Comments on: Tanker Ruling Shows Air Force in Disarray

By: Tinian

Tinian — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:35:20 +0000

OMG — We’ve got someone citing well known crackpot Jeff Rense to prove their argument!!!

By: WR

WR — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:53:40 +0000

freefallingbomb,
Though you are not anti-semtic, you are indeed conspiracy-driven. “Nut job” remains to be seen. Nothing is further from the truth that what you and Roy have said. Bush’s family has connections to the Nazi’s. OK, what of that? My friend has connections to the Vikings that plundered and killed my ancestors. That doesn’t make my friends evil or stupid. Robert E. Lee had a direct connection to the CSA, with her man-stealing (slavery), yet that doesn’t make him evil or stupid. One of the job site superintendents had indirect connections to the mafia through a friend yet had no desire to join or become a part of the mafia. That doesn’t make him evil or stupid.
I assume now that you will start quoting the so-called Elders of Zion.
It is you who are the “pink-eyed sheepie, (disinformer, etc.)”. You have yet to show any credible sources for your so-called “facts”. Until you do so, your “facts” are merely hypotheses.
Roy,
Yes, as my meteorologist friend confirms, they are researching a weather machine. However, no one has successfully tested or even deployed a weather machine yet. So, the weather-machine-induced storms are currently storms in your own head.

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:11:55 +0000

To the same poster “C4Casey”:
P.S.:
FACT NR. 2: Bush (I + II) is also buddy-buddy with Bin Laden’s entire family, who even repeatedly bailed out Bush II’s bankrupt oil-drilling businesses in the U.S.A. .
HARD FACT NR.1: The F.B.I. officially concluded all investigations into 11 / 9 saying that Bin Laden and even ANYONE ELSE inside his al-Qaeda organization are COMPLETELY INNOCENT of the 11 / 9 attacks:
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/09/47109
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/06/fbi-has-no-evidence.html
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
Etc.
DUBIOUS FACT NR. 2: As your President, Bush would NEVER lie to you about being seriously committed to capturing that one odd Laden family member, right?
Now you tell me, pink-eyed sheeple (or paid professional Pentagon spy / disinformer / propagandist) : Why did you invade Afghanistan again?

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:33:28 +0000

To the poster “C4Casey”:
You completely missed the point of my answer to the poster “Roy Smith”: I merely agreed with him that there is a slight possibility of a secret U.S. Nazi — al-Qaeda Collaboration. It may not be a proven fact yet, but after that enormous (but rather strange…) success of the Talibans with their prison-break it’s not entirely fiction either, and it would not even be the first time in History that that happens… just ask your President about his family’s connections to the (original) Nazis, oh blissful American ignorant!
I recommend the same to any other guys here who call “me” an anti-Semite or a “conspiracy-nut”!
More questions?

By: Tinian

Tinian — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:44:53 +0000

Man-oh-man! freefallingbomb is quite the anti-semitic, conspiracy driven nut-job.

By: NeilM

NeilM — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:48:56 +0000

Our US-101 is British. Our C-27J is Italian. Our M249 is Belgian. Our UH-72A is German. That’s just off the top of my head. Let’s not be so quick to fly off the handle assuming foul play.
It’s also quite flawed to assume that the KC30 is inherently a better value for the taxpayer than the KC767 simply because the first A330 was built more recently than the first 767. If I tell you your job is to pound nails into the frame of a house and you can choose between a hammer based on a design from 100 years ago or a brand new jackhammer … you get the drift. The right tool for the job is not necessarily the newest, sexiest, or largest. So … a little less acrimony and a little more intelligent discourse please.

By: dustbuster

dustbuster — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:47:41 +0000

freefallingbomb:
take your whiny, lame, loser Eurotash ass and your shitty Eurotanker with you. The KC767 was and IS the superior tanker, and the American taxpayer has been saved from the boondoggle of your crappy Eurotanker. You can cry all you want, but it still won’t change the fact that Boeing has, does, and will FOREVER make better planes than your government-owned P.O.S. company Airbus. KC-767 all the way! WOOHOO!

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:23:54 +0000

Ed,
Its not Boeing’s fault that the NG/EADS design is based on an Airbus airframe that is too big & heavy that despite its greater CAPACITY is actually inferior in CAPABILITY and that the USAF was FORCED by outside influances to alter its criteria (& reality) in order to make the non-competative KC-30 APPEAR competative so that there would even BE a “competittion” or that the USAF felt compelled by such strong outside influances to chose a tanker which it (& most everyone else) KNEW was the wrong one for the USAF.
The KC-767AT IS NOT an older airframe. Is a 2008 Corvette an “older” car than a 2008 Mustang because the 1st Corvette was introduced 12 years before the 1st Mustang?
EADS should suck it up & recognize that the KC-30 is not the right tanker for the US to replace its KC-135s with.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:04:25 +0000

and if you listen to all the senators’ (D-Boeing) rhetoric about how they’ll make sure the AF choose the ‘right’ plane, it becomes pretty clear that the airforce’s mandate was indeed ‘To hold a fair and open competition that Boeing wins’
the fact that the AF made such a politically unpopular decision speaks volumes about how superior they feel the KC-30 is

By: irtusk

irtusk — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:00:37 +0000

> Yes Boeing knew that NG/EADS was going with an A330-200 based platform & it believed (just like MOST EVERYONE who knew jack about USAF tanker requirements & operations) that the A330-200 was too big & too heavy
no, it believed that it had bribed enough people that it would win no matter what
> Boeing will NOT try and strong arm every contract they bid for now.
no, they will make sure they have all their stooges in a row next time so it happens quietly
> And I contend that it did so even though it did not want to but was FORCED to do so by outside influance…
all your melodramatic whining about outside influence is beyond hillarious
in fact, it’s pathetic
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_27/b3840095.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21584-2003Oct26?language=printer
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_033104,00.html
i think it’s pretty clear that Boeing has more than it’s fair share of outside influence
my goodness, when you have the PRESIDENT order his chief of staff to ‘get it done’, how can you POSSIBLY whine about being opposed by ‘outside influence’?
bizarro world