Printable View
This is an outstanding use of our men and women in uniform. NOT!
I cannot begin to voice my disgust for this assignment. Our men and women in the military did not sign up for this! It is demeaning and a waste of their time.
Does anyone think maybe I'm pissed!
SourceQuote:
Washington — Active-duty members of the military deployed near the U.S.-Mexico border have been assigned to spend a month painting a mile-long stretch of barriers to improve their "aesthetic appearance."
That - is disgraceful...And what the Hell is "anti-climb" paint?...:pissed:...Ben
Hell no, thats a job for illegal mexicans..
Bet it would cost less with them painting it also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillbo
High gloss epoxy?:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Truckman
Teflon?...:dunno:...BenQuote:
Originally Posted by mgrist
Coarsely ground glass mixed with epoxy.
Disgusting :redmad:
Now if they were to be trained and used to replace failing small bridges I be in favor of that.
Train 5-6 companies in bridge building work and with the Corp of Engineers designing bridges of under a certain size (say 30 ft or so) I wouldn't be opposed if our troops were used to replace those county road small bridges. Of course that would take planing and co-operation of the counties/states that would like to take advantage of this program. Benefits as I see them is training troops on heavy equipment, field deployment of said troops and all the associated members of staff (cooks, clerks, etc.). Best thing is if they could rotate members to different aspects of the job, it may get them interested in future jobs in a similar field(s).
I'd have a real problem if the military were in competition with regular companies. Not to mention the conflict with the Davis-Bacon Act.
We already have a similar conflict with prison labor and prisons bidding on public jobs--like school furniture.
No problem in Crazyfornia Dave, the prison labor will be sitting in the jury box deciding the fate of one of their peers. Unions do not have to worry.