"
July 20, 2009 10:59 am ET
From the July 17 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Anyone...anyone...
*crickets*
As I understand it, budget for this plane was cut by a bipartisan agreement on the defense budget, including approval by John McCain and the White House. Suddenly, Democrats ask that the amendment gets dropped in order to attatch the hate crimes legislation. In other words, the plane would receive its increased budget, which the White House would most likely veto, while passing Hate Crimes Legislation, that the White House would sign off on... all wrapped up nicely in the same bill.
My take on this may be completely off, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
At any rate... it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" politics making pawns of the security of our nation and the safety of those who suffer violent descriminations.
And back on topic: Hate crime legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. These people are either lying, stupid or insane.
Ten years is also a short time in government procurement circles. Take the F15 or F16. Both started test flights in the '60's and didn't enter service till '74 and '78 respectively. The Army is even slower with it's Helo's. AH-64's and UH-60's ran over twelve years.
Just so we're talking about the same thing the F22 only became operational four years ago. Not sure if you're including procurement time in your ten years.
Should we be working on next gen aircraft? Absolutely. I'm sure we already are. (Stealth tech, unmaned drones, long range, etc...) But how many more of these F-22's do we actually need? And if we needed, say, 50 more of them tomorrow, do you really think it would take 10 years to procure them? I have a feeling that if war broke out with Russia or China, we'd be able to cut through the Red Tape and get them procured in basically the same time it takes to assemble them, paralell pathed. (And if we can't then we deserve to be bombed - just make sure to hit the capital building first, preferrably with the armed services comittee in session!) After all - Roosevelt didn't start stockpiling arms for WWII back in 1931! And our involvment in that war lasted less than four years - we're still fighting in Iraq after SIX!" (And we were in 'Nam in varying degrees for ~16!)
So to keep buying (and stockpiling) more and more of something you can't use to win the two wars you're already fighting, just to "deter" two countries who, for reasons both economic and nuclear, we'll never actually be at war with, just doesn't make any sense to me. Smells like pork, I guess.
That's just my opinion. You make goods points, so none of my usual venom here. It's just how I see it. It just seems to me that there's enough excess factory capacity around here these days to really worry about not being able to assemble much needed war planes in a pinch, if we suddenly found ourselves in a Russo-Chinese war.
You hit the nail on the head. There is a reason for your thought process though. It is because we keep pushing the envelope on 5th Gen planes and HSV's for the Navy that we are safer and it is the deterrent through superior firepower and technology that makes it that way.
You are also correct that if the balloon goes up we could churn out F22's but that is because the procurement process is over and production could be increased like in your example of WWII. The P51 was drawing board to flight test in less than six months. I don't think we'll ever see that speed again!
How many do we need? There is the rub. This is where the Obama WH goes toe to toe with the DOD and AF and AF lobbyists and you get the picture. That decision is above our pay grade and we'll be left to debate it here no matter which way they go.
But as you said - the F-22 is already designed, tested, developed and ready to go. So, as we don't need any NOW, why not just PAY the contracor for that work, use what we have now and order more if there is an iminent threat? The developement is done, so the plane could be produced in relative short order.
OK - to be realistic - maybe order like 5 a year, (or some really small number) just to keep the parts in the pipeline, and the program active. I just don't see ANY justifictaion for large scale orders right NOW to PRODUCE a plane we can't use NOW.
The other direction would be like the B52's. Upgrade avionics and ASE equipment and drag the fleet out over 50 years. Same thing with the Army's CH-47 fleet. Some are 40+ years old with nothing on the horizon to replace them.
I think the orders of F22's will be more in line with your example. Even though they may not be needed now history has shown us that they will be needed at some point. Let's hope they're not 40+ years old with outdated equipment like fighters were at the start of WWII.
F22 funding stripped
Can't complain, it didn't go down on party lines, more along the lines of where job losses will hit. Dodd voted for it; McCain against.
Sen. Chris Dodd claims 40,000 to 90,000 jobs lost due to the killing of the project. I for once will agree with him. Are we in any shape to kill that many jobs in this economy?
Also, I love that host guy couldn't bring himself to say "because they're gay" at the beginning before crazy guest guy says that The Homos shouldn't be protected because "Islamists" might misuse the law. Not to mention the fact that Muslims ("Islamists")and Christians (the Religious Right) are already protected by existing hate crime law and nothing that crazy guest guy is talking about has happened.
There was a thread here the other day, where Pat Buchanan's comments were described by a poster as "silly" and "inane", prompting a conservative poster to start whining about an imagined assault on free speech.
The first poster made no mention of censoring Buchanan, or having him banned from TV, only a criticism of his remarks. The wingnuts really seem to be confused about the difference between free speech and uncontested free speech.
I guess they know that , without hate, silliness and inanity, they don't have much to say, and the idea of being held accountable for their words makes them really crabby.
If these nitwits would bother to read the bill, it clearly states in its last section:
"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution."
The law specifically deals with acts of violence, not speech.
"Your state is the more gracious;
It is a vice to know him."
Hamlet, Act V
Yes he would. These are not crimes, and allhate crime legislation does is increase the sentence for, and elevate to the federal level, EXSISTING crimes. It does not create new ones. No one is going to be arrested for speech.
I've only seen a handful of your comments at this site, and there seems to be a running theme; You're completely unable to understand the topic, and want other people to explain things to you. You might find it more rewarding to do some work yourself.
Or not. You're not alone, there are conservatives who have been posting comments here for years who are on the same program as you, showing up on a regular basis to loudly demonstrate that they don't understand, and they're too lazy to try to understand.
I'm rooting for you. Good luck!