Comment from: lisa [Visitor] Email
Now Dodd is concerned about CT workers? - He did nothing as chairman of the banking committee to ward of the collapse of the banks that cost millions in tax revenue for CT, which ultimately is responsible for 7,000 small businesses going OUT of business this year. DON'T buy this guy's B.S.
07/21/09 @ 13:35
Comment from: Dad [Visitor] Email
This accompliashes two goals for 0bama, it hurts private industry, and it hurts our country, both huge targets for America-hating liberals.
07/21/09 @ 13:41
Comment from: Able [Visitor] Email
Explain how investing in a plane that won't be used, isn't necessary and has no value in the 'war on terror' is essential to the protection of the United States?

Also, I don't hate America, just ignorant people with no sense of logic.
07/21/09 @ 13:46
Comment from: GLEN K. DUNBAR [Visitor] Email · http://www.metopera.org
Here I must politely disagree w/my pal Chris Dodd. I think if the F22 plane is not viable
then it should be scrapped from the budget. Of course I feel for the loss of jobs. Yet, I can't see wasting money on this IF it is shown that we have enough already.

I am surprised at Chris for this. I would have thought He would be in favor of cutting cost my not making any of the planes since we have enough already. ??

Glen
07/21/09 @ 14:11
Comment from: JoeSixPack [Visitor] Email
The department of defense didn't want any more F-22's. The generals and admirals should know what they want and what they don't want to spend their money on! Spending money on national defense should be about just that 'National Defense'. Not a 'make work project' to protect workers. I for one am embarrassed that Dodd is begging the rest of the nation for 'pork' spending for CT. If my nation needs it - we'll supply it. We don't need or want any handouts from the rest of the U.S Taxpayers.
Dodd doesn't speak for CT.
07/21/09 @ 14:17
Comment from: Visitor2 [Visitor] Email
IMO 187 F22 planes is enough for now. I agree with SD Gates.

They want to spend the money on the new F35 which I think is a good plan.

The barking Dodd is just trying to get some facetime and dosen't deserve am moment of your time......
07/21/09 @ 14:50
Comment from: Janie [Visitor] Email
This is nothing more than campaigning from Dodd. All of a sudden he's on the issues making like he really is concerned. He wants the votes - that's what this is all about!
07/21/09 @ 14:51
Comment from: anonymous [Visitor]
Hey don't worry be happy Because the Doddmeister is going to be retired in November 2010 by the Voters of Connecticut. The same voters who rejected Ned Lamont's attempt to become another empty suit in The US Senate. The CT Democratic Party, CCAG, MLN and all the liberal dog and pony blogs will become a thing of the past. Dodd can't fool us anymore we know how you and your fellow liberal slime operate. The jig is up Dodd so get ready to clean your office out and get ready to hand the keys over to a Republican on January 2011!!
07/21/09 @ 14:55
Comment from: Hosed by the system [Visitor] Email
The F35 is a "joint" fighter..meaning it can be used by both the NAVY and the Air Force............

THAT makes sense more than manufacturing a plane that can ONLY be used by one military brance..it will save millions in procurement down the line.......

There is NO reason that a company cant come up with a fighter aircraft that can cover BOTH the mission of the NAVY & of the Air Force.....



this isnt 40 or 50 years ago........costs are different.............
07/21/09 @ 15:44
Comment from: Derek [Visitor] Email
The cost of these Jets are less than 1% of the bailout plan. Nice going Liberal Democrats, you are just as guilty when it comes to making sure that the fat cats have there pockets well lined, while giving the trops and miltary a punch to the stomach.
07/21/09 @ 16:02
Comment from: Able [Visitor] Email
Explain how having F-22's helps in the war against 'terror?'
07/21/09 @ 16:37
Comment from: Hosed by the system [Visitor] Email
other than delivering the ordinance we use against ground targets...probably nothing.......

But we still need to maintain an edge in the fighter technology..Russia & China are still workin on newer technology for thier aircraft.....
07/21/09 @ 17:42
Comment from: jonathan [Visitor] Email
instead of weaponry, we should spend money on infrastructure. anything else is moronicity. We are falling apart with regard to bridges, roads and dams. How about a water relocation plan for excess flooding and wild fires. Any of these options is better than weaponry.
07/21/09 @ 18:02
Comment from: Hosed by the system [Visitor] Email
We dont live in that type of world, Jonathon........

dream on........
07/21/09 @ 21:27
Comment from: Steve [Visitor] Email · http://www.paratrooper.net
For once I agree with the administration. The F-22 is an overpriced one trick pony that might be the lastest thing in air dominance on paper but it's not the quantum jump over the competition that the F-15 was in it's heyday. So far the airframe has been nifty for the beyond visual range role but hasn't proven itself superior to lighter aircraft in knifefighting. USAF won't let them conduct such training against older types like F-16's and the sort... would be bad for business and more than a little embarassing if Raptors were easy kills for Falcons & Hornets in a gun/sidewinder solution.

The F-35 certainly provides a bigger bang for the taxpayer's money and is set to replace the F-16 as the gold standard of multirole fighters. Too be honest... it can mount the exact same avionics as the F-22 and can carry the same AIM-120 AMRAAM all the while having a stealthier profile (much newer design incorporating more stealth features) so it's supposed inferiority in air to air is nothing more than service propaganda.

Concerning Pratt & Whitney... recent news revealed they are fleeing the opressive taxation of this state along with the other 7000 companies that closed up shop here in the past year. So our State senate and governor have already screwed the state on that score.
07/22/09 @ 01:52
Comment from: Neal [Visitor] Email
I agree Jonathon, we should be spending money on our infrastructure or any thing else. We have enough weapons and should be cutting back most on that kind of spending.
07/22/09 @ 14:24
Comment from: Hosed by the system [Visitor] Email
Well Neal...............you MAY get your wish...this so called "healthcare" bill over take LOTS of the military spending and help bankrupt this country in the friggin process.......lol
07/22/09 @ 16:27

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
PoorExcellent
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
« Obama pitches healthcare planGOP delays Sotomayor vote »