Life in y2s country where govt #1

“.”

“.”

“.”

“.”

“Y2, how come you didn't comment on the story I linked to in the post before your first post today?”

“.”

“bored today Sarge? LOL”

“Actually no - just trying to communicate to y2. He seems to put me on ignore when he's called out on things.

Actually I'm freaking busy. Good thing I have mad typing skills.”

“Because it's a nothing story Mutt.
1) the guy is trying to relate to his audience, and give them an idea that he relates to their concenrs,
2) Hackney is a rough part of london, if you compare that to a rough part of a comparable city anywhere in the world some kids sitting on the wall is not a biug issue.
3) The guy is not necessarily scared, but concerned over the consequences for his career should be become involved in a confrontation with them.
4) It's in the telgraph, which is a paper aimed at old conservatives who like to think teenagers everywhere are an evil force in society.”

“Sarge - as with all children it's best to ingore your little tantrums.”

“He's pissed because ignore works.”

“3) The guy is not necessarily scared, but concerned over the consequences for his career should be become involved in a confrontation with them. - Y2

lol - I'm not sure which makes your country sound worse.”

“Muttley, it's a no win situation for senior police officer.

It's fairly easy to see what happened here. It's police community liason meeting which is very low on the importance scale for a paper like the Telegraph. So they've sent a trainee reporter along who wanted come back with something, and this was all he had. If that's all that came from the meeting then there wasn't much else happening.

I think the UK does need to get tougher on crime and public disorder, but it is generally a very safe place. It's just crap to paint it as some sort of out of control place.
Also remember that you sit in your home armed to the teeth because you're frightened of the meth dealers in your neighborhood, so you're hardly in a position to be criticizing others.”

“I'm glad you are on board, bored...

Two cows in every pot! That will be my campaign motto and promise...”

“hmm, Great Britain as an out of control place...Interesting, I just read this this morning and it sounds like GB is TOTALLY in control, especially where it's young people are concerned.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/20/suspected-suicides-in-bridgend-area-reach-17-as-schoolgirl-jenna-parry-is-found-hanged-89520-20325211/”

“And here's another one.. WHat are they thinking?

I think it is time to ban the sale of rope in Wales!!!! For the children!!!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/28/in-detention-for-refusing-to-plan-her-own-funeral-89520-20334166/”

“Glad you can make jokes about teenagers killing themselves squirrel - classy move.”

“I can make a joke about anything.

My comment wasn't a joke it was a direct response to anyone who thinks guns should be banned because people kill themselves or others with them. One of the first things that certain types of lawmakers say is "Do it for the children" It always boils down to, if you don't sign this bill you must hate the children. Besides, only about half of the people who hung themselves in Wales are children, the oldest is 41.

When I was in college I did a report on the suicide numbers around the world based on the left's wish to ban guns so that our suicide rates would drop in the US. After I did the report the numbers were quite clear. The United States suicide rates were far below certain countries that had strict gun control in place. Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Japan all had rates higher than ours and they are extremely strict on gun ownership. This was done based on 1996 numbers, so I don't know how much has changed since then.”

“Report to the gun thread.”

“See the thing is, the UK is far far from perfect, I wouldn't claim otherwise - but you guys just show your ignorance with the stuff you try to hold up as examples.”

“What about the spree killing rates SuirrelBait? How do they look?”

“And sorry, but that college project sounds like "I like my guns, they're good."

What were the conclusions, that their guns made them happier and less depressed?”

“It's just crap to paint it as some sort of out of control place. - Y2

You're not getting it.”

“Like I said, the rates were from 1996, and yes they were in a direct repsonse to the over inflated numbers used to bash guns and gun ownership all the time.

The spree killings look terrible, but they look alot better than a totalitarian government that controls the press and limits free speech like every other country in the world. Please name a country that doesn't censor their press or any other type of media that has a high number of private gun owners.

No, the conclusion was that using suicide as a benchmark to ban guns was a moot point based on countries that had strict laws against guns having a higher suicide rate, proving that guns are not the reason people kill themselves.”

“what am I not getting mutt. Illuminate the genius between your words.”

“crime is NUTS! in England”

“guns are not the reason anyone gets killed, they're just a handy tool for doing the job.”

“Historically the spree killings look bad now, but there are lots of atrocities out there that make what is happening in America a teeny little drop in the bucket. The killings in America look bad, and are bad, but the root causes are all still the same. In every instance that has happened since Columbine you have someone who wants to be famous. The media plays into that, fueling more spree killers. They have to stop making these people famous.”

“That's true SB.

I guess the wider point I'm trying to make is that you can criticize the UK for many of its policies and even the extent of the nanny state there - but people are missing the mark here with the examples used here.”

“Yeah, or they just see how easy it is to get a gun and spray a crowd with bullets.”

“But if you think about it rosey, even though the spree killers and spree shooters get all kinds of press, how many are actually killed or wounded? The numbers are really quite small when compared to other crime related deaths.”

“Let this be a warning to the Ron Paul fools...

Stratfor

The British Royal Navy is mired in a procurement nightmare. Neglect of major acquisition programs in the 1990s and the diversion of British military spending to fund current operational obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan have left a military simultaneously stretched thin by the highest operational tempo seen in a generation and trying to acquire several new naval platforms all at once.

Though the lasting impact on the Royal Navy’s operational effectiveness remains to be seen, in the short term it will remain difficult for London’s maritime forces to meet their multiple obligations.

Conservative British governments began cutting naval funding as far back as 1982, when the Falkland Islands War broke out. That conflict highlighted shortcomings in the Royal Navy’s strategic reach. The Falkland War’s successful outcome and the last phases of the Cold War temporarily halted the planned reductions, but after 1991, the Royal Navy began major reductions again, and has seen a more or less steady quantitative decline across all classes of vessels.

The 21st century has seen a meaningful revitalization of the Royal Navy’s amphibious forces with the Ocean, Albion and Bay classes, as well as the navy’s support fleet. But the force’s carriers, surface combatants and attack submarines have begun to atrophy and incremental upgrades have been underfunded. London is now retiring its warships faster than it is replacing them, consequently degrading the navy’s operational effectiveness.

Now, the United Kingdom is trying to procure three of the most expensive modern naval platforms, which make amphibious forces and replenishment ships seem comparatively low-tech. These three include:

* the Type 45 Daring guided-missile destroyer (DDG). After withdrawing from the joint European Horizon Project, London went it alone to procure this air warfare surface combatant. The lead ship is now projected to cost close to $2 billion. The program is $2 billion over budget and two and a half years behind schedule.
* the Astute-class nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN). Britain’s next generation SSN, the program is now $2 billion over budget and four years behind schedule.
* the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier (formerly known as the CVF). This is the largest class of ship in terms of both tonnage and displacement ever commissioned by the Royal Navy. The finer points of its pricing are still being negotiated, but each is expected to exceed $3.6 billion — to say nothing of the procurement of the increasingly expensive F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, which are to operate from its decks.

Such an ambitious procurement program would be challenging enough. But with the highest operational tempo in at least a generation, the British military is already stretched thin, and defense funding is as exceptionally tight. (Whitehall’s twenty biggest weapons programs are cumulatively more than $5 billion over budget). The impending reset costs of worn equipment returning from Afghanistan will only further these troubles. These near-term spending pressures are constraining procurement decisions, leaving the Royal Navy in a bind.
An early computer-generated image of the prospective Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier

With spending pressures so strong, procurement decisions are being constrained. The Royal Navy now looks like it will be lucky to acquire six Daring-class DDGs, only half its projected needs. A decision has not yet been made on the 4th and 5th Astute boats, though the oldest Trafalgar SSNs will begin to be retired in the next few years.

The lead ship or boat of a class is almost invariably the most expensive, and the last vessel often is still cheaper than the 2nd to last. As each design and construction process becomes better understood, many costs can be eliminated. Thus, not only is London failing to build the number of ships it needs, its constrained procurement programs are ensuring that those it does obtain are as expensive as possible. Unless London decides to change its policy, the Royal Navy could find itself lacking adequate numbers to carry out any but a limited set of missions in Northern European or Mediterranean waters.

The British government appears to intend to hold the line on defense spending. But this hardly will be enough for the military as a whole, much less for the Royal Navy in particular — which has been the hardest hit of the services in terms of budgetary neglect.

Naval power is often an underappreciated cornerstone of geopolitical security. This underappreciation is compounded today by the high profile of land operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Worse still, despite the United Kingdom’s long and proud naval tradition, there seems little political impetus to make the decisive funding choices necessary to sustain the fleet.

The Royal Navy’s status as Washington’s most important naval ally is thus eroding. The next five to ten years will prove decisive in the navy’s ultimate future. Nothing short of its retention of the Royal Navy’s distinction as the pre-eminent European naval power is at stake.
last edited: 3/04/08 5:42:35 AM”

“Let this be a warning to those that support anyone else ...



”

“Permita que esto ser una advertencia a ésos que sostienen cualquiera más...”

“Try to stay on topic, Sarge.”

“poor Mutt hates facts”

“Ron Paul is a non issue at this point. Let's just get behind who we know is our only hope to beat the Dems.”

“Hell no. The Republican party needs to be sent a message. The Dems and the Repubs have gone too far left. I'm not going to support a Republican party that is more leftist than the Democrats were in the 90s. This has to stop now before it's too late.”

“I agree with the illegal issue, Sarge. This is focused on 1) Ron's ideas on drastic cuts to the military, and 2) Y2's military going down the sh*thole to fund govt waste.

Of course, this is TT, so you can go as off topic as you like. I just wanted anyone reading this to know that it will indeed be off topic of my original points.”

“It's right on topic of your original posts. Your implication is that Paul's decisions would put our country in a world of hurt. My rebut to that is we'll be in more of a world of hurt with any of the other alternatives. You're living in a state of denial. Soon, if you get your way, you'll be living in a state of desmentido.”

“The right can't satisfy everyone and try for the latino and black vote. Remember business and the 'No Border Bunch' are one and the same. Atleast Paul will say that the fed is just to big and size means more than all the details you can count.

Many of you realize that Paul is right, but are so used to fighting back the other side you haven't a clue about what you're getting into-GWB give you a hint?

creating wealth in this country is almost impossible without being connected to some other countries , but we can't treat these countries as we are.
last edited: 3/04/08 7:06:40 AM”

“Two states in the world that have always been leaders and set trends are: California and France. Yes bth liberal , but trend setters. If you want to live in the US as Californians and the French do elect Amnesty John. Be warned that like all the rest when he or she is elected getting rid of them doesn't all ways work.”

“You're living in a state of denial. Soon, if you get your way, you'll be living in a state of desmentido - Sarge

I just stated that I agree with Ron on the immigration issue; i.e. I realize other candidates aren't going to be as strong on the issue. Why do you feel the need to lie about what I just plainly said?”

“That's a pretty poor article Mutt, not sure what you're paying for there.

Doesn't really include much content, and gets some stuff wrong.

The contraction of the Royal Navy goes back to the 1920s for a start.
There was a major rethink of the Navy in the 60s and 70s which pre-dated the Falklands War. The last major fixed-wing aircraft carrier, Ark Royal, was scrapped a couple of years before the Falklands war. One of the ships planned to replace it, Invincible, was just about to be sold to Australia, while the decision to scrap the Antartic patrol ship Endurance was said to have given the signal ot the Argentinians that the UK wouldn't fight for the Falklands.
If anything the Falklands represented a success for the Navy as they were able to conduct a major operation 8,000 miles from home in the middle of nowhere. It led to a renewed focus on the need for the Navy.

The procurement issues and cost overruns are harldy specific to the UK.”

“I didn't say you disagree. The point is your candidate (yet to be named), will NOT close the border, and that's the worst thing for this country. Another couple dozen illegals get in, we're doomed. They are ALREADY affecting government policy. It will get worse. They will reach their goal and turn this into another Mexico.

Rome is falling.”

“It's the church Stupid or was that economy?

The horrible part is that the employers of the illigrants get a free ride and the little pot smokers sit in the cells these criminals should occupy.
last edited: 3/04/08 8:00:40 AM”

“If anything the Falklands represented a success for the Navy as they were able to conduct a major operation 8,000 miles from home in the middle of nowhere. It led to a renewed focus on the need for the Navy. - Y2

LOL - spoken like a true patriot. Certainly that's how the average brit saw it at the time. The article wasn't meant to be a period piece, obviously. It was trying to highlight the vulnerabilities revealed by the Falklands War caused by then-recent funding cuts. It's comparing that to the situation today. Reading comprehension matters.

Look beyond your patriotism and read about the implications the Falklands had for the Royal Navy.”

“The point is your candidate (yet to be named), will NOT close the border, and that's the worst thing for this country. - Sarge

And propping up one pillar while kicking down another is any better? Wowza.”

“And propping up one pillar while kicking down another is any better?

It depends which pillars you are propping up, and kicking down.

You can do all the fighting you want overseas, but open up the borders and you're dead.”

“... and ... for the like 100th time ... contrary to what you want so desparately to believe ... Ron Paul WOULD go after terrorists that attack us.”