|
Title: reporter marked for 'reassignment' in 5...4..3...2.. Post by: Aske on March 01, 2008, 04:51:03 AM http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_8411970
Title: Re: reporter marked for 'reassignment' in 5...4..3...2.. Post by: MFAWG on March 01, 2008, 11:49:07 AM But you have to love how much fun 4 years of saying 'Bu-Bu-But Bush' will be under the new POTUS as he struggles to clean up the mess!
Title: Re: reporter marked for 'reassignment' in 5...4..3...2.. Post by: Spanky on March 01, 2008, 12:14:48 PM Quote Pentagon procurement spending, according to the experts, is so totally out of control that no one even attempts to separate the good and necessary weapons programs from the bad, useless and even harmful ones. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all weapons harmful? Isn't that what they are designed to do?Title: Re: reporter marked for 'reassignment' in 5...4..3...2.. Post by: E-A-G-L-E! on March 01, 2008, 12:51:59 PM Quote Pentagon procurement spending, according to the experts, is so totally out of control that no one even attempts to separate the good and necessary weapons programs from the bad, useless and even harmful ones. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't all weapons harmful? Isn't that what they are designed to do?There are some replicas that won't actually fire even though they have all the parts. However, you could still hit someone over the head with the stock, so I guess you could consider that harmful. Title: Re: reporter marked for 'reassignment' in 5...4..3...2.. Post by: MFAWG on March 01, 2008, 01:59:43 PM One assumes they mean potentially of greater harm to the user than the usee.
For example: The V22 Osprey is pretty much a crash waiting to happen and incapable of performing it's assigned task in a combat environment without putting it's crew and passengers at great risk. |