If you see the link below, you'll see that the Cohen Group (of which Admiral Loy is a principal) received $120,000 recently from Lockheed (years 2006 and 2007):

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/client_reports.asp...eed+Martin&year=2006

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/client_reports.asp...name=Lockheed+Martin

Also, you will see in the link below that Lockheed paid $120,000 to a "consultant" group for Deepwater lobbying:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/29/ap4066392.html

I hope this thread does not get locked or erased. I think it is important to show the influence of the Military Industrial Complex. I know of one person (Mark Wood) who is one of the
esteemed members group that would agree to spotlighting this.

Sorry but please keep me out of anything having to do with the "up and coming" replacement fleet. The only two ships that interested me at all were both built before my nativity (and I'm 56), none of which fly the Coast Guard ensign any longer.

I may be put to the guillotine for this but, (I think) that Deepwater is an epitome of the filthy corruption taking place in our government these days, regardless of political party in power.

This form of government cannot be sustainable.

Here endith the lesson.

quote:

Originally posted by M_Wood51:
Sorry but please keep me out of anything having to do with the "up and coming" replacement fleet. The only two ships that interested me at all were both built before my nativity (and I'm 56), none of which fly the Coast Guard ensign any longer.

I may be put to the guillotine for this but, (I think) that Deepwater is an epitome of the filthy corruption taking place in our government these days, regardless of political party in power.

This form of government cannot be sustainable.

Here endith the lesson.

But, that won't stop many on here from coming out of the woodwork to try and soften the blows against the contractors for failing to meet their obligations or to deflect the concept of accountablity away from those responsible in the organization.

quote:

But, that won't stop many on here from coming out of the woodwork to try and soften the blows against the contractors for failing to meet their obligations or to deflect the concept of accountablity away from those responsible in the organization.

There is no one on here that can "soften the blows against the contractors for failing to meet their obligations or to deflect the concept of accountablity".

This is a discussion board... decisions are made elsewhere... and $120K is not a lot of money for a lobbyist group to be paid...

Ask your buddy Keko.... or did he jump ship.

Wray...

Its kind of funny that you or anyone else are making any kind of an issue out of $120K in payments from a contractor to a lobbyist.

Lobbying for a cause, hiring a lobbyist, who is usually an expert in the area that they are lobbying for, is (and has been for many years) a legitimate, legal business. Lobbyists are registered with the government and are "allowed" to lobby Congress.

So, the Cohen Group got paid to lobby Congress on behalf of the Deepwater Contractor? I would be more surprised and curious as to why not, if you had said that LMSS et al didn't lobby Congress.

quote:

I hope this thread does not get locked or erased. I think it is important to show the influence of the Military Industrial Complex. I know of one person (Mark Wood) who is one of the esteemed members group that would agree to spotlighting this.

I don't quite understand your paranoia here, who ever you may be, WRT locking the thread; so far I don't see any reason to. As long as you comply with the Military.com User Agreement your posts should be fine - just don't cross the line.

The "Military/Industrial Complex" as you put it has been influencing Congress for many years; why do you think Bollinger built the 110s or Electric Boat builds submarines? A heavily lobbyed Congress; and all the back scratching deals made in the smoke (probably Cuban Cigar Smoke) filled back rooms of the Senate and House Office Buildings.

I don't know if it still happens - but one year at CGHQ there were a group of us from the CPOA at the puzzle palace who served as bartenders at one of the Senate Armed Service Committees Christmas Party. It was attended primarily by Senate Staffers and gee, here's a surprise, defense contractors...

You know 1110, maybe someone who is naive about the workings of government, someone who doesn't know about lobbyists, might fall for the agenda of your post about the payment and gasp and cry foul (which you want them to do) but most of the readers here are alot smarter then you give them credit; they are after all, mostly Coast Guard men and women - for the most part a lot smarter then their Navy counterparts - alot has to do with the responsibilities placed on them early in their careers. Instead of merely being a "number" or just droning along - even as early in a career as Petty Officers E4 and E5 the responsibilities placed on them and the decisions they may need to make independently of someone telling them what to do are as much or even greater then those of many junior officers in other services. Not all mind you, but in my learned experience most Coast Guard Petty Officers have much greater responsibilities placed on them.

I believe Mark Wood politely and kindly addressed an issue that gives me some slight concerns 1110, please refrain from trying to put words in other peoples mouths....Thanks

Tim, what exactly do you mean "crossing the line"?

Thank you for your response. I can understand how Admiral Loy, an employee of the Cohen Group, would get compensated more than $100,000 from Lockheed to lobby Congress and the Coast Guard on Lockheed's behalf. He as well has received over $300,000 in Lockheed stock as a member of its board

In March 2007 the Washington Post had a feature on Admiral Loy and his relation to the Coast Guard's Deepwater contract, which was awarded to Lockheed Martin in summer of 2002. When asked by the Washington Post if he ever faced improper influence on Deepwater decisions while serving as Commandant, Loy said: "The question is almost insulting. I will pass on giving you any kind of answer."

A.J.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KeepingUpWithJones,

quote:

Tim, what exactly do you mean "crossing the line"?

Violating the user agreement is crossing the line. Since everyone has acknowledged the terms of membership (or else you wouldn't be able to post...) then you are responsible to know what is and what isn't acceptable behavior on the forums. I am willing to venture a guess that you probably didn't read them but just clicked on the box that said that you agree to the terms...most people just click on the box on most online discussion boards without reading any part of it...human nature...

Try reading for comprehension Tim Heckt aka Nobodyaskemebut and you'll see that nowhere did I say anything about lobbyists or M_Wood51, nor imply that those here were not smart. Try not putting words in my mouth...Thanks

It is indeed sad that you as a moderator would see the need to stoop to labeling those in the Navy to be less "smarter" than those in the USCG as a means of making a point. Based on your apparent biases, nothing will change that until you realize that your stereotype is just as uncreditable as the other services' incorrect generalizations placed on the USCG - which are based on similiar false assumptions and conjecture.

If you are a true Navy veteran, then you shouldn't take offense to the following: pull your head out of your fourth point of contact, sailor.

Tim Heckt aka Nobodyaskemebut ---Yes tim has a name, and he is not afraid to use it....

1110 -- you talk so big, but yet you are afraid to post your real name and past.. why would we believe anything in your profile is factual?

...that tells me, and others a lot about you.

Wray...

Tim,

Here's a useful tool to help you deal with the trolls and other complainers with no helpful solution to their own problems:

Capone

Take a couple of days off and power down the computer. You've earned that much.

BZ

mw

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
Try reading for comprehension Tim Heckt aka Nobodyaskemebut and you'll see that nowhere did I say anything about lobbyists or M_Wood51, nor imply that those here were not smart. Try not putting words in my mouth...Thanks

It is indeed sad that you as a moderator would see the need to stoop to labeling those in the Navy to be less "smarter" than those in the USCG as a means of making a point. Based on your apparent biases, nothing will change that until you realize that your stereotype is just as uncreditable as the other services' incorrect generalizations placed on the USCG - which are based on similiar false assumptions and conjecture.

If you are a true Navy veteran, then you shouldn't take offense to the following: pull your head out of your fourth point of contact, sailor.

It is a sad day there 1110 if I were to post as a moderator on this particular forum I would say entirely different things....but you are right, it was Jonesy who made the comments about lobbyists and mentioned Mark Wood. Unfortunately even I can admit that my post should say Jonesy and not you...

Read for comprehension? Good point lad, spell my name right; HOTEL ECHO CHARLIE HOTEL TANGO NOT HOTEL ECHO CHARLIE KILO TANGO. Of course if it were said with signal flags then place the first sub in the 4th position.

Should I be offended by your final comment? No, I was honorably discharged from the Navy in 1975 to enlist in the Coast Guard. I have been around long enough and worked with the Navy on numerous issues to post my comment about the intelligence level of both services; it is my opinion - my point as you might think...

So, you get some credit, nameless poster, anonymous lad who claims Navy SWO service, I mis-identified you as the original poster...sorry, I will give you that part of it.

Al Capone, Mark....good idea!

quote:

Originally posted by Wray:
Tim Heckt aka Nobodyaskemebut ---Yes tim has a name, and he is not afraid to use it....

1110 -- you talk so big, but yet you are afraid to post your real name and past.. why would we believe anything in your profile is factual?

...that tells me, and others a lot about you.

Wray...

It indeed may seem like that to certain members of the social support group that exists here; I could not possibly be less concerned about that.

And we glance over all this background noise and irreverent banter to get back to the thread's subject of focus.

Here are the links to the two lobbyist hired for $120,000 to support Lockheed on its Deepwater lobbying:

http://www.kslaw.com/portal/server.pt?space=KSPublicRed...cRedirect&BioId=5884

http://www.kslaw.com/portal/server.pt?space=KSPublicRed...cRedirect&BioId=6842

You just keep on posting your information.. there are some folks out here that read and form their own opinions.. but be advised.. you will be attacked with innuendo and labeled a troublemaker etc for your postings.. the good ole boy network most assuredly lives on this board..

M Wood, if you are one of the 6 billion, then go to another forum and don't post here. If you didn't care, then why even spend any time here? And please don't revert to another self-absorbed episode of thinking you are doing 1110 and myself a service here by letting us know that "nobody cares".

Okay, one of the regular gang has to chime in here and come to your defense as well as put me in my place.

Romz25, well said. I am expecting some censure or perhaps a less than subtle threat about my status on this board. Romz24, the very fact of calling "a spade a spade" puts yourself in jeopardy. I guess there are a few of us who refuse to drink the kool-aid, or the booze for some of the vocal types (i.e., Masterchief Wray). We also refuse to exercise any form of narcissism.

Romz25, I found something to further satisfy your interest. Open the SEC filing link below. From what I can read it shows that Admiral Loy owns at least owns $300,000 in Lockheed stock (3,034.3334 shares):

http://www.secinfo.com/d15Ee2.v4.htm

Okay, so what happens next? All this information is a matter of fact. It is all available to us on the Internet. It is pure fact, not a subjective statement.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KeepingUpWithJones,

quote:

Originally posted by romz25:
You just keep on posting your information.. there are some folks out here that read and form their own opinions.. but be advised.. you will be attacked with innuendo and labeled a troublemaker etc for your postings.. the good ole boy network most assuredly lives on this board..

Ben is there some really valid reason for you to join in the discussion or are you just trying to stir the pot? Opinions are posted some oppose some don't. As long as the TOS is followed then people can post...1110 and Jonesy post within the limits of the TOS; so what is it with your comment?

On the subject, Jonesy, what really is your point about Cohen Group receiving payments from Lockheed Martin to lobby Deepwater for their behalf? As I stated earlier, lobbying and lobbyists are a legal part of the political scene. Ever donate money to the American Cancer Society or the Red Cross, or some other organization? They have lobbyists and actively lobby The Congress...would I hire an auto mechanic to lobby Congress for Deepwater? No. Are you implying wrong doing? Do tell, what is your point?

quote:

Ben is there some really valid reason for you to join in the discussion or are you just trying to stir the pot? Opinions are posted some oppose some don't. As long as the TOS is followed then people can post...1110 and Jonesy post within the limits of the TOS; so what is it with your comment?

My point is self explanatory.. it is my humble opinion that this discussion has been met with resistance from a few folks – you included.. this discussion was conveniently moved to another board to apparently “die” a slow death but I guess that hasn’t happened.. To be honest, I personally agree with many of your points and I believe you provide valid counterpoints to things brought forth.. but I also feel you’d like this whole discussion to go away.. But WHY? If you tire of this discussion, why involve yourself with it? why do you feel compelled to bring up the TOS EVERTIME this discussion is started?