Again with the BP media access (or lack thereof)
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
(and by the way, are not said beaches declared a diaster area
They are not. The federal disaster funds are earmarked for NATURAL disasters. They can't be used in a situation where some company manages to be bad enough at something to cause a multi-state problem. Oh and I still agree that if a reporter is behaving in a repsectable manner and is interfered with talking to someone willing to talk to them, the person interfering needs to be dealt with.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
I understood that they had been so declared but i could be wrong, although having them declared as such would neccessarly mean that they would get govenment funding?. are you aware the the US company whose rig it is is responsible for 75% of all Gulf spills? despite having only 40% of rigs, how come you are not condeming them? BP could (as EXXON have in the past) hide behined the fact it was a contractor that has caused the problem, they have not, they have agreed to all that has been asked of them yet this is insuffcient in many eyes.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN79OAtZ-W4[^] Yeah. A video. 2min long, if you can actually see it. What it comes down to: BP's Chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, made a statement saying "Recent media reports have suggested that individuals involved in the clean up operation have been prohibited from speaking to the media, and this is simply untrue. BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean up operation from sharing his or her own experiences or opinions." A man from a news crew comes up along the beach that men from BP were working at, and he was hindered from talking by a man from Talon Executive Services, Ron Williams, who was a former Secret Service Agent. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING: Doug Suttles was correct in saying that "BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean up operation from sharing...". However, that doesn't mean that they don't prevent media from interviewing and extracting those workers' opinions. Just a great word game, IMO. And this is the problem with the whole thing. In a free society, they should not ever hinder the media from doing their job, no matter what the facts are. The only reason why they'd do that is to prevent backlash, but to have the government and other corporations cover it up is just another step to fascism. Please understand that it doesn't matter if we have a dictator or not. All other parts of the puzzle fit. The only way to cure someone is to recognize that a problem exists in the first place. We already know that the United States is in big trouble, so why continue living in a dreamland? Realize that this raging nationalism and construing of truth began a long time ago, but to show an analogy, it takes two or three days to show symptoms of a cold. We're seeing the symptoms of fascism now.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.The amusing thing is that it's BP driving this, acting the way that makes sense for a capitalist company. They are acting in their self interest, and in the interest of their stock holders. Pure capitalism leads to this place.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The amusing thing is that it's BP driving this, acting the way that makes sense for a capitalist company. They are acting in their self interest, and in the interest of their stock holders. Pure capitalism leads to this place.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
acting the way that makes sense for a capitalist company.
Doesn't this work for individuals as well?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
The amusing thing is that it's BP driving this, acting the way that makes sense for a capitalist company. They are acting in their self interest, and in the interest of their stock holders. Pure capitalism leads to this place.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I'm not even going to start debating whether this is capitalism or not. You said it yourself, we live in a not-pure capitalist system, so I don't know why you keep saying that "pure capitalism leades to this place". It's not pure capitalism, so you shouldn't be spitting this rhetoric at all.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
acting the way that makes sense for a capitalist company.
Doesn't this work for individuals as well?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Christian Graus wrote:
acting the way that makes sense for a capitalist company.
Doesn't this work for individuals as well?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Sure. I mean, it's a good example. If there were no laws ( much like what is being proposed, less government, less restriction ), then it would perhaps be in my interest to kill you and take your stuff. So, both individuals and companies need to be restrained from acting purely in their own interest for the good of society. That's the real issue. BP is pursuing capitalism, not fascism. Capitalism is fine, so long as it's not allowed to run amok.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I'm not even going to start debating whether this is capitalism or not. You said it yourself, we live in a not-pure capitalist system, so I don't know why you keep saying that "pure capitalism leades to this place". It's not pure capitalism, so you shouldn't be spitting this rhetoric at all.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
You said it yourself, we live in a not-pure capitalist system, so I don't know why you keep saying that "pure capitalism leades to this place".
Because it's the element of capitalism that causes BP to act in it's own interest.
josda1000 wrote:
It's not pure capitalism, so you shouldn't be spitting this rhetoric at all.
We don't live in a society that allows murder, that doesn't mean people don't commit murder. A corporation is a purely capitalistic entity. It acts in a capitalist way as much as it can, within the frameworks of regulations that exist. I don't see how I'm not allowed to claim that, just because some regulations exist. That's a bizarre statement.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
You said it yourself, we live in a not-pure capitalist system, so I don't know why you keep saying that "pure capitalism leades to this place".
Because it's the element of capitalism that causes BP to act in it's own interest.
josda1000 wrote:
It's not pure capitalism, so you shouldn't be spitting this rhetoric at all.
We don't live in a society that allows murder, that doesn't mean people don't commit murder. A corporation is a purely capitalistic entity. It acts in a capitalist way as much as it can, within the frameworks of regulations that exist. I don't see how I'm not allowed to claim that, just because some regulations exist. That's a bizarre statement.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
The reason why I say that is because if "big government" didn't exist, AKA the federal government was within its constitutional limits, then they would not be using the Coast Guard and other entities to back the media off. You're right that the corporation will act in its own interest. But when it pays government off like this, it is wholly unconstitutional (never mind the fact that most of what the government does is unconstitutional anyway), wrong, immoral, and actually kind of scary.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't see how I'm not allowed to claim that, just because some regulations exist.
First, yes, you can claim it. But you have to see the big picture. Second, this has nothing to do with regulations. This has to do with entire entities that are invalid under the constitution, and we're also talking about bribery, which is totally unlawful.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I understood that they had been so declared but i could be wrong, although having them declared as such would neccessarly mean that they would get govenment funding?. are you aware the the US company whose rig it is is responsible for 75% of all Gulf spills? despite having only 40% of rigs, how come you are not condeming them? BP could (as EXXON have in the past) hide behined the fact it was a contractor that has caused the problem, they have not, they have agreed to all that has been asked of them yet this is insuffcient in many eyes.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
I just want the idiots that destroyed a large part of the ecological system in the Gulf to make it so that the damage stops and it doesn't happen like this again. I also want them to help keep the people for whom this damage has caused a major hardship from being hosed. I want them to stop acting like this is not something people should know about. The damage to the ecology isn't even me being a hippie. It is a simple, pragmatic concern. You kill off half the food chain in a huge section of an ocean, and the people fishing said ocean feel it, no matter what they were fishing for. Loss of birds and other predators means the spots that weren't hit have lost their controls so their populations have unchecked growth. And the people fishing those group hit by this are losing their livlihood until the population recovers. I'll condemn whoever is responsible, in this case we have a company leasing a rig and the people running the rig. Both are responsible. The oil companies are required to follow certain regulations, emergency action plans, safety, etc... They are supposed to make sure these things are done and not just signing off or making a show of it while ignoring it. The rig company is also supposed to follow the rules and not be morons.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
The reason why I say that is because if "big government" didn't exist, AKA the federal government was within its constitutional limits, then they would not be using the Coast Guard and other entities to back the media off. You're right that the corporation will act in its own interest. But when it pays government off like this, it is wholly unconstitutional (never mind the fact that most of what the government does is unconstitutional anyway), wrong, immoral, and actually kind of scary.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't see how I'm not allowed to claim that, just because some regulations exist.
First, yes, you can claim it. But you have to see the big picture. Second, this has nothing to do with regulations. This has to do with entire entities that are invalid under the constitution, and we're also talking about bribery, which is totally unlawful.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
then they would not be using the Coast Guard and other entities to back the media off.
I still see more stupid than evil in this. Would it be better if there was no coast guard, or they did not help when things go bad ?
josda1000 wrote:
But when it pays government off like this
Where is the evidence that government was paid off ?
josda1000 wrote:
This has to do with entire entities that are invalid under the constitution, and we're also talking about bribery, which is totally unlawful.
I agree that it's wrong that corporations have rights as an entity. But, where is the evidence of bribery ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The reason why I say that is because if "big government" didn't exist, AKA the federal government was within its constitutional limits, then they would not be using the Coast Guard and other entities to back the media off. You're right that the corporation will act in its own interest. But when it pays government off like this, it is wholly unconstitutional (never mind the fact that most of what the government does is unconstitutional anyway), wrong, immoral, and actually kind of scary.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't see how I'm not allowed to claim that, just because some regulations exist.
First, yes, you can claim it. But you have to see the big picture. Second, this has nothing to do with regulations. This has to do with entire entities that are invalid under the constitution, and we're also talking about bribery, which is totally unlawful.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
The reason why I say that is because if "big government" didn't exist, AKA the federal government was within its constitutional limits, then they would not be using the Coast Guard and other entities to back the media off.
I thought we were on the same page with this one, Josh. It seems a lot more likely that the Obama administration just told the Coast Guard to "Do whatever you can to help BP clean this up", and that it was some guys way down the chain who decided to follow BP's instructions blindly. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
josda1000 wrote:
You're right that the corporation will act in its own interest. But when it pays government off like this, it is wholly unconstitutional (never mind the fact that most of what the government does is unconstitutional anyway), wrong, immoral, and actually kind of scary.
The American people want the spill fixed. The federal government wants the spill fixed. BP is, unfortunately, the company best-equipped to fix it. Hence, the government puts its resources at BP's disposal. That's not the corporation buying off government. That's the government acting in the best interest of the nation, and doing what the citizens want.
josda1000 wrote:
Second, this has nothing to do with regulations. This has to do with entire entities that are invalid under the constitution, and we're also talking about bribery, which is totally unlawful.
The Coast Guard? I would think this entity is well-suited to the federal government. Imagine the problems in jurisdiction if we had to cut up the nearby oceans so each state could patrol its own section.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
josda1000 wrote:
then they would not be using the Coast Guard and other entities to back the media off.
I still see more stupid than evil in this. Would it be better if there was no coast guard, or they did not help when things go bad ?
josda1000 wrote:
But when it pays government off like this
Where is the evidence that government was paid off ?
josda1000 wrote:
This has to do with entire entities that are invalid under the constitution, and we're also talking about bribery, which is totally unlawful.
I agree that it's wrong that corporations have rights as an entity. But, where is the evidence of bribery ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Would it be better if there was no coast guard, or they did not help when things go bad ?
The militias of the several states were originally swallowed up by this unit called the Coast Guard. Eventually, people started finding it necessary to restart them and they've been slowly creeping back to existence. Anyway, yes, there's no reason to have a Coast Guard dictated by the federal government, that's what militias are for: to help out in any way, AND things are controlled much better in local areas compared to central planning anyway. Case in point, New Orleans.
Christian Graus wrote:
Where is the evidence that government was paid off ?
Point taken, I'll take that back. But it seems pretty obvious to me. When this is over, I'm sure there will be watchdog groups looking into this.
Christian Graus wrote:
I agree that it's wrong that corporations have rights as an entity. But, where is the evidence of bribery ?
Again, I'll take the bribery part back. But I wasn't talking about corporations being invalid (though, rights should not be granted to them, agreed.) I was talking about the Coast Guard being invalid. I believe they are dictated to by the states, but the states should just take them back.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
Would it be better if there was no coast guard, or they did not help when things go bad ?
The militias of the several states were originally swallowed up by this unit called the Coast Guard. Eventually, people started finding it necessary to restart them and they've been slowly creeping back to existence. Anyway, yes, there's no reason to have a Coast Guard dictated by the federal government, that's what militias are for: to help out in any way, AND things are controlled much better in local areas compared to central planning anyway. Case in point, New Orleans.
Christian Graus wrote:
Where is the evidence that government was paid off ?
Point taken, I'll take that back. But it seems pretty obvious to me. When this is over, I'm sure there will be watchdog groups looking into this.
Christian Graus wrote:
I agree that it's wrong that corporations have rights as an entity. But, where is the evidence of bribery ?
Again, I'll take the bribery part back. But I wasn't talking about corporations being invalid (though, rights should not be granted to them, agreed.) I was talking about the Coast Guard being invalid. I believe they are dictated to by the states, but the states should just take them back.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
The militias of the several states were originally swallowed up by this unit called the Coast Guard. Eventually, people started finding it necessary to restart them and they've been slowly creeping back to existence. Anyway, yes, there's no reason to have a Coast Guard dictated by the federal government, that's what militias are for: to help out in any way, AND things are controlled much better in local areas compared to central planning anyway. Case in point, New Orleans.
The coast guard is a military branch. The US government is allowed to form military branches by the constitution for civil defense. The coast guard does just that. They defend against pirates (this was the original point) and other attacks on the coast. They were very active in the last world war as the threat of Japanese and German raiding vessels on our ports and ships was very real.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Well said. Out of individual "greed", people take care of themselves. Just like a company.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Except companies are far more powerful than any individual. A company will always win a battle of "greed" in this case.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
josda1000 wrote:
The reason why I say that is because if "big government" didn't exist, AKA the federal government was within its constitutional limits, then they would not be using the Coast Guard and other entities to back the media off.
I thought we were on the same page with this one, Josh. It seems a lot more likely that the Obama administration just told the Coast Guard to "Do whatever you can to help BP clean this up", and that it was some guys way down the chain who decided to follow BP's instructions blindly. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
josda1000 wrote:
You're right that the corporation will act in its own interest. But when it pays government off like this, it is wholly unconstitutional (never mind the fact that most of what the government does is unconstitutional anyway), wrong, immoral, and actually kind of scary.
The American people want the spill fixed. The federal government wants the spill fixed. BP is, unfortunately, the company best-equipped to fix it. Hence, the government puts its resources at BP's disposal. That's not the corporation buying off government. That's the government acting in the best interest of the nation, and doing what the citizens want.
josda1000 wrote:
Second, this has nothing to do with regulations. This has to do with entire entities that are invalid under the constitution, and we're also talking about bribery, which is totally unlawful.
The Coast Guard? I would think this entity is well-suited to the federal government. Imagine the problems in jurisdiction if we had to cut up the nearby oceans so each state could patrol its own section.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
I thought we were on the same page with this one, Josh.
Did he say what you said ? I know I did.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Coast Guard? I would think this entity is well-suited to the federal government. Imagine the problems in jurisdiction if we had to cut up the nearby oceans so each state could patrol its own section.
He wants it to be led by militias. Isn't the coast guard who protects your borders ? That's not a government issue ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
The reason why I say that is because if "big government" didn't exist, AKA the federal government was within its constitutional limits, then they would not be using the Coast Guard and other entities to back the media off.
I thought we were on the same page with this one, Josh. It seems a lot more likely that the Obama administration just told the Coast Guard to "Do whatever you can to help BP clean this up", and that it was some guys way down the chain who decided to follow BP's instructions blindly. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
josda1000 wrote:
You're right that the corporation will act in its own interest. But when it pays government off like this, it is wholly unconstitutional (never mind the fact that most of what the government does is unconstitutional anyway), wrong, immoral, and actually kind of scary.
The American people want the spill fixed. The federal government wants the spill fixed. BP is, unfortunately, the company best-equipped to fix it. Hence, the government puts its resources at BP's disposal. That's not the corporation buying off government. That's the government acting in the best interest of the nation, and doing what the citizens want.
josda1000 wrote:
Second, this has nothing to do with regulations. This has to do with entire entities that are invalid under the constitution, and we're also talking about bribery, which is totally unlawful.
The Coast Guard? I would think this entity is well-suited to the federal government. Imagine the problems in jurisdiction if we had to cut up the nearby oceans so each state could patrol its own section.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
It seems a lot more likely that the Obama administration just told the Coast Guard to "Do whatever you can to help BP clean this up", and that it was some guys way down the chain who decided to follow BP's instructions blindly.
Right, and I agree with that, to an extent. I don't think this is Obama at all. I do think that the guys were paid to just tell the media to back off. I know, I can't prove it obviously. But this definitely seems to me to be bribery. People are not that dumb, I don't think. They're not that "dronish" if there's a word like that lol
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The American people want the spill fixed. The federal government wants the spill fixed. BP is, unfortunately, the company best-equipped to fix it. Hence, the government puts its resources at BP's disposal. That's not the corporation buying off government. That's the government acting in the best interest of the nation, and doing what the citizens want.
Again, I totally agree. But remember, the longer the tentacles of the government, the less it will do for its people. The President HAS to listen to us, for political purposes. However, the further you get out of the reach of the Presidency, the less apt it is to work for the purposes of the People. I do believe that the Coast Guard and others were bought. They would not have been so adamant to not let workers talk to the media otherwise, I just don't buy it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Coast Guard? I would think this entity is well-suited to the federal government.
The entity called the Coast Guard is well equipped to be part of the federal government, of course. Cuz everyone wants everything to be under the federal government. What it's supposed to be is about 50 militias. Not 1 "guard" for the coast. That's more like border patrol.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Imagine the problems in jurisdiction if we had to cut up the nearby oceans so each state could patrol its own section.
How the fuck would that be a problem? The United States, according to my recollection, extends 50 miles off of the coast. Just extend the lines of the states (ex Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc) to the ocean. Being more local, the states would want to help with the cleanup or any mishap off their shores, so they'll do
-
josda1000 wrote:
The militias of the several states were originally swallowed up by this unit called the Coast Guard. Eventually, people started finding it necessary to restart them and they've been slowly creeping back to existence. Anyway, yes, there's no reason to have a Coast Guard dictated by the federal government, that's what militias are for: to help out in any way, AND things are controlled much better in local areas compared to central planning anyway. Case in point, New Orleans.
The coast guard is a military branch. The US government is allowed to form military branches by the constitution for civil defense. The coast guard does just that. They defend against pirates (this was the original point) and other attacks on the coast. They were very active in the last world war as the threat of Japanese and German raiding vessels on our ports and ships was very real.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The coast guard is a military branch. The US government is allowed to form military branches by the constitution for civil defense. The coast guard does just that. They defend against pirates (this was the original point) and other attacks on the coast. They were very active in the last world war as the threat of Japanese and German raiding vessels on our ports and ships was very real.
You're right, 100%. But that's a job for the navy. There's no place in the constitution for a Coast Guard. To quote: Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power... To raise and support Armies, but not Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy The navy is supposed to be well maintained, and provide great defense. And they do, which is great. The thing is that there's no reason to have all of these departments and splitoffs. For all I care, get rid of the Coast Guard and make the navy bigger! They're supposed to be a big defense mechanism, and the same with the army.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Except companies are far more powerful than any individual. A company will always win a battle of "greed" in this case.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The coast guard is a military branch. The US government is allowed to form military branches by the constitution for civil defense. The coast guard does just that. They defend against pirates (this was the original point) and other attacks on the coast. They were very active in the last world war as the threat of Japanese and German raiding vessels on our ports and ships was very real.
You're right, 100%. But that's a job for the navy. There's no place in the constitution for a Coast Guard. To quote: Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power... To raise and support Armies, but not Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy The navy is supposed to be well maintained, and provide great defense. And they do, which is great. The thing is that there's no reason to have all of these departments and splitoffs. For all I care, get rid of the Coast Guard and make the navy bigger! They're supposed to be a big defense mechanism, and the same with the army.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.In a perfect world the military would have 2 branches. The Army and the Navy. The Army would take care of anything on land or over it. The Navy would deal with Naval assaults and their own air support. The world isn't perfect. Early on the Navy realized they needed trained assault troops. The Marines were born. Later the Navy realized they can't park ships outside major ports all over the US. It just isn't plausible. They made a smaller division to guard the coast. After WW2 the Army (thanks to colonel Jimmy Stewart) came to the realization that the USARMYAIRFORCE was a bad way to do things and made the Air Force. It handles fast moving air craft while the army handles close support craft. The Army-Air Force thing is the opposite of the navy version. Coast Guard is about the close support craft. They handle rescue operations, patrols and other things the Navy can't do because the Navy doesn't have the equipment for it. Personally I would much rather there was a 10 person craft patrolling the local waters than a 150 man destroyer. Seems like less of a waste of taxpayer money.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
In a perfect world the military would have 2 branches. The Army and the Navy. The Army would take care of anything on land or over it. The Navy would deal with Naval assaults and their own air support. The world isn't perfect. Early on the Navy realized they needed trained assault troops. The Marines were born. Later the Navy realized they can't park ships outside major ports all over the US. It just isn't plausible. They made a smaller division to guard the coast. After WW2 the Army (thanks to colonel Jimmy Stewart) came to the realization that the USARMYAIRFORCE was a bad way to do things and made the Air Force. It handles fast moving air craft while the army handles close support craft. The Army-Air Force thing is the opposite of the navy version. Coast Guard is about the close support craft. They handle rescue operations, patrols and other things the Navy can't do because the Navy doesn't have the equipment for it. Personally I would much rather there was a 10 person craft patrolling the local waters than a 150 man destroyer. Seems like less of a waste of taxpayer money.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
And this makes it constitutional? All they'd have to do is amend the damned thing. I mean, this is barely a talking point at all compared to the other infractions of the constitution, but it is a valid argument. All I ask is that they amend the document, through Article 5.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.