Senate Rejects F-22 Boondoggle

After years of rubberstamping even the most ridiculously expensive and unnecessary allocations to enrich defense contractors -- and in so doing extend the reach of the military-industrial complex about which former President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned -- the US Senate on Tuesday actually rejected a useless military spending scheme.

As part of the broader debate over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the Senate voted by a 58-40 margin in favor of Michigan Democrat Carl Levin's proposal to strike $1.75 billion in funding for more F-22 fighter jets.

Designed in response to the fantasy that the US Air Force would be fighting high-tech dogfights with Soviet fighter jets, the F-22 has never been flown in combat or deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

But, until now, Congress had continued to allocate cash -- in multi-billion-dollar increments -- to Lockheed Martin, the defense contractor that, using comic-book and video-game marketing, dubs the jet fighters "Raptors."

An individual F-22 costs more than $350 million to build, and according to conservative estimates would cost over $44,000 per hour to fly.

Instead of paying for new and unnecessary airplanes, the Senate instead directed that the money be used to restore operation and maintenance, military personnel, and other funding that was reduced in order to authorize the F-22 boondoggle.

Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, a cosponsor of the Levin amendment who has long been a critic of bloated Pentagon spending -- and of the failure of Congress to budget responsibly when it comes to military matters -- said: "The Senate's passage of this amendment is a victory for the Armed Forces and American taxpayers. Now defense dollars can be freed up to address real world threats and fill gaps in our defense capabilities. I applaud (supporters of the amendment) and the administration for their leadership on this effort to help ensure that we are spending our defense dollars wisely."

The move to cut the F-22A procurement, which was backed by President Obama (who threatened to veto a defense appropriation bill that included money for more of the planes), drew bipartisan support.

Levin, the veteran chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was joined in sponsoring the anti-pork proposal by Arizona Republican John McCain. McCain described the F-22 program as "What Eisenhower Warned Us About."

The 2008 Republican presidential nominee actually hailed the Obama administration for helping secure support for the amendment, which McCain described as "probably the most impactful amendment that I have seen in this body on almost any issue."

Fifteen Republicans, including McCain and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, joined 42 Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders in supporting the amendment.

Matt Holland, Pentagon Budget Campaign Director for USAction/TrueMajority, hailed the vote as a signal that, despite the considerable amount of influence defense contractors wield, some members of Congress to examine wasteful Pentagon spending.

"Common sense wins out," declared Holland. "Now we will see if House members get the message. The old ways are dead, and from here on out voters will be scrutinizing the Pentagon budget to scrub wasteful and obsolete weapons systems.

USAction/TrueMajority, which has built a "True Security" coalition to oppose wasteful defense spending, made defeating the F-22 fighter jets a top priority this year. They attracted support from VoteVets, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Common Cause, Physicans for Social Responsibility, Women's Action for New Directions and other organizations.

Now the coalition is moving to convince the House to reject the Raptor.

A new radio ad urging Florida Republican Bill Young, a key player when it comes to defense spending and a major recipient of defense-contractor contributions, to oppose the F-22 procurement.

The ad features Mike Burns – a US Air Force pilot and POW during the Vietnam War who spent years in the same ‘Hanoi Hilton' prison camp as Senator McCain – who says, "This is one of the most worthless and unnecessary programs and we've spent 30 years dumping money into it," Burns says in the ad, "I'm asking Congressman Young to vote against [the F-22]. Be a lion, not a gopher for Lockheed Martin."

Comments (79)

1. A small step in the right direction. Cheers!

   Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 3:07pm

2. "Fifteen Republicans, including McCain and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, joined 42 Democrats..."

   Damn Peacenik Hippies!!!!

   What happens when Al Qaeda gets a fleet of 30-40 MiG-29s or Chinese JF-17!?!?!?!?!?!

   Posted by Mask at 07/21/2009 @ 3:13pm

3. a zinger by mask.

   his self-esteem goes up 2 points!

   Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 3:16pm

4. Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 3:16pm |

   What's up your ass, urmy? Kinda pissy lately.

   Posted by Mask at 07/21/2009 @ 3:17pm

5. This sounds great, but if I'm not mistaken, they shifted the money to the F-35.

   Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 3:19pm

6. BTW, going to Amazon to get FROSTY one of these-

   http://www.amazon.com/ National-Products-Battery-Operated-Fighter/dp/B000HBYLCU

   Posted by Mask at 07/21/2009 @ 3:21pm

7. mask--you don't like the heat on the interweb, go participate in real life. or place me on ignore if it makes you feel better.

   ;)

   Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 3:24pm

8. Lockheed Martin also makes the F-35, which is designed to hit targets on the ground (as opposed to air combat). Probably makes sense to shift the money to it, if you think the United States should be in the business of shooting up people's weddings. Somehow I doubt that the defense budget is gonna be some big victory for the forces of peace and enlightenment.

   Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 3:32pm

9. Posted by Mask at 07/21/2009 @ 3:21pm

   300 bucks and NO GIFTWRAPPING AVAILABLE?!

   He would look cute tooling around in it though!

   Posted by Benchrest at 07/21/2009 @ 3:42pm

10. Sounds like a waste of money to me,too...as does the entire Obama "Stimulus, Economic Plan" That joke should be cancelled IMMEDIATELY...

    Looks like those who pay the bills are taking time to look into the health care(free health care,of course)...and all the pay offs to the supporters(unions, ACORN, ect) passed off as stimulus...as well as realization that the MSM is just the entertainment and PR wing of the Dem Party....and REAL unemployment is 12%...and business doesnt want 8% penalty for no health care(fre eof, course)...or people do not want to be fined for option out of govt health care(free, of course)...

    and it goes on...could be a long 3 1/2 years to go...

    ...as USA reports the danger of Obama falling into the Carter zone...

    PS...Why cant we see Obama passport? It would silence the nuts..unless they are not nuts....or his birth cert is in the same file as Kerry military record, Clintons medical records, and the Hillary memory file.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/21/2009 @ 3:58pm

11. Gubbers `give' us a nice, toasty $1.8 Trillion (underestimated! As tax receipts are grossly below previous, overly-HAPPY estimate) deficit.......and then the Gubbers `taketh' back $1.75 Billion, 1/10 of 1%, nice going! Hopey and Changey, 0.1% at a time, bi-partisan too!

    Gotta look on the bright side, the last time The One sought to cut the deficit, he demanded his cabinet eliminate just $100 million in waste reductions.

    Posted by Happy at 07/21/2009 @ 4:03pm

12. Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 3:32pm

    I know of more than a few weddings that should have been shot up!!!!

    Would have been less carnage than they went through today with their divorce!!!!

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/21/2009 @ 4:15pm

13. What happens when Al Qaeda gets a fleet of 30-40 MiG-29s or Chinese JF-17!?!?!?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 07/21/2009 @ 3:13pm

    What happened to your "jobs" rationale for the F22 Maskie - you trying to make us afraid now?

    Common sense indeed! Kudos to the Senate.

    Posted by OneVote at 07/21/2009 @ 4:16pm

14. YourJomamma, the topic is airplanes.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 4:17pm

15. YourJomamma,

    my last comment referred to your 3:58 post, not the silly wedding joke.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 4:22pm

16. Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 3:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Don't worry. Lockeed Martin will still have service contracts on all the F22s we sold (gave) to Israel. I suppose Israel has a free upgrade to the F35 in their "purchase agreements" though.

    Posted by OneVote at 07/21/2009 @ 4:22pm

17. posted by OneVote at 07/21/2009 @ 4:22pm

    Israel is definitely getting F-35's. Actually, it's a pretty international airplane, though some of the countries involved are balking unless they get more of the subcontracts. According to what I read, Norway, Denmark, England, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey are involved. India wants some.

    I think maybe we should sell the Russians some F-35's and they can sell us some Soisins or whatever their fighters are called now - then we'd all have balanced forces and everyone would make money, right?

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 4:32pm

18. Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    No need to sell to the Russians. They have full plans and specifications already - as do the Chinese. Any you are correct that Israel gets F35 - done deal.

    Posted by OneVote at 07/21/2009 @ 4:51pm

19. posted by OneVote at 07/21/2009 @ 4:51

    Yeah, I read that the security on the project may have been compromised - but they'll just be using that info to devise defensive strategies against it. We could still sell them some.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 5:03pm

20. Yeah, I read that the security on the project may have been compromised - but they'll just be using that info to devise defensive strategies against it. We could still sell them some.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 5:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yeah - thats the way it works. The military contractors will get a defensive or security breach redesign contract from the Pentagon for sure, and for more money of course....lol..........

    Posted by OneVote at 07/21/2009 @ 5:06pm

21. It's a drop in the bucket really. Honestly I would prefer to keep the F-22 and ditch the Osprey. Unbeatable air superiority corresponds to real security. It's just a military fact. We spend almost as much as the entire rest of the world combined, on military, or around 47% of the total. I think we have far to much of it all. I think that we should maintain the capability to defend ourselves and project power in a short time frame, but right now we have so much of it spread across the world it's actually creating enemies.

    Posted by Milhaus at 07/21/2009 @ 5:39pm

22. posted by Milhaus at 07/21/2009 @ 5:39pm

    We'll still have lots of F-22's, and we will be getting lots of F-35s. You are right - our overwhelming military presence around the globe does create enemies. Much of our military procurement is a jobs program - but once you've got the stuff you have to do something with it. Hence the moronic anti-missile installations proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic.

    It would be much less expensive to engage in intensive diplomacy - I honestly think that one of the reasons the Congress is so resistant to strengthening the United Nations is that any move toward more security with less military is a threat to jobs in their respective districts.

    And of course, every other country uses our military as an excuse to beef up theirs. And so on and so forth.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 5:59pm

23. Thankfully, the F-22 funding was stripped. I am sad to report that the two Democratic Senators from my home state, Washington, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both voted to sustain the funding. You may refer to them as the "Senators from Boeing".

    Incidentally, one of these enlightened populist women, Maria Cantwell, also voted to raise the inheritance tax roof recently.

    With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

    Posted by syfriendly at 07/21/2009 @ 7:06pm

24. Reply to a point above. Jomamomma.

    The Heads of State of the 194 sovereignties in the World system are the only individuals NOT SUBJECT to, or needing passports. This goes back to Medieval law and practices.

    Note, this is the Head of State, not the Head of Government, i.e. Queen Elizabeth doesn't have one, but the Prime Minister does. In the American Constitution, they are both invested in the Presidency.

    Posted by balataf at 07/21/2009 @ 11:32pm

25. Posted by Mask at 07/21/2009 @ 3:21pm

    RAPTOR!

    and a bargain at $300 bucks.

    you should send the link to the folks at DARPA.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 01:07am

26. Lockheed Martin also makes the F-35

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 3:32pm

    LIGHTNING*!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 01:39am

27. *(II)!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 01:39am

28. ..as USA reports the danger of Obama falling into the Carter zone...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/21/2009 @ 3:58pm

    actually, it was carter/volcker who fixed the economy so that reagan could go on his PRINT-O-RAMA.

    PLAN CARTER, 2012 -- it's obama's fault.*

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 01:43am

29. *in many ways it will be, especially by 2012.

    GOLDMAN/SACHS, 012! -- Why Beat Around the Bush**!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 01:44am

30. **heheh

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 01:44am

31. left, right, left, right....

    remember folks,

    capitalism becomes communism

    and

    communism becomes capitalism.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 01:45am

32. Don't worry. Lockeed Martin will still have service contracts on all the F22s we sold (gave) to Israel. I suppose Israel has a free upgrade to the F35 in their "purchase agreements" though.

    Posted by OneVote at 07/21/2009 @ 4:22pm

    and they saved money by outsourcing the call centre to chennai.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 01:51am

33. RAPTOR!

    OSPREY!

    LIGHTNING!

    STRATOFORTRESS!

    HORNET!

    jesus...

    i was gonna make a nice poem out of these stupid names and then i see that some are named after native tribes. por favor.

    INCINERATOR!

    DECAPITATOR!

    EVISCERATOR!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 01:59am

34. With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

    Posted by syfriendly at 07/21/2009 @ 7:06pm

    left, right, left, right

    and the bank played on.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 02:07am

35. In the American Constitution, they are both invested in the Presidency.

    Posted by balataf at 07/21/2009 @ 11:32pm

    who's that?

    goldman and sachs?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 02:09am

36. Frosty Zoom,

    PHANTOM!

    VALKYRIE!

    HUSTLER!

    I grew up on Air Force Bases. These are great street names.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 06:30am

37. Posted by cdlepthien at 07/21/2009 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    There is a misunderstanding about how widespread our military is, and people's attitudes about it. It is not winning any popularity contests for us, it creates paranoia, fear, and resentment. Thereby creating enemies. There's a reason that we don't have foreign military bases in our country. We operate on a gigantic double standard. I sense that the world is losing patience with it.

    Posted by Milhaus at 07/22/2009 @ 06:45am

38. Posted by OneVote at 07/21/2009 @ 4:16pm

    The rationale still exists, OV. My only question was on the matter of "What do we do with the unemployed aircraft workers?"

    As noted, the F-35 still getting funded. My point was on this idea of "massive defense spending cuts". Fine...just tell me what the guys in the GM tank plants or at Lockheed do for a living now.

    Fiscally, I fully endorse dumping the Raptor and cutting way back on other weapons systems too. Obama on the right track with nukes...no reason for us or the Russians to have more than 1500...less would be even better. There's more money saved on maintenance and personnel.

    But being dismissive of the "side effects" of such cuts isn't cool either.

    Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 07:49am

39. posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 7:49am

    Much of DOD is nothing but a jobs program. (Read Robert Scheer's article). If we were honest, we could replace those jobs with other government jobs doing something that is actually useful (building mass transit? rebuilding blighted areas? installing solar panels? going to Mars?) but of course all of that is ideologically unacceptable, except going to Mars. It all comes down to politics.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 08:05am

40. Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 08:05am

    Actualy it comes down to cash.

    It is far cheaper to go to Mars than to build mass transet through the land with the current union situation demanding slower work rules and payoffs for jobs(see brakeman and fireman still on trains)...solar energy will never generate enough electricity to pay for itself...and we re build blighted areas constantly and the same people who live there constantly reamake them blighted...

    I'll take Mars and the jobs that will spin off..

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/22/2009 @ 09:03am

41. posted by YourJomamma at 07/22/2009 @ 09:03am

    1) The hypothetical cash is coming from cutting the insanely expensive defense budget.

    2) I doubt you have an actual figure comparing how much mass transit we could get for the price of going to Mars - I'd bet alot.

    3) Solar energy already generates enough energy to pay for itself in most situations - over a few years. If fossil fuels were priced to reflect their externalities, solar would be cheaper.

    4) I'm in favor of space exploration as well.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 09:24am

42. "solar energy will never generate enough electricity to pay for itself..."----Posted by YourJomamma at 07/22/2009 @ 09:03am

    And naturally, you have no real evidence to support that...just "truthiness", right?

    Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 09:44am

43. "solar energy will never generate enough electricity to pay for itself..."----Posted by YourJomamma at 07/22/2009 @ 09:03am

    And naturally, you have no real evidence to support that...just "truthiness", right?

    Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 09:44am

    I don't think Maasch should have worded it quite like that, but he does have a point.

    Until we develop a new generation of solar equipment, the cost is still too high for replacement of current sources.

    The average residential solar installation runs between 30-40,000.

    If I use my home as an example, I can never recoup the cost. We live very frugally from an energy standpoint. Most of the year my monthly energy bill is around $80. In the summer it goes up to about $100-120. We hardly use our AC, because the house is well constructed and insulated.

    So to recoup $30000, it would take me approx 28 years. Even if I got a tax credit, you're still probably looking at 20 years or more.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 09:58am

44. This is the gold-standard of emotionalized drivel, divorced from any facts or manly logic. As always, it is written directly into JOMAMMA's political DNA to be wholly indebted to a lactating response to any all rightwing fantasies/ranting points/canards, regardess of how hateful and sickly stupid they are.

    Not convinced yet? Take a sniff:

    "PS...Why cant we see Obama passport? It would silence the nuts..unless they are not nuts....or his birth cert is in the same file as Kerry military record, Clintons medical records, and the Hillary memory file."

    --YourJomamma at 07/21/2009 @ 3:58pm

    In the bizarre parallel uinverse in which the weepy and whiny emoter JOMAMMA dwells, a war hero who exhibited real combat-theater bravery in the face of a hail of bullets is suspect. And Vince Foster is everyday getting smoked yet again, point blank, by the Bill-Hillary mafia that susequently dragged the corpse all over DC in order to plant it in a park.

    Those who have read drama queen JOMAMMA's misty-eyed, fact-verboten and emotionally wraught posts across some time also recognize the unmistakable tendency for this strain of bulbously stupid righwing ranting to urge fightging to the last drop of someone else's blood -- as in Iraq. And then to demand, again in pouty tit-shaking drama queen style, that someone else PAY THE BILL in the TRILLIONS for their depthless gullible stupidity in the face of metrosexual failure Goerge W Loser's 1,000% ineptitude in policing America's real security interests.

    Sickening. Disgusting. Heinous. Devoured in the flames of their own hatreds, fueled by the unmistakable inferiority of what they are. That is today's right and lactater in cheif JOMAMMA is perfectly cast as their hairy siren and drama queen.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/22/2009 @ 10:00am

45. So undeserved is the credit given to that bumbling general cum president, Dwight D. Eisenhower (Ike), for his farewell (Jan 1961) admonition re: military-industrial complex. During his eight years in office, he did nothing to discourage the fast growing link between US corporations and the military budget. In fact, Ike's green lights to our CIA toppled democratically elected governments in Guatemala and, much to our present regret, in Iran - costing great suffering in both countries.

    The credit for warning about the military in our political-economy is really owing to C.Wright Mills, the sociologist, who, in his "Power Elite" (1956) made clear the insidious interweaving of the military's interests with the major, US corporations and with the job and real estate industry throughout our country. In 1970, Seymour Melman, a professor of economics at Columbia U. in NYC pointed to what was already well in place in "Pentagon Capitalism".

    Ike started this country down the path to our previous quagmire, in southeast Asia, and to our present one in central Asia. This is the president who said we should avoid war in Asia. There was no president who bore more responsibility for turning this country into a martial empire than dear ol' Ike.

    Beware of presidents who themselves know little about foreign policy and depend on advisers!

    Posted by goedel at 07/22/2009 @ 10:04am

46. posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/22/2009 @ 10:00am

    "manly logic"?

    Buddy, if you had just used blackness as a metaphor for everything inferior the way you used femininity as a metaphor for everything inferior, you'd get, at the very least, a lot of grief from everyone else on here. Clean it up.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 10:06am

47. Beware of presidents who themselves know little about foreign policy and depend on advisers!

    Posted by goedel at 07/22/2009 @ 10:04am

    That would of course include Carter and Clinton.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 10:08am

48. So undeserved is the credit given to that bumbling general cum president, Dwight D. Eisenhower (Ike), for his farewell (Jan 1961) admonition re: military-industrial complex. During his eight years in office, he did nothing to discourage the fast growing link between US corporations and the military budget. In fact, Ike's green lights to our CIA toppled democratically elected governments in Guatemala and, much to our present regret, in Iran - costing great suffering in both countries.

    The credit for warning about the military in our political-economy is really owing to C.Wright Mills, the sociologist, who, in his "Power Elite" (1956) made clear the insidious interweaving of the military's interests with the major, US corporations and with the job and real estate industry throughout our country. In 1970, Seymour Melman, a professor of economics at Columbia U. in NYC pointed to what was already well in place in "Pentagon Capitalism".

    Ike started this country down the path to our previous quagmire, in southeast Asia, and to our present one in central Asia. This is the president who said we should avoid war in Asia. There was no president who bore more responsibility for turning this country into a martial empire than dear ol' Ike.

    Beware of presidents who themselves know little about foreign policy and depend on advisers!

    Posted by goedel at 07/22/2009 @ 10:15am

49. I sense that the world is losing patience with it.

    Posted by Milhaus at 07/22/2009 @ 06:45am

    ya think?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 10:25am

50. The rationale still exists, OV. My only question was on the matter of "What do we do with the unemployed aircraft workers?"

    Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 07:49am

    they can work at the maytag factory.

    oops.

    they can work at the zenith factory.

    oops.

    they can work at the international harvester factory.

    oops, nevermind.

    they can look for work in china.

    blame reagan.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 10:35am

51. "Clean it up."

    --cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 10:06am

    One word answer: No.

    First, you have walked in on a discourse that has been going on for years. For years, JOMAMMA has, under an array of aliases, accused OTHER people of emtionalizing and evading facts. And for years, I (and others) have pointed out and characterized his postings in the very terms that he expressly despises since -- as rightwingers habitually do -- he unconditionally embraces what he claims to contemptously detest in other people. In his most recent egregious outburst, JOMAMMA (who, yes, has even said on this webpage that he has a man-boob problem) attacks a real and decorated warrior, so that is a stated standard of salience. If he is demonstrated to be lacking by the standards that he claims to revere, so be it. Or, the reference to "passing the bill onto other people" are JOMAMMA's very own word choices passed back at him.

    Second, I will characterize rightwingers (a group defined in the first and final case as ideology and not a race, by all accounts) as inferior becuase they are demonstrably inferior by the standrards they have themselves set. Evidence abounds. Moreover, ideas and the policies that follow from them are not equal in what they visit upon a subject population. It would be at once unforgivably stupid and dishonest to pander & pretend otherwise. The right must be attacked relentlessly and with no apology as their way of doing things has been tried and it has failed; miserably and with abundant suffering.

    Still not satisfied? Don't play cop. Use ignore. I have in several cases (GANGPAPIST: too boring for words; HAPPY: A crude dyed in the wool racist primitive). It is any one's prerogative to use it or just informally glaze over anything they don't care to read.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/22/2009 @ 10:36am

52. posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/22/2009 @ 10:36am

    I am not a big fan of the right wing, so you don't have to convince me. I'm just sick of people using female as a signifier of inferior. So I challenged it. I guess I could just call you names instead of being "cop" like.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 10:53am

53. cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 10:06am

    CD,

    Speaking of chauvinism and racism, below all readers can find one of JOMAMMA's disgraceful outbursts from February. I have thrown it in his face several times since then and that he makes a big affected (and phony) show of being "proud" of, as if he is some kind of tuff-talking stud.

    Just wondering, CD, but do you think JOMAMMA may be an unashamed racist? Whataya think upon reading his own words? Should we "ooo" and "aaa" over his insights in hushed tones at his post, as if we were gazing upon exquisite museum pieces rather than maggot-ridden rightwing doghsit? Think we should play patty-cake with brazen creeps and boobs like JOMAMA -- or get tough with them?

    JOMAMMA's DECLARATION: "They"...

    "enter the country or live there and breed like crazy...Europe is hitting 25% Islamic soon, and US is hitting 35% Hispanic...PLUS..they are draining the social system of cash and resources while putting nothing back in of equal or greater values...plus being illiterate in their own language, the added pressure of the host country to "help" them is over bearing... ..add to this the fact that the liberals in the host country actually sue in court to give the invaders(un resticted and illegal immigrants) more rights than the host citizens, like push 1 for English and native language voting ballots, in state tuition...it won't take long and the Israelis will be voted out of their own country..legaly... learn from the Muslims in Europe and the Mexicans in the US how to invaded, destroy and take over a more sophisticated and wealthy society using their own wealth, productivity, generosity, and the local liberals against the locals in their own country, combined with the gigantic birth rates...victory with out a shot being fired.."

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/22/2009 @ 10:59am

54. Posted by cdlepthien at 07/22/2009 @ 10:53am

    OK and more directly to your point, I will mint some slogans: Correct thinking people know in their hearts and their brains that women rule (in general). And so upward upward with the generalized androgenic interest as advancing the interest of all!

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/22/2009 @ 11:07am

55. my androgenic interest usually goes upward.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 12:00pm

56. women hold up half the sky

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 12:15pm

57. women hold up half the skyPosted by goedel at 07/22/2009 @ 10:04am | ignore this person | warn this person

    that needed to be said.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 12:19pm

58. Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/22/2009 @ 10:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

    this too needed to be said. disgusting views peddled by Maasch.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 12:22pm

59. one way to deal with troglodyte views such as Maasch's is to refute them.

    I say legalize all the illegal workers in this country with a citizenship program.

    that way they and their children will pay for your future social security.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 12:26pm

60. here's something to ponder, off topic:

    what if Sarah Palin looked like Susan Boyle, would she still have gotten so much play?

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 12:38pm

61. Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 12:38pm |

    Singing debates!

    In the hope that we can get more people voting for candidates than contestants.

    Posted by snowball777 at 07/22/2009 @ 12:59pm

62. Not to change the subject, but it was reported recently that a reduction in illegal immigration traffic from Mexico has coincided with Wall Street's economic meltdown late last year.

    Those evil genuis's! When Congress proved patently useless in finding a solution to the problem, WALL ST came through with a solution!

    Posted by william.harry13 at 07/22/2009 @ 1:01pm

63. that way they and their children will pay for your future social security.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 12:26pm

    right, forget the borders.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 1:09pm

64. william.harry13

    the NYTimes reported the opposite, that they are staying put.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 1:13pm

65. But being dismissive of the "side effects" of such cuts isn't cool either.

    Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 07:49am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Check out Rachel Maddow last night on the Raptor. Lockheed Martin actually strategically manufactures the Raptor in as many states as possible so as to secure congressional support from as many districts as possible. This is pretty sick.

    As Bob Gates said - "if not now, when"?

    Thanks for the update and clarification. Being dismissive on our ability to use the funds saved by cutting Raptor to employ civilians in some project that also has social benefits and is an investment in our future to boot isn't cool either. At some particular point, you have got to wean the child from the teat, preferably before puberty.

    Posted by OneVote at 07/22/2009 @ 1:16pm

66. My source was National Public Radio. Perhaps the New York Times is engaged in wishful thinking, don't know.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 07/22/2009 @ 1:38pm

67. william.harry13

    whatta stupid reply.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 2:41pm

68. As a result of the difficulties, the numbers of immigrants who said they were considering going back to live in their home countries increased notably. Among immigrants who have been here less than five years, 49 percent said they were thinking of returning home, while only 41 percent said they planned to remain in the United States. Over all, just under one-third of the immigrants said they were thinking of leaving this country.

    In 2001, the last time a similar survey asked a comparable question, about 20 percent of all the immigrants interviewed said they were thinking of going home.

    But Latino immigrant workers who participated in focus groups as part of the survey said they were not ready to leave the United States quite yet, said Sergio Bendixen, the Miami-based pollster who conducted the survey. Instead of going home, the immigrants said they were taking jobs at lower wages or sometimes working two jobs to try to maintain their income, he said.

    The survey was conducted in Spanish from Feb. 9-23 with a sample of 5,000 interviews and a margin of error of 1 percentage point.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 3:06pm

69. Why Emile? Cause it doesn't match your provincial view of things? Your big on insults but short on counterarguments. I'd expect better from someone on here.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 07/22/2009 @ 3:21pm

70. Good, thats better. Now, Your source is still the Time's I guess?

    Posted by william.harry13 at 07/22/2009 @ 3:24pm

71. I quoted from the NYTimes. I also searched the NPR site and could not come up with your assertion. perhaps a citation will be forthcoming from you.

    and it's still a stupid reply.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 3:33pm

72. Why Emile? Cause it doesn't match your provincial view of things? Your big on insults but short on counterarguments.

    this too is an insult.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 3:33pm

73. Your source is still the Time's I guess?

    this should read: Your source is still the Times' I guess.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 4:05pm

74. wrong again, Emile. it should read: your source is still the NYTimes, I guess

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 4:25pm

75. right, forget the borders.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/22/2009 @ 1:09pm

    why don't you just take MORE of mexico?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 4:26pm

76. My only question was on the matter of "What do we do with the unemployed aircraft workers?"

    Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 07:49am

    Such an arrogant question. The unemployed aircraft workers have free will. They will go find work where they can while they collect unemployment for a while.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/22/2009 @ 4:57pm

77. what if Sarah Palin looked like Susan Boyle, would she still have gotten so much play? Posted by emile duBois at 07/22/2009 @ 12:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    what if obama looked like forrest whitakker and talked like stuttering john? (but had the same IQ and was the same person inside).

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/22/2009 @ 5:06pm

78. we need to transplant dennis kucinich's brain into

    [damn, i don't know any hollywood starlets' names -- mask, help!]

    body.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2009 @ 8:23pm

79. Apparently the Senate also rejects GE's alternative engine for....LIGHTNING!

    Kucinich's Brain -> Angelina Jolie's body...it'll make for a very different version of Rand's 'Fountainhead' as a movie translation.

    Posted by snowball777 at 07/24/2009 @ 06:39am