House panel presses Gates to buy existing fighter jets, not F-35s

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Herald12345 A study in incompetence. 6/18/2009 2:44:26 PM

Three incompetents arguing about an existing shortfall of platforms and mismanaged airpower, all in the name of "jobs"..

That's what you just said, darth, though you did not understand it.

Herald

Grow up Herald, I'm not interested in your foolishness.

-DA

I don't take your advice. By the way your reference to BLACK programs is an appeal to to your hidden knowledge of which you have none..

That is a logical fallacy. I have no idea when you are going to learn this, but on this point:

Learn....

Specific....

How long is it going to take for YOU to grow up?

Herald

Quote Reply

EvilFishy 6/18/2009 2:48:08 PM

Cont... Hey JFKY, some me the AIR FORCE clause that allows the United States Military to operate flying machines. Show me the word AIRFORCE or AIR PLANE or JET PLANE in the US Constitution.

That-s right Mr. Mook, while the words never appear, the language and intent of the Document is such that an Air force is not only possible, it is Constitutionally LEGAL.

The same applies with the President-s ability to fire Executive officials. The fact that you would even use as silly an argument as --the word FIRE does not appear so it cannot be done-- demonstrates a level of ignorance I would not expect of a child.

Quote: ---Cabinet members can be fired by the President, or impeached by the Congress. Customarily, a few Cabinet members may resign before the beginning of a second Presidential term. Usually all Cabinet members resign shortly after the inauguration of a new President. Rarely, a popular or especially dedicated Cabinet member may be asked to stay, sometimes even serving under a new President of another party.---

h--p://www.indopedia.org/United_States_Cabinet.html

Quote Reply

FJV 6/18/2009 2:54:38 PM

You guys need to decide if an engineer that has experience on designing five different fighters is better at designing fighters than an engineer that has just designe his/her first fighter.

I have already formed my opinon on this in that in my opinion for optimal results engineers need training and real life experience, just like fighter pilots do. That training comes in the form of developing and building new fighter planes.

Quote Reply

mustang22 6/18/2009 2:54:42 PM

I said this once before I know it will stir controversy but Gates should be fired for mishandling our National Security.

And who's going to FIRE Gates? The guy who HIRED him? The guy who's policies he's executing? Where in the US Constitution is this "firing clause?"

The studies were done, shortfalls confirmed and still he choose to not only ignore it but place a gag order on everyone. This is inexcusable for a Secretary of Defense and comes down to one thing, POLITICS. I know its coming Darth, so I'm prepared.

Politics, you say? In D.C.? Noooooooooo, UNPOSSIBLE....politics.....Well now that IS shocking!

Really please, grow up. A Political Appointee practicing politics....I understand your unhappiness, but this is childish.

And the Politicians protesting, there wouldn't be any politics, THERE, would there? I mean aircraft manufacturers or Air National Guard units, which, of course, translates into jobs for their constituents? No, of course not....

Two Congresscritters are arguing with Gates about money that, most likely, will affect them....Gates, in turn, is arguing from his political master's position concerning Defense Spending and the Budget, in short politics, too.

This is not some morality play, but a set of politicians arguing over the swag.

JFKY,

Do you remember a guy named Rumsfeld. His resignation was basically called for by the people of this country. Do not think that Gates is some sacred cow. I would say that protecting the countries national interest by making decisions based on reality and factual information instead of one man's political agenda would apply in this situation. But then again you seem to approve of your own agenda, because I have seen you disagree with everyone on every topic you have chimed in on. I commend Darth, at least when we disagree he is cordial enough to back it up with a reasonable explanation. Exactly what is your position on the state of our tactical requirements, I'm curious to hear this.

Quote Reply

JFKY Evil Fishy... 6/18/2009 2:55:33 PM

Why thank you, I never knew that SecDef cold be replaced by the POTUS...man I AM EVER so glad you brought that little point to my attention...

MY POINT, was that Gates isn't going to be "fired" because he's doing what his boss wants...and to want Gates "fired" is silly, for that very reason.

Gates works FOR Obama, no one else...now this is where you start throwing out articles of the Constitution...all of which deal with the POTUS and try to make it seem as if Gates works for the People or some such rot.

Gates works for Obama...Orszag at OMB is not too keen on Defense spending, neither is Obama, so Gates is doing what his master wants....and as Obama got over 270 Electoral votes it's all good (please don't try the old that's not the only way you get to be POTUS, as the only time any alternative was used was over 200 years ago-thank you).

To recap: no one fires Gates because he's doing his job, and his job is determined by the POTUS and his/her 270 Electorals. It doesn't hurt that Obama's party has control of Congress, so there is even less of a threat to fire someone...though obviously Congress may disagree at, the margins, with defense spending.

Quote Reply

JFKY Mustang 6/18/2009 3:06:15 PM

Do you remember a guy named Rumsfeld. His resignation was basically called for by the people of this country.

I remember when it was called for by the Democrats in CONGRESS, funny I don't remember the "People" saying much about it at all.

Do not think that Gates is some sacred cow. I would say that protecting the countries national interest by making decisions based on reality and factual information instead of one man's political agenda would apply in this situation.

As Rumsfeld or Gates work for the POTUS, the person they must please is the POTUS....if the POTUS wants 240 F-22's, or if the POTUS wants the B-1A canceled that's what the SecDef does. The SecDef's discretion is where the OMB and WHite House want a X% cut in Defense Spending aren't specific on which programs get the axe. And as far as politics, and the Constitution is concerned THAT is reality and factual enough. Sorry if that bothers you, but the Policy of the POTUS IS the policy of SecDef whether or no you agree or not. As Obama said, "I won." When your candidate wins policy can change....it's what and why we have elections for.

But then again you seem to approve of your own agenda, because I have seen you disagree with everyone on every topic you have chimed in on. I commend Darth, at least when we disagree he is cordial enough to back it up with a reasonable explanation. Exactly what is your position on the state of our tactical requirements, I'm curious to hear this.

I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO HAVE AN OPINION....I know enough of about Politics, the US Constitution, and such to have an opinion. And my opinion is to call for a Cabinet level firing is childish, DC politics doesn't work that way.

Quote Reply

EvilFishy 6/18/2009 3:11:19 PM

Once more; next we use flash cards and bright colors:

1) The President CAN fire Cabinet Secretaries, under secretaries, and if he really, really, wants to, any executive official he wants. The lower down the food chain he goes, the more creative he has to be.

2) If the PEOPLE want the President to remove a Cabinet secretary, they CAN via one of at least three legal ways:

-Lobby the Congress to impeach the official

-Lobby the President to remove the official

-VOTE OUT THE PRESIDENT and vote in a man who will remove that official.

Donald Rumsfeld is the most obvious official who was removed due to public outcry but some secretaries have been removed due to the public outcry they would produce by their actions: Edmund Randolph is one such example.

3) A Government official may be allowed to resign when faced with termination. This is a courtesy but it is still a firing. In fact, the Federal Government actually puts a notation in the jacket of the Government employee stating the resignation was on the heels of a firing which prevents said federal employee from employment in another government agency.

4) Most importantly: the US Government, the ENTIRE US GOVERNMENT serves at the discretion of the US PEOPLE. There IS NOT A SINGLE GOVERNMENT STOOGE, ANYWHERE, who cannot be removed from office by the people of the United States of American one way or another. Period. End of story. Fin.

I am glad you are glad that I provided the education you should have received in grade school JFKY; the invoice for services rendered is in the mail boyo.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica Herald reply 6/18/2009 3:22:38 PM

I don't take your advice.

Herald

Great, then we have nothing left to talk about. That's both your choice and our mutual loss. Now, since we will not reach any sort of agreement with each other, may we move on as normal forum members do when they have a difference of opinion or do you intend to keep flaming threads until the mods ban you? Continuing this is just plain childish.

What do you not understand about it is my intention not to directly discuss these topics with you because it derails threads and my ONLY request of you is to not respond directly to me personally? I have no quarrel with your opinion on an issue but what I have to learn, how ignorant I am, or any of that other PERSONAL BULLSHIT you keep inserting needs to STOP.

-DA

Quote Reply

JFKY 6/18/2009 3:26:33 PM

Once more; next we use flash cards and bright colors:

Funny I don't recall saying otherwise....As to THIS point, as Gates is carrying out his masters desires, calling for his firing is calling for the removal of Obama. Since that isn't going to happen...it's pointless to call for his firing.

2) If the PEOPLE want the President to remove a Cabinet secretary, they CAN via one of at least three legal ways:

-Lobby the Congress to impeach the official

Yeah that happens all the time, the roads are choked with officials that the People have called upon the POTUS to fire.

-Lobby the President to remove the official

Yeah, they can....and every now and then the POTUS listens....of course it's not "the People" it's the RIGHT people, Congress, constituent groups....because the POTUS is concerned with 50% votes in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and securing 270 Electoral votes. If your group doesn't advance or impede that desire, then your desire for any official's head is fairly small.

-VOTE OUT THE PRESIDENT and vote in a man who will remove that official.

Which is the USUAL approach. Again thank you for pointing out the OBVIOUS.

Quote Reply

EvilFishy 6/18/2009 3:42:59 PM

Let us sum um your arguments thus far:

You say the RIGHT PEOPLE can remove a Cabinet Secretary but, at the same time, the PEOPLE cannot remove a Cabinet Secretary (the RIGHT people are American citizens are they not?) despite the fact that there are MANY mechanisms, LEGAL mechanisms in place for the people to do so.

You imply that the fact that impeachment proceedings of Executive officials does not happen often that it some how does not count despite the fact that it does and is a measure of recourse that CAN BE USED legally.

You say or imply that something is not in the Constitution or Constitutional if the exact words are not in the Constitution itself (a document made legendary by its brevity).

The people of the United States of America can remove a Cabinet Secretary if they really, really, want to do so. Your contention they could not is FALSE for the reasons I have already outlined.

The best argument you can bring to bear is that it does not happen all that often. This of course does not mean anything other than President-s are generally smart enough not to put a complete moron in a position where he will piss off so many Americans (although it still happens) forcing the President to do something.

The only excuse I can see for such blatant silliness and dissonance is pride. Of course that is being generous. Pride is a terrible thing JFKY; I suggest you dump some and embrace logic.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT