Crap Throwing Monkey

Because gas consumption by the military is so high in part because they were required to up-armor vehicles that were designed not to be armored to begin with, and the added weight increases fuel consumption. You can't have it both ways; you can B word about fuel efficiency or protection, but you can't have both.

Which is a far better example, really. Comparing US debt to physical infrastructure is very stupid, though, of a kind that I'd thoroughly expect from the media, not the least of which is for the simple consideration of who else is going to buy US government debt? The US government? But that's different, they're not run by sand !@#$s...

Questions like: how stupid do you have to be to take Alex Jones seriously?

That would mean a lot more to me if I knew something about Casey. Unfortunately, Santorum's idiocy does not preclude Casey being a moron as well.

That's a little different, in that it's publicly traded. Anyone can buy it. Even you. Not anyone can just go out and buy a port maintenance contract, though.

Here?

Looks like he'd assumed you'd pay as much attention to his note as he did to yours. Kind of makes one want to call for open, armed revolution, doesn't it?

Like how to cook a bastardized omlette in less than an hour. Go away, moron.

Must...resist...obvious...cat-related...joke...

IT'S STILL REAL TO ME, DAMMIT!

Does that make him more or less dangerous than Dubai Ports World?

Chavez is an arch enemy? Why? Because he's a noisy socialist?

I think it's fair to call them the core of the Berkley Democratic party...but Berkley's a special place. Still, just as you assume Pat Robertson and Phelps "represent" the republicans, people are going to assume these nut-cases represent the democrats. Like it or not, the perception is that that's who you are. Anyone who even jokingly refers to bringing back the Sedition act as a good idea is preternaturally stupid anyway. But anyone who advocates bringing it back to apply it to a guy who walks around naked with an inflated scrotum probably...words fail me in describing the comical nature of that idiocy.

Arch enemies like...Jesse Jackson? I understand the use of hyperbole in making a point...but come on now...

I coached the Bengals in the 1993 season. But I don't think that counts.

But you've paid me compliments as well. So odds are you're a little delusional.

You're correct.

Waiting? Did you miss that congressional success in the war on terror where they kept the towel-heads out of our ports?

You've got to love that title, though. Nothing fancy, nothing cute, nothing subtle. Just "Snakes on a Plane"...as in "This movie is about snakes on a plane. That's it. You want Oscar-worthy material, it's not here. Just snakes on a plane." A rare glint of honesty in a bull sh---riddled world.

I thought the third one was okay. But maybe that's just in comparison to the abject pain and suffering "Matrix: Reloaded" caused me.

Originally, they were supposed to get 30. Given the unit cost (the "low cost alternative" to the $2.2B/copy Seawolf is coming in at $3.3B each ), there's serious talk of capping the procurement at four. But that's different. That's part of the FCS program...if the Army doesn't get their four-engined Osprey variant for carting their 20-ton "tank" around. DoD procurement is so broken it's not even funny anymore. I certainly wouldn't advocate giving DoD carte blanc, but one has to wonder if Congresscritters worried about their states and districts are going to do well by DoD procurement as well.

It's complicated. From what I understand, the Navy wants to expand to 300+ ships (325, I think) over the next two decades, but do so in a logically planned manner. As such, 2007-10 are sort of "transition years", where old ship designs are to be phased out of construction and new ones (LCS, DD(X), CVNX) introduced...which means that 07-10 are likely to be very lean years for shipyards under the Navy's plan. Thus, the Navy only requested four (or five, depending on the source - the first LCS was intended to be financed under R&D, not procurement, so sometimes it's included, sometimes not) ships for '06. Naturally, Congress hates that. The Senate added funding in the '06 budget to start construction on three more ships in '07. The House doubled the Navy '06 procurement from four ships to eight (including an extra T-AKE and SSN, I think, and accellerating the build of the new LHA®), to keep shipyards working (just like they bought precisely one F-15E in '06...so Boeing would keep the line open until the Singapore and Korean orders are finalized). And both the Navy AND shipbuilders have issues with that: the Navy doesn't want to pay the operational costs for ships it doesn't want and can't man; the shipbuliders hate the woefully inefficient way Navy procurement is handled. Most of this I'm getting from stories in 2005 in Defense News...most copies of which I've thrown out, and their online search is pitiful. But that's the gist of it: Congress funded anywhere from three to seven ships (depending on what you're reading; reality is probably something like 4) for '06 that the Navy didn't want, to keep shipyards open. I don't really know...but that's not relevant to my point that the executive DOES have that as an option in budgetary battles with Congress.

And others, lacking in your breathtakingly deep understanding of everything, might have realized that, regardless of what you choose, people are going to do whatever the hell they want anyway. What YOU choose is largely irrelevant.

I was all set to complain about Reed, then I read that. Holy sh--. Deion Branch, Bethel Johnson, and "uhhhh...some guy" is truly frightening. And really, I wasn't all that set to complain about Reed. He's shown signs of curing his rectal-cranial inversion...and he's always been a reasonably good downfield blocker, which is something the Bills will desperately need if Moulds goes elsewhere.

I don't know. They are, after all, the state that had the great good sense to elect a dead guy to the Senate over John Ashcroft.