View Full Version : Obama cut air tankers...really?
GilpinGuy
06-29-2012, 01:33
(sorry if it's a repost....jeeesus, this guy...)
How Obama Bureaucrats Fueled Western Wildfires
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate (http://www.creators.com/)
Copyright 2012
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The smell of singed air here is inescapable. Less than 50 miles west of my neighborhood, the latest wildfire has spread across 1,100 acres. It’s the fifth active blaze (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31204656/detail.html) to erupt in our state over the past month. But ashes aren’t the only things smoldering.
The Obama administration’s neglect of the federal government’s aerial tanker fleet raises acrid questions about its core public safety priorities. Bipartisan complaints goaded the White House into signing a Band-Aid fix last week. But it smacks more of election-year gesture politics: Too little, too late, too fake.
Ten years ago, the feds had a fleet of 44 firefighting planes. Today, the number is down to nine for the entire country. Last summer, Obama’s U.S. Forest Service canceled a key federal contract with Sacramento-based Aero Union just as last season’s wildfires were raging. Aero Union had supplied eight vital air tankers to Washington’s dwindling aerial firefighting fleet. Two weeks later, the companyclosed down, and 60 employees lost their jobs (http://anewscafe.com/2011/08/14/aero-union-closes-2-weeks-after-canceled-forest-contract/). Aero Union had been a leader in the business for a half-century.
Why were they grounded? U.S. Forest Service bureaucrats and some media accounts cite “ safety (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/30/local/la-me-wildfire-tankers-20110730)” concerns. But as California GOP Rep. Dan Lungren noted in a letter obtained by reporter Audrey Hudson of the conservative D.C. newspaperHuman Events (http://www.humanevents.com/2011/09/07/contract-dispute-grounds-firefighting-planes/) last year, a Federal Aviation Administration representative said it was a contractual/compliance matter, not safety, that doomed Aero Union’s fleet.
“I am deeply troubled by the Forest Service’s sudden action,” Lungren warned, “particularly as California enters into the fire season. Our aerial firefighting fleet is already seriously undercapitalized.” Both the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Department of Agriculture’s Inspector General have been critical of the Forest Service’s handling of the matter. All of this has been known to the Obama administration since it took the reins in 2009.
Nine months after Lungren’s warning, the deadly High Park fire (http://www.kktv.com/news/wildfires/headlines/Evacuations_Ordered_As_Fire_Spreads_In_Larimer_Cou nty_158308505.html) in Larimer County, Colo., claimed a grandmother’s life, destroyed 189 homes and scorched nearly 60,000 acres. Arizona, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming (http://www.boiseweekly.com/CityDesk/archives/2012/06/17/multiple-wildfires-light-up-the-west)also have battled infernos this summer.
After months of dire red flags from a diverse group of politicians ranging from Texas GOP Gov. Rick Perry and Arizona GOP Sen. Jon Kyl to Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and New Mexico Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, President Obama finally signed emergency legislation last week to expedite the contracting process. Obama will borrow planes from Canada and provide $24 million (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/14/as-wildfires-rage-modern-tanker-planes-sought/) for new aerial tanker contracts.
But the money won’t come until next year, and the dog-and-pony rescue moves will not result in any immediate relief. “It’s nice, but this problem isn’t fixed with a stroke of the pen,” former Forest Service official and bomber pilot Tony Kern told the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20875202) this week. “You need to have the airplanes available now.” Veteran wildland firefighter and blogger Bill Gabbert of WildfireToday.com (http://wildfiretoday.com/2012/06/15/air-tankers-news/)adds: “The USFS should have awarded contracts for at least 20 additional air tankers, not 7.”
Imagine if Obama’s Forest Service had been a private company. White House eco-radicals would be rushing to place their “boots on the necks” (http://michellemalkin.com/2012/04/27/crucify-them-its-the-obama-way/) of the bureaucrats who made the fateful decision to put an experienced aerial tanker firm out of business as wildfires raged and the available rescue fleet shrunk.
“The Obama administration is scrambling now to help ensure the Forest Service has the air assets it needs to fight the ongoing inferno,” Colorado free-market environmental watchdog Sean Paige reported atMonkeyWrenchingAmerica.com (http://monkeywrenchingamerica.com/?p=1412) last week. “But the crisis is bound to raise questions not just about whether the cancelled contract created additional weaknesses and vulnerabilities, but about what the administration has been doing over the past three summers to shore-up the service’s air fleet.”
Where there’s smoke swirling over Team Obama, there are usually flames of incompetence, cronyism and ideological zealotry at the source. The ultimate rescue mission? Evacuating Obama’s wrecking crew from the White House permanently. November can’t come soon enough.
***
From commenter McRidge:
Michelle, Another option that the U.S. Forest Service is ignoring is the Evergreen Aviation Supertanker Service. This is a huge 747 developed just to fight fires. It has been used in firefighting tasks around the world, but not in the U.S. It is available and is extremely cost effective compared to the current Forest Service fleet. Evergreen is located in McMinville, Oregon, so this would be buying American, in addition to the other advantages. More information is available at the Evergreen Aviation website at http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/index.html.
From commenter Backwoods Conservative: Unfortunately, the current administration would rather throw money at “green” energy projects that are not economically viable than to spend it on things that are actually useful and needed.
Rucker61
06-29-2012, 04:21
Do you really think that these decisions made its way up to Obama's level? Isn't it more likely that these decision were made by long term government employees who have served under more than one president to rise to the level of authority required to make these decisions?
And it's this Aero Union, right:
Airtanker scandal
Aero Union was one of the contractors involved in the U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Forest_Service_airtanker_scandal). With the grounding of the U.S. Forest Service's aging C-119 Flying Boxcar fleet in 1987 (some of which were operated by Aero Union) due to safety concerns the Forest Service found its aerial fire fighting capability greatly reduced. In order to quickly replace the retired aircraft and modernize the fleet the USFS, organized a deal with the Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense) and the General Services Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Services_Administration) to exchange the grounded planes with more modern C-130a Hercules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules) and P-3 Orion aircraft. The unpublicized exchange program eventually allowed six different contractors to acquire twenty-eight aircraft at no cost, without a bidding process or public access. The exchange of these aircraft was found to have been illegally carried out by the USFS and instead of merely allowing the contractors to operate the aircraft many of their titles were transferred, effectively giving many of the aircraft away for free. Several of the planes ended up being operated for tasks outside of their intend firefighting duties. Some were used for cargo service, dismantled for parts or sold outright at considerable profit. Aero Union exchanged planes with the USFS, with the government retaining the titles and ownership, and was charged with maintaining and operating them for firefighting duties. Instead Aero Union dismantled the planes and sold the parts for a profit. Aero Union made an out of court settlement with the government over its actions but this was later challenged in court.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Union#cite_note-4)
On July 29, 2011 the U.S. Forest Service announced that it had canceled its 6 plane contract with Aero Union after the company's planes failed their required safety inspections.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Union#cite_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Union#cite_note-6) In April 2011 Aero Union had voluntarily disclosed that its planes were not current on inspections and were in violation of the contract.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Union#cite_note-7) The contract, worth about $30 million a year, made up about 95% of the companies income.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Union#cite_note-8) Less than a month later Aero Union informed its employees that they were out of work and that the company was shutting down operations.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Union#cite_note-9) That August Aero Union failed to make its lease payments to the City of Chico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chico,_California) and the lease was declared invalid by the city that September due to concerns that the city would be unable to re-lease the facilities if they became tied up in bankruptcy proceedings.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Union#cite_note-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Union#cite_note-11) Reduced to a staff of 5 people after the last round of layoffs, down from approximately 230 in 2008, CEO Brett Gourley claimed “The company is in sort of hibernation mode” and was looking for other sources of income. The company has since completely shutdown all of its facilities, websites and other points of contact and is assumed to be out of business.
The illegal transfer of aircraft happened under Reagan's Adminstration, but he's not to blame, is he? Furthermore, the entire fleet of C-130s was permanently grounded in 2004, so if Obama is to be held responsible, then some of the blame needs to be shared with Bush, neh?
spqrzilla
06-29-2012, 09:00
Your defense of Obama is that he didn't know? The man whose mere election began to reverse the rise of the seas ... didn't know?
Pathetic.
And the continual "Blame Bush" of the Obama administration and its sycophants? The acts of people too juvenile to be entrusted with running our nation.
Why not cut the funding. Obama needed it to give to the banks, autos etc.
I really hope Mitt can reverse SOME of this shit starting next January.
Rucker61
06-29-2012, 09:26
Your defense of Obama is that he didn't know? The man whose mere election began to reverse the rise of the seas ... didn't know?
Pathetic.
And the continual "Blame Bush" of the Obama administration and its sycophants? The acts of people too juvenile to be entrusted with running our nation.
There was no "Blame Bush" in my statement. Do you really think that any President gets involved in every contract with every vendor for every Bureaucracy in the Executive Branch? Read the article - the planes failed FAA regulations. We need something now, but I have no idea what it takes to get a contract in place in the government, only that it's not easy.
spqrzilla
06-29-2012, 09:28
There was no "Blame Bush" in my statement.
Another false statement by you. You wrote: "... then some of the blame needs to be shared with Bush, neh?"
It shows a need to find a new excuse, one not already beaten to death by the incompetent Jay Carney.
Another false statement by you. You wrote: "... then some of the blame needs to be shared with Bush, neh?"
It shows a need to find a new excuse, one not already beaten to death by the incompetent Jay Carney.
Just put Rucker on your ignore list like I have done. If nobody listens he will go away.
Byte Stryke
06-29-2012, 09:43
Just put Rucker on your ignore list like I have done. If nobody listens he will go away.
know your enemy.
;)
CrufflerSteve
06-29-2012, 10:04
I think the Republicans should leave this one alone. I has too much possibility of blowing back on Romney:
“He says we need more fireman, more policemen, more teachers,” Romney says in the Web video. “Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”
It's in a danged video! It could be parsed better to show that Romney means the pension issue, public employee unions and such but elections aren't based on subtlety.
Steve
Rucker61
06-29-2012, 10:10
Another false statement by you. You wrote: "... then some of the blame needs to be shared with Bush, neh?"
It shows a need to find a new excuse, one not already beaten to death by the incompetent Jay Carney.
Actually, logically, I didn't blame Bush. I presented an if/then statement: If the current President is to be blamed for action x, then a previous President should be blamed for action x. Since I made no claim that Obama should be blamed, logically, I've made no claim that Bush should be blamed.
Rucker61
06-29-2012, 10:12
Just put Rucker on your ignore list like I have done. If nobody listens he will go away.
Sounds a lot like the Democratic Congresscritters refusing to participate in the hearings.
If you only want to hear opinions that agree with your own, then it's just one big circle jerk.
Byte Stryke
06-29-2012, 10:27
Sounds a lot like the Democratic Congresscritters refusing to participate in the hearings.
If you only want to hear opinions that agree with your own, then it's just one big circle jerk.
some of us call it "Considering the source"
Rucker, just a question, and don't take offense, but are you a gun-toting liberal?[Coffee]
Aero Union's planes were falling apart. Quite literally. One of their planes broke up while fighting a fire in California a few years ago, killing the crew.
4bDNCac2N1o
It's unfortunate that nobody else makes these airplanes, save for Evergreen's small fleet. But would you rather lack the air support, or bring in old, decrepit planes that could fall apart mid-air and kill more people and start more fires?
Rucker61
06-29-2012, 10:52
Rucker, just a question, and don't take offense, but are you a gun-toting liberal?[Coffee]
Gun-toting moderate. Some liberal viewpoints, some conservative viewpoints, some moderate viewpoints. Generally, when I'm toting a gun, I'm in conservative mode. Arguing with the right wing makes me look liberal; conversely, arguing with the left wing makes me look conservative. Doesn't much matter to me.
netsecsys
06-29-2012, 10:52
Just put Rucker on your ignore list like I have done. If nobody listens he will go away.
This is the best advice I have gotten today. Thanks. [Beer]
+1
Delfuego
06-29-2012, 10:59
Liberals don't believe in freedom and the right to protect yourself.Says who???
Just because you may disagree with someone, you start name calling? What are you guys a bunch 4th graders? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that's what makes America great. Get over yourselves...
Rucker61
06-29-2012, 11:18
How can a liberal own a gun and believe in the 2nd amend. Liberals don't believe in freedom and the right to protect yourself. The government will do that for you! They are here to help us all! Kind of like being an atheist and reading the bible daily or being a tree hugger and not recycling.
So if I own a gun, and enjoy shooting, and protect gun ownership and the right to self-defense, I can't be a liberal by your logic, can I? See, the world isn't black and white. I've seen folks on this very forum claim to not oppose gay marriage, which is a closely held liberal viewpoint.
I would bet he voted for Obama in 2008. Not sure he will admit it though.
Sure did. Haven't decided for this round though. I've voted for Democrats, Republicans and Independents. I'm actually a registered Republican.
Reading his previous posts- not really on board with most of us.
I can't argue with that.
I bet he's one of the many fine Ft Collins citizens I see every day up here in this liberal Boulder north driving around with an "Obama 2012" sticker on his Subaru or Prius. No offense meant...just making an observation.
I actually have a Sonata, built in my home town in Alabama. I'd like to have Subaru again, though, since my double rifle cases barely fit in the trunk and I hate having my Rottie climb all over the leather seats that my wife insisted we get. She's actually wondered out loud why I haven't bought a truck, since I got back into guns after a 40 year layoff.
The Prius comment is insulting, though ;). Anyone with a lick of economic sense would see it's a horrible idea; it's a feel good car for eco-dummies. I hate the stupid stuff the extreme left does and says as much as anyone here. "Violence never solved any problems"? Miss a lot of WWII history class smoking clove cigarettes, I guess, and I'm a firm believer in protecting one's home. I saw a great comment on the LRH site, I think it was: Average response time of a police call, 27 minutes. Average response time of a .357 magnum, 1500 fps.
Brock Landers
06-29-2012, 11:22
Maybe Michelle Malkin and her fellow small government conservatives should:
A) stop trying to politicize a tragic and uncontrollable event.
B) stop crying about the federal government not providing for them.
Seriously, I am not a fan of Obama but two days ago nearly 350 homes burned to the ground and at least one person, possibly more, lost their lives. This strikes me as an inappropriate time to be complaining about Obama not buying airplanes, of all things. Maybe next week if we want to blame Obama for lack of snowpack, record heat, dry forest, 65 mph winds, and houses built in dangerous fire areas we should have at it, but can we at least give it more than two days before starting the obligatory political blame game?
It's bullshit like this that got me to loathe arfcom before I was banned. Some of you guys in here only want an echo chamber. Any differing opinions or new ideas are bad because they don't fit in with your preconcieved ides.
How about instead of us fucking attacking each other over petty bullshit, we work together and use the shooting hobby to find common ground?
Assuming half you loudmouths even own a gun anymore.
Sure did. Haven't decided for this round though. I've voted for Democrats, Republicans and Independents. I'm actually a registered Republican.
Just voicing my belief, but I don't think I'd like you very much. Anyone who supports Obama, either past, present, or future, I believe fits into one of the following categories:
-Ignorant/uninformed
-Hates America (either actually does or through ignorance without knowing they are thinking against America's best interest)
-Socialist (full on, closet, or slightly, doesn't matter)
or
-Mentally handicapped
Just my opinion on the matter, I don't see how you can get behind a person who clearly wants to dismantle the constitution, destroy the America we know and love, and "change" things for the worse. Karl Marx would probably even think he's doing it wrong... but all in all, I urge you to screw your head back on correctly and vote against him this time around. Sorry, but lost some respect for you after learning that you're part of the reason we're in the mess we're in now due to your voting for that POS.
ETA: But Rucker, I'm very curious, what made you decide to vote for "hope and change" in '08 instead of McCain/Palin?
HBARleatherneck
06-29-2012, 11:28
Just voicing my belief, but I don't think I'd like you very much. Anyone who supports Obama, either past, present, or future, I believe fits into one of the following categories:
-
-Hates America
or
-Mentally handicapped
Just my opinion on the matter, I don't see how you can get behind a person who clearly wants to dismantle the constitution, destroy the America we know and love, and "change" things for the worse.
i agree
It's bullshit like this that got me to loathe arfcom before I was banned. Some of you guys in here only want an echo chamber. Any differing opinions or new ideas are bad because they don't fit in with your preconcieved ides.
How about instead of us fucking attacking each other over petty bullshit, we work together and use the shooting hobby to find common ground?
Assuming half you loudmouths even own a gun anymore.
it takes more than voicing your opinion to get banned from arfcom. if it were that simple they wouldn't have any members.
The reason Rucker is getting it from all sides is because he is just like ERNO and crew... It is very easy to spot a liberal. Everyone wants to give them a piece of their mind on here, explain their stupidity, yet they don't get it, don't understand, won't even try. that is why they get ignored.
As to "petty bullshit"...how is this petty bullshit? we are talking about our daily lives being affected, our bottom dollars, our kids future. those are not something I would classify as "petty bullshit".
it takes more than voicing your opinion to get banned from arfcom. if it were that simple they wouldn't have any members.
I got banned for wishing everyone a Happy Zombie Jesus day during Easter last year.
You can totally get banned for voicing your opinion, as long as the right people disagree with it.
Never called him a name...read my post. I guessed he voted for Obama.
Think he's doing just fine defending himself without you having to defend his honor. Get over yourself.
Liberalism does not support gun ownership. Liberalism is a leftist cause. It moves more and more every day towards a final agenda. Slowly eroding iur basic rights and freedoms. How can the 2nd amend exist when the goal of the left is no more guns? Think the UN wants gun ownership? Obama? Holder? Feinstein? Compare a liberal from 70 years ago to today's liberal- black and white. FDR encouraged prayer and defending yourself. When is the last time a liberal politician did that?
Just FYI, and this is a pretty good assessment. Not every liberal is far left anti-gun, just like not every conservative is far right uber-religious. There are degrees and some are on the far left, but some are closer to the middle. I have plenty of friends who are liberals but they love guns, love shooting, and believe that the 2nd is just as important as the 1st- some even acknowledge that the 2nd protects the 1st! So put down the brush and stop painting everything the same color.
Rucker61
06-29-2012, 12:12
Just voicing my belief, but I don't think I'd like you very much.
No problem. You don't have to like anyone. You don't even have to read my posts. I'm pretty thick skinned, or I wouldn't be here still.
Anyone who supports Obama, either past, present, or future, I believe fits into one of the following categories:
-Ignorant/uninformed
-Hates America (either actually does or through ignorance without knowing they are thinking against America's best interest)
-Socialist (full on, closet, or slightly, doesn't matter)
or
-Mentally handicapped
You're entitled to your own opinion. That's what makes this country great.
Just my opinion on the matter, I don't see how you can get behind a person who clearly wants to dismantle the constitution, destroy the America we know and love, and "change" things for the worse.
Mainly because I don't believe that any of those things are happening. I don't believe that America is at risk of being destroyed, and we'll have to agree to disagree on that. By the same token, I feel consider that the PATRIOT ACT provision (I or II, not enacted I believe, but asked for) that allowed the Federal government to remove a person's citizenship without due process to be an act to dismantle the Constitution.
That implies that a), you had some and b) still have some respect for me. I guess that's all I can ask for. I respect you for your service and civility here.
[quote]
ETA: But Rucker, I'm very curious, what made you decide to vote for "hope and change" in '08 instead of McCain/Palin?
Palin was a large part of that, and the tendency of the Republican Party to protect/encourage the Wall Street assholes to destroy our economy to line their own nests. Also, I tend to lean towards platforms that provide protection for children and old people, like medical care, etc. I actually joined the Republican Party to vote for McCain in 2000 in the primary against George Bush.
Like I said, I still haven't made up my mind. It's been stated here by more than one poster that there aren't any good choices. I don't necessarily consider higher taxes a Bad Thing (boooooo from the crowd). We are in a serious bad position from the economic crisis that started in 2007 as a country and as a world economy. It's all interlinked now, so we really can't focus on just the US from a politco-economic view and expect to succeed.
Budgets are getting cut everywhere at all levels of government; our education system sucks compared to that of our competitive countries; our infrastructure is getting pretty old and needs addressing; and the "job creators" aren't necessary motivated to invest in the US. It can be argued that our corporate tax structure is too high, but it can be argued that the effective tax rates are more indicative of the true burden to corporations. With a world economy, big companies will go where the money is, and do anything to keep it. It's their right, for sure, but it doesn't necessarily help the US.
I'm willing to look at all sides of an issue, but I will admit to having a bias against demagogues, left and right. I feel that Michael Moore is as big of a lying blowhard as the rest of you do. I put people like Glenn Beck in the same boat.
That said, which is better: Pachmyer or Limbsaver?
I got banned for wishing everyone a Happy Zombie Jesus day during Easter last year.
You can totally get banned for voicing your opinion, as long as the right people disagree with it.
arfcom aside, do you still think that all these issues are "petty bullshit", and we should welcome rucker with open arms? He can voice his opinions all he wants, but around here they are going to come with some serious backlash.
you telling the guys around here to not rip him and play nice is equivalent to someone walking into a gay bar and start calling them all derogatory names. yeah...that person can voice their opinion but they aren't going to like the results.
arfcom aside, do you still think that all these issues are "petty bullshit", and we should welcome rucker with open arms? He can voice his opinions all he wants, but around here they are going to come with some serious backlash.
you telling the guys around here to not rip him and play nice is equivalent to someone walking into a gay bar and start calling them all derogatory names. yeah...that person can voice their opinion but they aren't going to like the results.
This is a forum about guns. Not about politics. He likes guns, we should welcome him. Fuck politics. You want that, go join the RNC forums.
BushMasterBoy
06-29-2012, 12:34
Could an asteroid have started this fire? Thats a scary thought. Sometimes they have to evacuate the International Space Station because of meteors. NORAD and Space Command have stopped releasing data to astronomers of their asteroid observations. If the government would do their job of protecting us better this kind of disaster wouldn't be an issue. They better fix this air tanker situation...sometimes your survival means being able to read between the lines!
http://wildfiretoday.com/tag/air-tanker/
This is a forum about guns. Not about politics. He likes guns, we should welcome him. Fuck politics. You want that, go join the RNC forums.
so then why do we have a political forum? Why have you responded to threads in that political forum? Why do you feel the need to defend another member who is fully capable of typing out his own statements just like everyone else, he can ignore them like everyone else, he has to play under the same rules and guidelines like everyone else?
If you don't like politics, don't come in and play. If you don't like to see rucker get attacked on issues that can have strong feelings, you are more than welcome to not read the threads or the responses.
and if want to take a further look, we also have forums for vehicles, hunting, pictures, jokes, survival, knives. and we have dealers that sell things that are gun related and some that are not. I would have to say this is more than a forum about JUST guns.
so then why do we have a political forum? Why have you responded to threads in that political forum? Why do you feel the need to defend another member who is fully capable of typing out his own statements just like everyone else, he can ignore them like everyone else, he has to play under the same rules and guidelines like everyone else?
If you don't like politics, don't come in and play. If you don't like to see rucker get attacked on issues that can have strong feelings, you are more than welcome to not read the threads or the responses.
and if want to take a further look, we also have forums for vehicles, hunting, pictures, jokes, survival, knives. and we have dealers that sell things that are gun related and some that are not. I would have to say this is more than a forum about JUST guns.
Why don't we move all these threads to the political forum? Why do you feel the need to attack another member simply because you and he don't have the same ideologies? What rules has he broken? None. Do the rules say anything about harassing other members?
I came into this thread to point out that there was nothing political about OP, that it was a safety concern. My first email responses to it are you being an ass to this guy.
We have sub forums for those purposes, as you have pointed out. The question is, why do people continue to post this shit in GD when there is a place it should go?
I think it's cute that Ronin joined in.. Finally not the one being on the shit end of the stick..
HBARleatherneck
06-29-2012, 13:08
delete
This is a forum about guns. Not about politics. He likes guns, we should welcome him. Fuck politics. You want that, go join the RNC forums.
I'm inclined to agree.
Rather than dog pile on Rucker for a dessenting view, does anyone have a credible source to refute the Wikipedia statements?
Rucker61
06-29-2012, 14:06
I'm inclined to agree.
Rather than dog pile on Rucker for a dessenting view, does anyone have a credible source to refute the Wikipedia statements?
Great question, and I comment with the proviso that Wikipedia isn't necessarily the best cite. However, it's handy, and easy enough to check the cites they list at the bottom.
Byte Stryke
06-29-2012, 14:13
not all of us "4th Graders" resorted to name calling... (seriously I Spewed Mt Dew when I read that post)
I just don't agree with his underhanded way of inciting "Stuff" on the forums.
Why don't we move all these threads to the political forum? Why do you feel the need to attack another member simply because you and he don't have the same ideologies? What rules has he broken? None. Do the rules say anything about harassing other members?
I came into this thread to point out that there was nothing political about OP, that it was a safety concern. My first email responses to it are you being an ass to this guy.
We have sub forums for those purposes, as you have pointed out. The question is, why do people continue to post this shit in GD when there is a place it should go?
Do you see my name as the OP? no. Do you see moderator next to my name where I could move it into the political forum? NO.
Just just complained that this is only a gun forum yet you acknowledged there is a political forum and this thread should belong there? So which is it or are you just being a hypocrite?
Please quote me where I was being an as TO rucker. Also, I don't believe you were able to do an "email response" as you so say. I quoted and responded to another member alerting him to the option to ignore people.
As HBAR pointed out, if this was in the political forum would you still complain?
What is you reasoning for defending someone who is capable themselves?
As you will see I don't respond to rucker because he is on MY ignore list, so I don't see what he says any more and don't care what he says any more. after this poor excuse for an attack, you are on deck.
CrufflerSteve
06-29-2012, 17:00
Wow.
It depends on how it is done. I don't think any mildly sane person would trust the government to effectively cut itself.
OTOH, at the end of WWII the US had a huge debt and the economy was essentially socialized. People really wanted to fix that so the government raised taxes and massively downsized itself. That ship has sailed. I simply cannot see either party being willing to do that - cuts across the board - not just cutting stuff they don't like and throwing money at parts they do like.
Steve
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.