A week of this back and forth has exhausted the topic, therefore the comments have now been closed.

You come on here with your superior attitude pretending to know all this stuff about fighters, attack aircraft, aircraft design and budgets that fly in the face of anything remotely creditable and all you can muster in your defense is to act as if I am somehow a spokesman for this program? Please, I can confront your many false assertions without necessarily being in favor of THIS program.

“why not go back to the root of this esoteric offshoot and show me where I said that?” Ok, - "Given that DOD, plus veteran’s benefits, plus other defense programs larded through other budgets (like NASA and Dept of Energy)”  That was you attempting to defend your (or your source’s rather) counting as all of DOE as defense to come up with your fictitious figure of half of your tax dollars going to defense.  Its sitting on page 4

 Here’s a perfect example of your passive aggressiveness—and your penchant for insulting others (not just Cassandra, but apparently me as well) before whining about your richly deserved payback.  Too bad the site moderator lets your posts get by, but appears to censor some of Cassandra’s ripostes.  That’s a pity. Cassandra’s are return volleys are far better than your feeble serves and make for better reading.

 Based on how you use language, I’m guessing you believe a snake really talked to Eve, that Noah really built an ark, that Jonah survived in the belly of Leviathan, and in general that the Bible is the literal word of God.  No, you did not expressly claim to be an expert. But the kinds of hostile questions you pose certainly suggest that you know more than Cassandra does.  You want an example? Go back to your post on 29 Feb for starters and backtrack from there. 

In my judgment, Cassandra is right about your argumentative style.  But I would go further and call it, as I have in the past, an example of passive-aggressive behavior.

 Your comment here makes no sense. Who’s ‘they?’  Multinational corporations eliminate competition through concentration of economic power. My comment implied an effective reduction of the tax burden on small business.

 Then why can Air Force have appropriations beyond two years, but the Army can’t, if the AF is piggybacking on the Army?  Unlike you, I have had the privilege of negotiating federal contracts with AF, Navy, and Army, and the last is the only one subject to the two year constitutional limitation.  Actually, the Army limits contracts to ONE year so as not to run afoul of the Constitution (or at least it did over 25 years ago when I was in that line of work.) Your mentioning the National Security Act of 1947 only confirms how little you know. Using your own frame of reference (not mine), it did as at least as much to undermine your ‘Constitutionalist ideology’ as the New Deal did.  BTW, you’re still using inference as your hermeneutic principle. (2) Re: Freddie and Fannie.  They’re examples not of socialism, but of public and private partnerships, which are corrupt by their nature. (3)So the military is a constitutionally sanctioned socialist entity. 

 I don’t have any problems with a standing Army.  It’s a good thing, and it would be an even better idea if it had a lot more people and fewer gold-plated weapons systems.  In fact, I would like to see the institution of Universal Military Service, with the provision of other national service (like the New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corp) for those who have reservations about firearms. Unfortunately the original framers of the Constitution abominated the thought of a standing Army.  That’s why the provision for the army reads, "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years."  The Second Amendment clearly envisions a militia, or a citizens’ army, much like Switzerland’s. So do I put you down as hostile to the US Army as it now stands because it violates the framers’ original intent?  I hope not.

 Yes, I did read the article.  But I composed my comment too hastily, since I do have other things I have to do beyond reading and writing SVH blogs. The article suggests Libby Army Airfield will see some use for F-35 landings, takeoffs, overflights, and, presumably, refueling.  So even though my comment clearly refers to both SV and DM, I could have made it clearer that SV’s role would be ancillary to DM.  You, however, left off DM and mentioned only SV.  Maybe hasty composition on your part?

The rest of my comment stands.