Topic: F-22 Raptor
started by: irisheyes
Posted by irisheyes on Jul. 22 2009,1:36 am
There's been a lot of sparks in Congress recently over the Administrations plan to stop funding of more F-22 raptors. I believe the original plan was to have over 1,000 of them as a replacement to the now retired F-15. As of May of this year, 141 had been built. The fighter is currently in service, but has NOT been used in Iraq or Afghanistan yet. From the looks of it, most, if not ALL seem to be at bases stateside. Many of which at training and testing locations.Cost of the plane is complicated, because like other new defense projects, they have to take the cost of research & developement, tooling, etc. and add it to the overall cost, and then divide by number of planes. Seems simple, but I didn't realize this until talking to Jim about the cost of the B-2 Stealth Bomber.
The basic costs are that each additional plane will cost about $140 million, but if 183 were made, after taking total budget cost into consideration, the cost ends up being $339 million per plane. Whatever number they end up stopping at, with all said and done the cost looks to be over $300 million per plane if we stop production indefinitely.
Here's some further reading if you're interested.
< USA Today - Senate backs Obama, strips funding for F-22 >
< FoxNews - Senate Strips Controversial F-22 Money >
< Wikipedia - F-22 Raptor >
Posted by Wareagle11B on Jul. 22 2009,2:03 am
If these plans are followed through and the current administration opts to stop the production of the F-22 we will be left with aircraft who's age is fast approaching retirement. The maintenance on the F-15's will skyrocket as the wear and tear on the airframe and avionics becomes harder to replace.The F-15 has now been in service for over 20 years in it's various forms and is expected to reach it's maximum viability in 2025. It is fast approaching the time that this aircraft begin to be replaced. The Navy replaced the F-14 with the F/A-18 for this very reason.
The F-16 is even more so in need of being replaced. This aircraft is no longer being purchased by the USAF and it's lifetime of service is expected to end even sooner than the F-15. The F-16's service time ends in 2011. Although the planned replacement for the F-16 is the F-35 this still leaves a gaping hole for a replacement for the F-15.
IMO this is a mistake by the administration to bring this program to a close when we are in need of upgrading our aging aircraft.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jul. 23 2009,1:44 am
Either you put air superiority fighters up, or you don't. Consider the implications of either, and choose which alternative you dislike the least.
Posted by MADDOG on Jul. 31 2009,8:54 pm
(Botto 82 @ Jul. 23 2009,1:44 am)
QUOTE
Either you put air superiority fighters up, or you don't. Consider the implications of either, and choose which alternative you dislike the least.
QUOTE
U.S. declares success in missile defense test
< www.chinaview.cn > 2009-08-01 06:01:34
WASHINGTON, July 31 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. Missile Defense Agency said on Friday that it successfully tested a sea-based missile defense system on Thursday night.
A target missile was fired from Hawaii about 11:40 p.m. eastern time Thursday (0340 GMT Friday) and was tracked by Navy ships hundreds of kilometers away, the agency said in a statement.
An Aegis-class U.S. naval ship then fired an interceptor missile, which struck the target about 160 km above the earth.
The process -- from launch to shoot-down -- took less than five minutes.
The United States plans to use the sea-based system on Aegis-class ships to protect against incoming short-to-medium-range missiles fired from hostile countries.
The test was the 19th successful test in 23 attempts of the Aegis sea-based missile defense system since 2002.
Another part of the missile defense protection -- ground-based midcourse defense -- is designed to strike at long-range missiles.
Over the past seven years, the U.S. military has spent billions of U.S. dollars on the missile defense program, with each test costing about 85 million dollars.
< Xinhua News Agency >
I'd say that's pretty good. Only one out of every five or six ICBM's will get through and it's only cost us $1,955,000,000 to get that good. < www.chinaview.cn > 2009-08-01 06:01:34
WASHINGTON, July 31 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. Missile Defense Agency said on Friday that it successfully tested a sea-based missile defense system on Thursday night.
A target missile was fired from Hawaii about 11:40 p.m. eastern time Thursday (0340 GMT Friday) and was tracked by Navy ships hundreds of kilometers away, the agency said in a statement.
An Aegis-class U.S. naval ship then fired an interceptor missile, which struck the target about 160 km above the earth.
The process -- from launch to shoot-down -- took less than five minutes.
The United States plans to use the sea-based system on Aegis-class ships to protect against incoming short-to-medium-range missiles fired from hostile countries.
The test was the 19th successful test in 23 attempts of the Aegis sea-based missile defense system since 2002.
Another part of the missile defense protection -- ground-based midcourse defense -- is designed to strike at long-range missiles.
Over the past seven years, the U.S. military has spent billions of U.S. dollars on the missile defense program, with each test costing about 85 million dollars.
< Xinhua News Agency >
That much money would only give us seven planes.Don't get me wrong. We still need air superiority.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 03 2009,4:08 pm
Two of the failures came in the first 10 shots when the ROCKET failed. See article on the tests null< My Webpage >The article doesn't go into detail on the other tests--but the tracking system WORKS.
Also recall that as the tests progress, they increase in complexity to test for weak spots. For example--they had OTHER ships in the battle group fire the weapon from the HOST ship--and even had a Japanese ship link in and fire.
This isn't just about ICBMs--it is also fleet defense. When I was out on the carrier Abraham Lincoln last year, I asked about fleet defense--that carrier is a "high value target." The carrier people were not too worried about aircraft and missile defense with the long-range missile, short-range missile, and Phalanx Gatling Gun defense.
For some reason, libbies don't like to have us have the ability to defend ourselves. They throw up the "If only a few missiles get through, there wouldn't be much worth saving" defense. In reality (a place that libbies don't visit often)
the defense is far less than a defense against the Russians or Chinese than it is against rogue nations. The North Koreans already have a missile that can hit Hawaii or Alaska--and perhaps the U.S. West Coast. Iran has demonstrated a missile that can hit Israel, India, or Europe. Putting that missile on a ship would allow it to hit the U.S. Cuba or Venezuela could be host to missiles--and I don't think Obambi would have the guts to enforce a missile blockade. I would prefer that my government spend the money on defense against these nations.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 03 2009,4:29 pm
(Botto 82 @ Jul. 23 2009,1:44 am)
QUOTE
Either you put air superiority fighters up, or you don't. Consider the implications of either, and choose which alternative you dislike the least.
Well said!
Our fighters designs for the F-15, F-16, and F-18 are now 35 years old. The F-14 from the same era is retired. The F-15s are at the end of their life (remmember when one broke up in Missouri a couple of years ago, and they grounded them all?) The F-16 is obsolete. NONE of them are stealthy, and none can match the new Russian fighters in performance. ONly the F-22 can match the Russians.Having ONE airplane for all services has always been the Holy Grail of Donk Administrations. Is anyone old enough to remember when Robert McNamara mandated that the services fly the F-11 A/B? It was such a turkey that the services got rid of it as fast as they could. The only foreign buyer was Australia.
The F-35 is another such aircraft that nobody wants.
The AIR FORCE doesn't want it because its max speed is only 1.6 mach--compared to "2.2+ mach" for the F-22. It climbs only HALF as fast as the F-22, and it doesn't climb as high. Altitude and speed are EVERYTHING in a fighter--and there IS no award for "second-best." It also isn't stealthy.
The NAVY doesn't want it because it only has one engine--and the Navy understandably wants two engines overwater. Emergency landing fields are hard to find at sea.
The MARINES don't want it because it only has one engine--and therefore is vulnerable to fire from the ground during close air support. The last single-engine carrier-based aircraft that I can think of was the venerable old A-4 Skyhawk--the airplane that John McCain was shot down in.
Though one version offers Short TAkeoff/Vertical Landing capability--it doesn't replace the Harrier--a design also 35 years old. What good is vertical landing if you can't get back out again?
This aircraft could be workable in Second-Tier countries--but not for an Air Defense fighter.
It's AMAZING that the same libbies that were "incensed" that HumVees were not armored (a mission they were not designed for) would knowingly put our pilots and the ground troops they support in jeopardy by giving them a sub-standard aircraft.
Either you have air superiority, or you don't. If you HAVE air superiority, you don't worry about being attacked. If you DON'T have air superiority, you are vulnerable. You might take a lession from the Germans, Italians, Japanese, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, the Egyptian Air Force, and Saddam's air force during Gulf WAr I.
TAlk about your lessons from Vietnam--you can't have politicians dictating the weapons we go to war with--especially since most of them now HAVE no military experience!
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 03 2009,5:07 pm
Forgive me if I'm a bit ignorant in air warefare, but isn't the Raptor the US answer to the SU-47? Posted by Mr.L(R-MN) on Aug. 03 2009,9:56 pm
(Wareagle11B @ Jul. 22 2009,2:03 am)
QUOTE
If these plans are followed through and the current administration opts to stop the production of the F-22 we will be left with aircraft who's age is fast approaching retirement. The maintenance on the F-15's will skyrocket as the wear and tear on the airframe and avionics becomes harder to replace.
The F-15 has now been in service for over 20 years in it's various forms and is expected to reach it's maximum viability in 2025. It is fast approaching the time that this aircraft begin to be replaced. The Navy replaced the F-14 with the F/A-18 for this very reason.
The F-16 is even more so in need of being replaced. This aircraft is no longer being purchased by the USAF and it's lifetime of service is expected to end even sooner than the F-15. The F-16's service time ends in 2011. Although the planned replacement for the F-16 is the F-35 this still leaves a gaping hole for a replacement for the F-15.
IMO this is a mistake by the administration to bring this program to a close when we are in need of upgrading our aging aircraft.
The F-15 has now been in service for over 20 years in it's various forms and is expected to reach it's maximum viability in 2025. It is fast approaching the time that this aircraft begin to be replaced. The Navy replaced the F-14 with the F/A-18 for this very reason.
The F-16 is even more so in need of being replaced. This aircraft is no longer being purchased by the USAF and it's lifetime of service is expected to end even sooner than the F-15. The F-16's service time ends in 2011. Although the planned replacement for the F-16 is the F-35 this still leaves a gaping hole for a replacement for the F-15.
IMO this is a mistake by the administration to bring this program to a close when we are in need of upgrading our aging aircraft.
But Wareagle,
Why need such advance (and flat out cool) F-22 Raptors when the Obamasiah will bring our foriegn leaders to the negotiation table, there we can talk it all out
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 03 2009,11:32 pm
(jimhanson @ Aug. 03 2009,4:29 pm)
QUOTE
(Botto 82 @ Jul. 23 2009,1:44 am)
QUOTE
Either you put air superiority fighters up, or you don't. Consider the implications of either, and choose which alternative you dislike the least.
Well said!
Our fighters designs for the F-15, F-16, and F-18 are now 35 years old. The F-14 from the same era is retired. The F-15s are at the end of their life (remmember when one broke up in Missouri a couple of years ago, and they grounded them all?) The F-16 is obsolete. NONE of them are stealthy, and none can match the new Russian fighters in performance. ONly the F-22 can match the Russians.Thanks, Jim. I was just thinking of the early encounters with the Japanese A6M2. The primary fighter to engage the Zero in early days was the Navy's F4F's, which were outclassed in almost every category save armor. Eventually we did learn of the Zero's weaknesses, with the serendipitous find of an intact downed Zero in the Aleutians. We eventually built fighters that were superior in every way, but it still seems like we got caught with our pants down early on.
Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 04 2009,9:07 am
We're at a point in time when the unmanned aircraft will rapidly replace the weakest link in any aircraft the hypoxic carbon based pilot...Does this capability to produce unmanned fighter exist today?? One has to wonder after we hear statements like the following from the military
*The Air Force leadership itself no longer supports continued production of the F-22. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz have publicly said they would prefer to move on. The plane is not in the Defense Department's proposed budget for fiscal 2010 (which begins in October). It's not even on the Air Force's list of unfunded requests, which consists of items excluded from the budget for which it would nevertheless like funding - a wish list of sorts.
*Moreover, as has been noted by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the era of producing manned aircraft is coming to an end. Mullen correctly points out that there will be a shift toward unmanned aircraft.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 04 2009,2:13 pm
Botto--good analogy with the Zero. At the beginning of the Pacific war, the Boeing P-26 "Peashooter" was still in Army inventory--an open cockpit, wire-braced wing, fixed gear little plane with a single 30 cal machine gun. The Brewster Buffalo was also at Pearl Harbor--none of them survived. Our front-line fighter for two years was the Grumman Wildcat--a derivitive of a biplane--so old that the gear was retracted manually. Our pilots were told "Don't fight with a Zero--if you have surprise and altitude advantage, hit 'em on the way down and keep on going!"In Europe, the Germans had the ME-109--battle-proven in Spain.
Fortuneatly--American industry had modern aircraft on the drawing board--The B-17 and B-25 were in intitial production, the B-24 WOULD be, the prototypes of the P-40 and P-38 had flown but were not in production. The P-39 was flying, but the Army loaded it down with so much extra weight that it was useless as a fighter--almost all of them ended up being ferried to Russia (via Minneapolis, Canada, and Siberia).
If you don't have air superiority, your ground attack aircraft, your Navy, and your troops are vulnerable. Can you imagine what it would have been like at Normandy or the Pacific Island invasions if our troops and Navy were exposed to enemy attacks? Even though Hitler was our best weapon against GErmany by imposing his will upon the military--he knew better than to invade England without air superiority. As Winston Churchill said--"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." How few? There were only about 1000 fighter pilots available at the start. There was, of course, attrition. "The Few" numbered somewhere between 600-700.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 04 2009,2:39 pm
Maddog QUOTE
Forgive me if I'm a bit ignorant in air warefare, but isn't the Raptor the US answer to the SU-47?
Yes, the Sukhoi is nearly the equal of the F-22--and is superior to every other fighter.The Mig 31 may be the equal of the F-22, but it isn't stealthy--the Mig wouldn't even know what hit them in a match.
The Mig 31, 29, 27, and in some cases, even the Vietnam-era Mig-21 are competitive with our F-15, 16, and 18s. The F-35 (and our old fighters) is no match for ANY of them--it isn't as fast, can't climb as fast, and isn't stealthy. It MIGHT have an advantage with vectored thrust--but the Sukhoi and the F-22 have that, too--and it would be dead meat for those aircraft.
As for unmanned fighters--they have been proposed since the early 60s--does anybody know of ANY country that has successfully fielded one? Neither I.
This is the same kind of "peering into the future" that predicted the end of manned bombers during the same period. Lesson learned--don't leave national security and life-and-death decisions to politicians with no experience with the military.Expect the first liberal whine when one of our fighters is shot down by a superior aircraft--"Why don't our troops have adequate weapons?"
Look inward, young liberals.
Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 05 2009,5:35 pm
(jimhanson @ Aug. 03 2009,4:29 pm)
QUOTE
It's AMAZING that the same libbies that were "incensed" that HumVees were not armored (a mission they were not designed for) would knowingly put our pilots and the ground troops they support in jeopardy by giving them a sub-standard aircraft.
TAlk about your lessons from Vietnam--you can't have politicians dictating the weapons we go to war with--especially since most of them now HAVE no military experience!
TAlk about your lessons from Vietnam--you can't have politicians dictating the weapons we go to war with--especially since most of them now HAVE no military experience!
Foxnews-
QUOTE
McCain disputed such arguments. Focusing on timely delivery of the Joint Strike Fighter, also built by Lockheed Martin, is in the best interest of the country and will be a weapon system that can meet future threats, he said.
-In a separate letter to Senate leaders Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Joint Strike Fighter is "more capable in a number of areas such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air defenses."
< FoxNews - McCain Moves to Block Funding for F-22 >
-In a separate letter to Senate leaders Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Joint Strike Fighter is "more capable in a number of areas such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air defenses."
< FoxNews - McCain Moves to Block Funding for F-22 >
Can you tell me, is McCain a libbie with no military experience also? Or could you be turning what's pretty much a non-polarizing issue into one... I mean, you've got John Kerry supporting it, McCain and the most of those heading the military AGAINST it, and still you blame libbies with no military experience for it's failure. You just can't make this stuff up!
Even McCain admits that the biggest reason used for the F-22 was to support the defense INDUSTRY.
QUOTE
McCain said the rationale for keeping a weapon system should never be about job creation, but about defending the nation.
Conservatives normally call that sort of thing "pump priming." Funny how so many are okay with it as long as it's a defense industry the money is going to.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 05 2009,5:52 pm
QUOTE
Can you tell me, is McCain a libbie with no military experience also? Or could you be turning what's pretty much a non-polarizing issue into one...
Yes, McCain is a libbie, a RINO. He was the darling of the liberal press--UNTIL he ran for President. QUOTE
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Joint Strike Fighter is "more capable in a number of areas such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air defenses."
That's TRUE--as far as it went. I didn't see anything in your quote as saying it was an air superiority fighter--did you? It is ALSO true that it is may be BETTER than the F-22 for "electronic warfare and combating enemy air defenses"--not part of the F-22 job description as an air superiority fighter, is it? On the other hand, the JSF, as a "hybrid" is not as good as a dedicated aircraft designed for the job, is it?
The JSF will never be as good as an AWACS or even the decades-0ld E-6 electronic warfare aircraft. It will never be as good at taking out armor or anti-aircraft defenses as the decades-old A-10. Regarding the JSF--the old saying that "A Camel is a Horse designed by Committee" comes to mind! QUOTE
I mean, what other issue could you have John Kerry supporting it
John Kerry supportiing it? You mean the hero of Cambodia? Kerry knows WHAT about aircraft? Not even the DONKS bring HIM up when talking about the military! QUOTE
Even McCain admits that the biggest reason used for the F-22 was to support the defense INDUSTRY.
McCain said the rationale for keeping a weapon system should never be about job creation, but about defending the nation.
Read your quote again. He seems to be making the point that is should NOT be about job creation. McCain said the rationale for keeping a weapon system should never be about job creation, but about defending the nation.
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 05 2009,6:08 pm
More on John Kerry's "support" for the F-22. From the Boston Globe QUOTE
And Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) also voted against the F-22 expansion, after earlier expressing support.
Yep, old "Lurch" is a steadfast supporter--until something ELSE gets his attention! Not only is a FLIP-FLOPPER, but he is REALLY a "SENSITIVE" guy!
Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 06 2009,1:29 am
(jimhanson @ Aug. 05 2009,5:52 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Even McCain admits that the biggest reason used for the F-22 was to support the defense INDUSTRY.
McCain said the rationale for keeping a weapon system should never be about job creation, but about defending the nation.
Read your quote again. He seems to be making the point that is should NOT be about job creation. McCain said the rationale for keeping a weapon system should never be about job creation, but about defending the nation.
I don't need to read the quote again, my point was that stimulating the economy was the main reason many in Congress saw for making more F-22's, because so many from the Pentagon said we don't need anymore.
QUOTE
QUOTE
I mean, what other issue could you have John Kerry supporting it
John Kerry supportiing it? You mean the hero of Cambodia? Kerry knows WHAT about aircraft? Not even the DONKS bring HIM up when talking about the military!My point was that it's odd that the "maverick" of the Senate that you conservatives loved last election doesn't want it, either does the Pentagon, but John Kerry does. I was pointing out of the irony of it.
QUOTE
That's TRUE--as far as it went. I didn't see anything in your quote as saying it was an air superiority fighter--did you?
It is ALSO true that it is may be BETTER than the F-22 for "electronic warfare and combating enemy air defenses"--not part of the F-22 job description as an air superiority fighter, is it? On the other hand, the JSF, as a "hybrid" is not as good as a dedicated aircraft designed for the job, is it? The JSF will never be as good as an AWACS or even the decades-0ld E-6 electronic warfare aircraft. It will never be as good at taking out armor or anti-aircraft defenses as the decades-old A-10. Regarding the JSF--the old saying that "A Camel is a Horse designed by Committee" comes to mind!
It is ALSO true that it is may be BETTER than the F-22 for "electronic warfare and combating enemy air defenses"--not part of the F-22 job description as an air superiority fighter, is it? On the other hand, the JSF, as a "hybrid" is not as good as a dedicated aircraft designed for the job, is it?
The JSF will never be as good as an AWACS or even the decades-0ld E-6 electronic warfare aircraft. It will never be as good at taking out armor or anti-aircraft defenses as the decades-old A-10. Regarding the JSF--the old saying that "A Camel is a Horse designed by Committee" comes to mind!Speech by John McCain-
QUOTE
In December 2004, DOD determined that 183 F-22s was sufficient to meet its military requirements. The Department conducted several analyses which affirmed that number based on a number of variables, including the length and type of wars that DOD believes it will have to fight in the future and future capabilities of likely adversaries.
The President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force, have stated that 187 F-22s are sufficient to meet operational requirements, particularly when combined with other U.S. military assets (including cyber-warfare, strike fighter aircraft, long-range stand-off precision weapons) to counter enemy aircraft and surface-to-air missile systems in the future from potential adversaries.
< McCain's Senate website >
The President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force, have stated that 187 F-22s are sufficient to meet operational requirements, particularly when combined with other U.S. military assets (including cyber-warfare, strike fighter aircraft, long-range stand-off precision weapons) to counter enemy aircraft and surface-to-air missile systems in the future from potential adversaries.
< McCain's Senate website >
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 06 2009,12:29 pm
QUOTE
My point was that it's odd that the "maverick" of the Senate that you conservatives loved last election doesn't want it, either does the Pentagon, but John Kerry does. I was pointing out of the irony of it.
No irony--your assumption was just wrong! Conservatives didn't "love" McCain--they hated him for being a RINO--for the ill-considered McCain-Feingold act--for being a "crossover." Go back and look at the newspapers--the reason that Palin was selected as VP candidate was to bring conservatives back on board!
John "Foragainst" Kerry--like his famous Iraq vote, he was FOR the F-22, before he was AGAINST it.
He wrote a letter in support of it, expressing the feelings of the Mass. Air National Guard--who were dismayed that their F-15s were at the end of their useful life. He then voted AGAINST it, when he was assured that parts for the F-35 would be manufactured within the state. Kerry is a "person of negotiable virtue"--a Whore--someone who sells his affection for money--someone that can be bought. "I REALLY want the F-22 for National Air Defense, because our F-15s are so old--but I'll forget it if you manufacture parts for an aircraft that doesn't have the air superiority characteristics of even the old F-15s in my state."
And you think McCAin sold out defense for money in his state?
Kerry is FAMOUS for being "nuanced" (his words) and TWO FACED.
Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 06 2009,2:13 pm
(jimhanson @ Aug. 06 2009,12:29 pm)
QUOTE
Conservatives didn't "love" McCain--they hated him for being a RINO--for the ill-considered McCain-Feingold act--for being a "crossover." Go back and look at the newspapers--the reason that Palin was selected as VP candidate was to bring conservatives back on board!
Geez, the republicans nominated a candidate that you claim they hated, no wonder the party is in trouble. And the best way to draw back more conservatives, was to go all the way to Alaska to find the dumbest politician in the country to be VP.
QUOTE
And you think McCAin sold out defense for money in his state?
I never claimed McCain sold out. Well, at least on THIS issue!
You spend a lot of time responding about Kerry, but not much time disputing all the Pentagon officials that DON'T WANT the F-22 either. If it's such a great idea to have more, why is it they're not screaming from the rooftops now in favor of it?
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 06 2009,2:32 pm
QUOTE
Geez, the republicans nominated a candidate that you claim they hated, no wonder the party is in trouble.
That's the essence of your problem, you have conflated Republicans with Conservatives. McCain is no conservative. I asked you to go back and check the newspapers--but you didn't do your homework. It is the LIBERALS--including the New York Slimes--that liked to use the term "maverick" on him--because he opposed the conservative majority of the party. He was the darling of the left-wing media--UNTIL he was nominated--then they found him too conservative. QUOTE
You spend a lot of time responding about Kerry,
Haven't talked about him for quite a while, until YOU brought him up as an example of support for the F-22. QUOTE
disputing all the Pentagon officials that DON'T WANT the F-22 either.
It would help if you had any military experience. People in the military follow orders, whether they like them or not. You don't get far in the military by bucking the system--it's usually a "career-ending move." If the Commander-in-Chief wants something--or Congress, who controls the purse strings--you don't fight them.Maybe it would help to put things in terms you can relate to--on a local level, there were MANY local business executives that expressed support for the Referendum, or for the local option sales tax--it would be suicide NOT TO. That public expression didn't carry over into the same margins in the privacy of the voting booth, though.
Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 06 2009,3:48 pm
(jimhanson @ Aug. 06 2009,2:32 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Geez, the republicans nominated a candidate that you claim they hated, no wonder the party is in trouble.
That's the essence of your problem, you have conflated Republicans with Conservatives.You didn't disprove anything I said in that quote. The republicans DID nominate a candidate that YOU claim they hated. And then you claim it's ME who has the problem!
QUOTE
I asked you to go back and check the newspapers--but you didn't do your homework. It is the LIBERALS--including the New York Slimes--that liked to use the term "maverick" on him--because he opposed the conservative majority of the party.
I don't need to check the newspapers, cause that's not where I go the "maverick" term from. I was mocking Palin's repeated use of it during the campaign.
QUOTE
QUOTE
disputing all the Pentagon officials that DON'T WANT the F-22 either.
It would help if you had any military experience.I understand you rely a lot on military experience, UNLESS the person disagree with you.
I bring up John McCain. Both a war vet, and a former Navy pilot. But you keep brushing that off since "he's a libbie."
Posted by jimhanson on Aug. 06 2009,4:52 pm
You can't seem to find articles on how much conservatives dislike McCain? How many hundred articles would you LIKE? 
null< My Webpage >Here's one from the New York Slimes My Webpage
http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_....er.html
Or, you COULD just Google CONSERVATIVES DISLIKE McCAIN.
CODE
I don't need to check the newspapers, cause that's not where I go the "maverick" term from. I was mocking Palin's repeated use of it during the campaign.
Where do you suppose SHE got the termfrom? Libbies LOVED McCain--as long as he opposed the conservatives.
You don't seem to comprehend the fact that it was the libbie Mainstream media that liked to use the term "maverick"--not conservatives. Though there are any number of places to pick from, I chose the libbie The Nation so you libbies couldn't blame it on Rush
--June 18, 2008 QUOTE
McCain's legendary diversionary walks from the path of the Republican straight-and-narrow so impressed his friends in the media that they appeared to have passed a secret law among themselves never to refer to the senior Arizona senator without also using the word "maverick." As David Brock and Paul Waldman demonstrate in their book Free Ride, the words "maverick" and "McCain" appeared within ten words of each other 2,114 times in 2000, a practice that has continued to the present at roughly the same rate.
QUOTE
I bring up John McCain. Both a war vet, and a former Navy pilot. But you keep brushing that off since "he's a libbie."
That's TRUE--he IS former military, and a libbie--and libbies tend to downplay the military. McCain and Kerry--both libbies--are a lot alike in that respect--both were Navy--and except for Kerry's self-aggrandizing lies about his service--pretty much the same--except for the Swiftboat stories.