Democratic leaders are poised to gut America’s missile defense

[Naturalized-Texan]

Democratic leaders are poised to gut America’s missile defense (http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/12/star_wars_reduxdemocrats_to_gu.php#comments)

Democratic leaders are poised to gut America’s missile defense - at the same time North Korea and Iran are testing long-range missiles that can strike the U.S. and its allies, including Israel, Japan and Britain.

Meanwhile, sources inside the missile-defense community tell Pajamas Media that the Bush administration is planning to ask Congress to begin funding development of an “orbital battle station.”

With these key developments, 2007 is set to be the biggest battle of space-based weapons since President Reagan proposed “Star Wars” in 1983.

The incoming chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee is Carl Levin. Levin, a Michigan Democrat, has long been a foe of missile defense. In 1980s, he worried that President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative — which aimed to develop technology to destroy Soviet missiles during all phases of flight — was “destabilizing.”

Today Sen. Levin sings the same tune in a different key. “They’ve not done the operational testing yet that is convincing,” said Senator Levin during a post-election press conference. He was referring to the Ground based Missile Defense [GMD] system being installed in Alaska and California, to defend against North Korean missiles. He added that he favors stalling purchases of interceptor missiles - vital for missile defense — until after testing is complete.

In short, Sen. Levin and other longtime opponents of missile defense plan to use “testing” - set to an unrealistically high level - to stop missile defense.

[DesertFox]

We'll see how hard GWB fights.

[MrSanity]

We'll see how hard GWB fights.He needs a Ronald Reagan moment.

[DoctorDoom]

What America desperately needs is mass arrests, trials and executions of its entrenched traitors.

[DesertFox]

America needs but one thing: Somebody with balls to stand up and start talking plain sense in public, taking on all the issues of the day and speaking to them rather than avoiding them, or going along to get along, or trying to be civil, or pretending that assholes really aren't assholes. He needn't even be rancorous, but he does need to have the facts readily at hand and simply speak them out loud in public.

He needs to talk about race first of all and how it's made us feel shame where we should feel pride -- at ending slavery and then overcoming Jim Crow and doing our level best to make things as right as they can be; then saying that "affirmative action is simply Jim Crow in reverse and my govt will not pursue ANY stupid cases on behalf of that destructive, asinine ideology. Oh, and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are liars and scam artists. I will put my AG onto tracking down their lawlessness and putting them in jail. However, not for any 'hate crimes.' Hate crime laws are another idiocy that my administration will try its best to get undone."

Then he needs to talk about feminism and how it's made us behave like idiots. "Women are wonderful. So are men. End of conversation. Women get no special preferences just because they're women, under my govt. Nor do men. Nor do queers. I will direct energetic efforts toward dumping Title IX, which has ruined countless men's sports programs in American colleges for minimal benefits to women. It's a destructive, nasty, lying farce that needs to go. Also, the idiotic notion of 'hostile environment' under which people can't even have pictures of their wives or kids on their desks -- that is the sort of stupidity that has made 'feminism' a laughingstock among serious scholars and decent people. When the president of Harvard can't broach a legitimate subject of inquiry without being hounded out of office by screeching harpies, it's time we threw 'feminism' out on its fat ass."

Then queers. "God made queers so He must love them. I don't, but neither do I hate them just because they're queers. More importantly, I don't have to love them OR hate them; I only have to allow them their rights under the Constitution. That's what they'll get. No special recognition. My SecEd will immediately undertake to rid ALL our public education textbooks of porn that has been put there by queer advocates. Oh, and AIDS research will NOT be part of my budget. AIDS is overwhelmingly a behavioral condition, the prevention of which is already in the hands of sexually active people. I do not propose to put a single federal penny towards AIDS research OR medicines OR anything else, anywhere in the world or in America. AIDS has been around now for over a quarter of a century. If you don't know about it by now, and don't know how to avoid it, you're a prime candidate for a Darwin Award, not federal babying."

Then political correctness. "This distortion of common sense is ludicrous, but no one has stood up to it. I'm doing that now. It's bad manners, but hardly a violation of the First Amendment, to call someone a nigger or a kike or a spic or a wetback or a towelhead or a Fundie or a honky or whatever else. My govt will NOT prosecute cases solely on this basis, though it will recognize incitement in such language when that's the case. The only way we'll ever get past political correctness is to ignore it, and that's just what my govt will do."

Then the courts. "Legislation from the bench is antiConstitutional and my administration won't tolerate it. Some Lefty judge wants to order someone around, he can enforce his order himself because my govt won't do it for him."

Then immigration. "It's sad but true, that the illegals swamping us from the South won't stop coming unless they know we're serious. My administration will show that we are very serious. I will direct the Border Patrol to shoot to kill, anyone coming across the border at other than legal crossing points with all required documentation. I promise you, within a week a few people will be dead, but FAR fewer than would have died in the desert; AND, illegal migration will come to a screeching halt."

Then national defense. "I respect peaceful Muslims but will not stand by while Islam tries to intimidate the world into accepting Mohammed as the worldwide prophet. Mohammed was a pedophile and a freak. Oh, and Mr Ahmadinejad? STFU or I will nuke your second-rate country back into the stone age."

Then the media. "America's media has been selling out America since Walter Duranty at the New York Slimes in the Thirties. My administration will respond to the lies, exaggerations, and distortions point by point so that the public will know just who is lying about what. Be clear on this: Mistakes are one thing. But when the NYS and other media deliberately slant and distort the news to make America out to be the bad guy, they need to be resisted with all the means at our disposal. My administration will do just that. It will also strictly enforce the law regarding publication of national secrets."

Then the universities. "I'm sick to death of America's so-called 'elite' universities leading the way to America's death. My administration will do all in its power to withdraw all federal funding to all universities in America. The private sector will do that job or it just won't get done. It's past time we quit pretending that Lefties who steal entire runs of opposition student newspapers, or trash the offices of such newspapers, are expressing legitimate dissent. They aren't. They're hoodlums, and they're being backed by spineless university administrators who help them pretend to a legitimacy they do not have.

"Whether I succeed in this effort to turn the universities around will depend to some extent on such institutions as the NEA, which I intend to fight at every turn. I also intend to point out such vicious lying frauds as Noam Chomsky. People like that have no business teaching our youth and I will use my bully pulpit to get them gone if it can be done. I will also order my SecEd to lay out a timetable for dismantling the Dept of Education at the end of what I expect to be eight years in office."

Then profiling. "My administration will very pointedly and publicly profile for the safety and security of America. We will profile blacks when that's part of the criminal profile in a given case. We will profile Mexicans when it makes sense as part of the investigation. We will profile Muslims and Arabs when that's part of the profile of people who blow themselves up, and crash airplanes into buildings, all so they can order the rest of us around. Oh, and my administration will not pretend that little blonde-haired girls and 93-year-old grandmas are just as likely to be dangerous as a 25-year-old Muslim. Profiling is a perfectly legitimate part of law enforcement and national security and we will DAMN WELL PROFILE. You don't like it, get over it."

Then global warming. "This is the biggest farce ever perpetrated on the public. Al Gore's an idiot, and anyone who listens to him is missing a few marbles. My administration will NOT kowtow to any global warming scenario. I will appoint respected scientists to the appropriate positions, and they will report to me on what needs to be done vis-a-vis pollution, climate or whatever. I will not pretend that alarmist lies and stupidity, dressed up and passed off as science, are a reasonable basis for public policy."

Then abortion. "This issue needs to be returned to the states. It's a states issue, not one for the SCOTUS to mandate. I will direct my AG to seek ways to get abortion OUT of the courts and back into the political mainstream, where it should have been all this time."

Then stem cell research. "Private institutions can do this just fine with no federal help. That's how it will be under my govt."

Then tort reform. "Lawyers are wrecking the country. Since judges no longer seem to want to limit awards to reasonable sums, I will seek legislation that imposes reasonable limits on tort awards."

Then the opposition. "Does this agenda sound retributive to you? It should. I represent the decent folks in America. We stay home rather than prance around in parades half-dressed. We don't call people Nazis and Taliban and accuse them of starving widows or tell them the other guys will restore slavery if elected. When one of ours gets caught doing wrong, he resigns. The opposition doesn't respect such rules. Their side of the aisle is chockful of people who should have been out of public life long ago, but who continue in office causing problems for the decent people. I mainly mean folks like Ted Kennedy, who has been lying about decent people on the Right for decades now; and John Conyers, a dedicated and very public communist; and Patrick 'Leaky' Leahy, who IMO has been selling America out for decades now; and others of that ilk. These kinds of people have too long distorted public business in America and I intend to take them on head-on. It will be ugly, but they started it. I intend to finish it by finishing them in public life.

"Then there are the examples of Democrat expresidents. Until George W. Bush's terms, it was a longstanding tradition that expresidents didn't criticize the man in office. GOP expresidents respected that, even when a man they could barely stand was in office. Not Democrat expresidents. The only two still alive badmouthed Mr Bush at every opportunity, even breaking another tradition and criticizing the president when they went overseas. If this is the example they want, then I will criticize them while still in office. Both these men -- Carter and Clinton -- played with the Soviets during the era of the Soviet Union and both are very suspect in my eyes as far as loyalty to America goes. I think Carter, besides hating Jews, wants America to fail; and Clinton doesn't care if America fails so long as he gets the limelight. And I will do my level best to prevent either from ever having any impact on American policy at any level again."

Finally, this: "If you don't think there's a difference anymore between the major Parties, you may be right. But there's a great big difference between me and anybody else who's running for the presidency: I will no longer abide the Left's nasty crap, leaving unanswered their lies, and the lies of their lapdogs in the press. They want a culture war, they'll get one from my administration. I want to take back America from the fundie Left. They are the ones who want to see America fail, and it shows in the long trail of evidence leading back to Walter Duranty. They won't get away any longer with an anonymity that owes to public servants not exposing them, or the Fourth Estate not living up to its responsibility. They will smear me as they smear anyone who exposes them. But this time, the object of their hatred will be fighting back as publicly and viciously as they.

"I'm very much aware that my administrations will be full of demonstrations, protests, and similar shenanigans as the Left, as always, takes advantage of American freedoms to try to destroy our stability and enjoyment of quiet, dignified living. They will not be demonstrating in the name of anything legitimate, but only to cause trouble for the rest of us. To the extent that I legally can, I will face these punks down. I grant them no legitimacy whatever. They hate America, the very idea of America. I love America. It's up to you quiet people who just want to live your lives peacefully, to make your position known. The Left, just like the fanatical Muslims where they run things, will not allow you to sit on the sidelines if they ever gain full control in our country. Choose a side NOW and make your opinion known."

You get the point. When people hear such a man they will rally around nationwide.

[Naturalized-Texan]

:claps: :claps: :claps: :claps: :claps: :claps:

[UnkHiram]

Now yall know that if we are just "Sweet" and "Non-threatning" to the North Korean nutcase, the Iranian Neo-Nazi and Oscumma Bag Laden's lunatics that they will start loving us.

[DoctorDoom]

You get the point. When people hear such a man they will rally around nationwide.They won't read him or hear him in the DBM. The only thing they'll be told is that when he was three, he peeked under his sister's skirt, or that he once smoked a joint in high school.

Brer DF, your perfect man will be the focus of lies and hatred 24/7/365, and the sheeple will believe it because they blindly trust the talking hairdos.

[DesertFox]

I don't think so, Doc. A man talking the plain truth will get heard because the public will demand to hear him.

[USPatriot8320]

The public doesn't trust anyone in politics. With good reason. Once a person stands up, is elected and delivers what they promised, then and only then will the American public begin to have faith in their government again. Yes, we all hates polls, but they show a lot of distrust and dislike for most branches of the federal government. Hell NY has one of the most dyfunctional state governments in the nation but the public still has a decent approval rating of it. As one person wrote in an op-ed in our local newspaper around election time; "Atleast they tell us, we're screwed!"

As for missle defense; we've come to far, spent way to much to end it now. See it through, get the damn thing up and running. Yes, it won't be able to stop a massive nuclear attack, but who'd want to live through that anyways.....

[dPrasse]

Now yall know that if we are just "Sweet" and "Non-threatning" to the North Korean nutcase, the Iranian Neo-Nazi and Oscumma Bag Laden's lunatics that they will start loving us.

Why would the Commie/Liberals in the U S want our country to be able to shoot down missiles our enemies built with technology sold to them by Bill Commie Clinton for campaign donations ?

[cerberus]

Back on topic. I won't complain one whit if they do gut NMD. It's a massive boondoggle and a give-away to the aerospace industry. It's useless, not needed and costs WAY to much (the single largest line item on DoD's budget). Oh, and did i mention it still ain't workin' right?
Give me theater defense and send the rest of the cash elsewhere, thank you.

[DoctorDoom]

Back on topic. I won't complain one whit if they do gut NMD.How unexpected that a craven, gutless liberal coward would rather crawl obsequiously at the feet of America's enemies than prepare for attacks.

It's a massive boondoggle ...As opposed, no doubt, to welfare, entitlement and porkbarrel programs.

... and a give-away to the aerospace industry.I have not the slightest qualm about employing hundreds of thousands of people in the aerospace and armaments industries. But then I'm not a sniveling anti-big-business liberal.

It's useless ...To lefties who advocate cut & run and surrender rather than engagement, that's probably true.

... not needed ...So you libeRATs say. But I don't recall the last time you dickheads said something that had even a tenuous link with reality.

... and costs WAY to much (the single largest line item on DoD's budget).Libs have a marvelous way of twisting facts.

• First, you omit the fact that there are hundreds of line items.
• Second, you don't mention the actual expenditures.
•Third, you offer no evidence whatever that it IS the "single largest line item on DoD's budget", and one thing we at FC do NOT do is trust the statements of liberal liars.
• Fourth, you don't compare the cost to what Washington spends each year on unconstitutional, non-military, vote-buying "social" programs.

WASHINGTON April 6, 2000 -- Building and operating a National Missile Defense System will cost taxpayers an estimated $30.2 billion by 2026, Pentagon officials announced here April 4.

The total life-cycle cost of the program from 1991 to 2026 is projected to increase from $23.8 billion to $30.2 billion in 1999 base-year dollars, DoD officials said. The increase includes expanding the number of planned interceptors from 20 to 100, as well as X-band radar improvements, Pentagon spokesman Adm. Craig Quiqley said at a news briefing here.Pentagon Projects National Missile Defense Costs at $30.2B (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2000/n04062000_20004061.html)

1991 to 2026 is 36 years. $30.2B over 36 years is about $838M per year. The 2007 fed budget is about $2.8 trillion. Therefore, if NMD spending in 2007 is $838M, it is 0.03% of the $2.8T. Running the numbers, $838M is what DC will spend every 2.62 hours in the 2007 budget.

Now, liberaloser, tell us why that expenditure "costs WAY to(o) much".

Oh, and did i mention it still ain't workin' right?And why should we care what your opinion is on the subject, liberal? It's research, and research ALWAYS has dead ends and failures.

Give me theater defense and send the rest of the cash elsewhere, thank you.Your suggestion has been noted and will be given all the attention that it merits.

[DesertFox]

It's useless, not needed and costs WAY to much (the single largest line item on DoD's budget). Oh, and did i mention it still ain't workin' right? By this reasoning, the way-too-expensive moon program should have been trashed in 1967 when Gus Grissom and Co. burned up on the missile pad; and the way-too-expensive space shuttle should have been heaved in 1986 after Challenger.

Better to trash AIDS research, which is way-too-expensive and of dubious value to boot.

[Kathy30]

I'd vote for you.

Right before WWII our defenses were also gutted. We are following history almost exactly. Destroying our defenses in the face of an immediate threat.

[Un Con Troll Able]

I, too, have my doubts as to the necessity of a missile defense system. If this country is ever hit by a WMD attack (which I believe is inevitable), it will come via a terrorist attack involving a less-than-conventional delivery system. The only country currently capable of hitting this country with an ICBM -- and actually having the desire to do so -- is North Korea (granted, others could join the club).

Their longest-ranged missile is purported to have the capability of striking the U.S.'s West Coast. They still have some work to do as far as refining its reliablity and accuracy goes, but if we allow them to finish their launch platform enhancements without taking military action against them then we have no one to blame but ourselves.

I'd prefer that they purchase a few thousand F-22s and a few hundred stealthy bombers instead.

Actually, a space-based defensive weapons platform would be fabulous -- if we demonstrated the guts to turn it into an international arrogance moderation tool. Use it to back up our ability to annihilate anyone of our choosing -- and then annihilate our enemies one by one (slowly). And as they frantically rush to develop and deploy an enemy variant of the system...we simply deny this to them by destroying their launch vehicles as they ascend to orbit. If necessary, destroy all of their orbiting satellites with our system -- depriving them of communications, weather tracking, etc. If they persist, use a low-yield tactical nuke to take out a major city in their country, and announce the destruction in a very impudent manner.

Do this, and we'll never again have to fight any Iraq-style wars. Destroy enough enemy cities and I guarantee such problems will become a thing of the past.

[DesertFox]

Yeah, and there was a time when nobody but a handful of "militarists" saw any need for tanks.

[Un Con Troll Able]

A-10 drivers definitely see a need for them.

[cerberus]

How unexpected that a craven, gutless liberal coward would rather crawl obsequiously at the feet of America's enemies than prepare for attacks. Coming from a chicken-hawk who hides behind his computer and isn't doing the heavy lifting, I'll keep that in mind as I continue to serve my country. :finger:

As opposed, no doubt, to welfare, entitlement and porkbarrel programs. It's a welfare and entitlement program for Ratheon and Co...

I have not the slightest qualm about employing hundreds of thousands of people in the aerospace and armaments industries. But then I'm not a sniveling anti-big-business liberal. No, you're clearly a whiny, petulant, lover of "big-government conservatism" and government support of private industry feeding at the public trough.

To lefties who advocate cut & run and surrender rather than engagement, that's probably true.
You just advocate throwing money at a "solution" to a non-existant problem. Good job.

So you libeRATs say. But I don't recall the last time you dickheads said something that had even a tenuous link with reality. What a marvelously useless statment. Getting senile grandpa....


Libs have a marvelous way of twisting facts.
From someone who wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the ass, I'll take that with a big grain of salt.

• First, you omit the fact that there are hundreds of line items. And NMD is the single largest DoD project.

• Second, you don't mention the actual expenditures.
Overall the US spends somewhere around 10 billion on ballistic missile defense in its various forms.
•Third, you offer no evidence whatever that it IS the "single largest line item on DoD's budget", and one thing we at FC do NOT do is trust the statements of liberal liars. Go read the DoD buget if you don't believe me. It's not my problem that you choose to remain ignorant and/or deny reality.
• Fourth, you don't compare the cost to what Washington spends each year on unconstitutional, non-military, vote-buying "social" programs. Why would that have anything to do with the necessity, utility, or practicality of NMD?

Pentagon Projects National Missile Defense Costs at $30.2B (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2000/n04062000_20004061.html)

(http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2000/n04062000_20004061.html)

Now, liberaloser, tell us why that expenditure "costs WAY to(o) much". Umm...because you are using an article from 2000? The costs of NMD have skyrocketed and will continue to do so. It's already cost more than 30 billion.
<!--StartFragment --><!--StartFragment --> On 16 December (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_16) 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002) President Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Directive) 23 which outlined a plan to begin deployment of operational ballistic missile defense systems by 2004. The projected cost of the program for the years 2004 to 2009 will be $53 billion, making it the largest single line in The Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon)'s budget. <!--StartFragment -->

<!--StartFragment --> Missile Defense – The Administration is requesting $10.4 billion for missile defense in FY’07, up roughly $1.7 billion from the current $8.7 billion. Missile defense continues to receive more funding than any other weapons program in the annual Pentagon budget. This total does not include $669 million for the SBIRS-High satellite program. The Airborne Laser program is transitioning from a deployment program to more of a technology demonstration program.
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002239.php

And why should we care what your opinion is on the subject, liberal? Why should we care about your opinion, reactionary? It's research, and research ALWAYS has dead ends and failures. No. It's deployment of an unproven system. It is irresponsible to field a weapon that cannot pass muster.

[DoctorDoom]

Coming from a chicken-hawk who hides behind his computer and isn't doing the heavy lifting, I'll keep that in mind as I continue to serve my country.From a "chicken-hawk" to a chicken-shit, kiss my ass.

It's a welfare and entitlement program for Ratheon and Co...And who gets the money? Is it sent to Mars? Or does it pay people who work for the companies, who in turn support the economies of the plant locations? Or don't you care because you loathe big business just because?

No, you're clearly a whiny, petulant, lover of "big-government conservatism" and government support of private industry feeding at the public trough.The last time I checked, the defense of America was in the Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The same can't be said for the trillions of dollars that have been utterly wasted on liberal touchy-feely "social programs".

You just advocate throwing money at a "solution" to a non-existant problem. Good job.On Sept. 10, 2001, terrorists killing thousands of Americans was a nonexistent problem. On Dec 6, 1941, Japanese planes attacking Pearl Harbor was a nonexistent problem. And until the first missile hits a US city, it will be a nonexistent problem. Thus, by your liberal "logic", we should simply ignore the possibility and not bother to create a defense for it.

Troll, you could serve our country better by officially going to work for the enemy.

What a marvelously useless statment. Getting senile grandpa....Dazzling repartee! Color me awe-stricken. :rolleyes:

From someone who wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the ass, I'll take that with a big grain of salt.I've forgotten more facts than you'll ever know, troll.

And NMD is the single largest DoD project.And defense of the country is one of the few things that the fedgov is doing that it is constitutionally authorized to do.

Overall the US spends somewhere around 10 billion on ballistic missile defense in its various forms.And?

Go read the DoD buget if you don't believe me. It's not my problem that you choose to remain ignorant and/or deny reality. I've fetched megabytes of data from the DoD, rather than trusting the peacenik websites that you apparently favor. I'll pore through it when I feel like it, but I don't particularly care whether it is or is not the largest.

BTW, the proposed NMD budget for 2007 is about $10B out of a total proposed Defense budget of $436B. That's 2.3% of the defense budget, and 0.39% of the $2.576T total (2007 Budget summary tables (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/tables.html)). IMO, given the potential benefits, it's worth it despite what you liberal whiners "think" about it.

Why would that have anything to do with the necessity, utility, or practicality of NMD?Directly, not much. But as a percentage of what DC spends every year, most of it unconstitutional, NMD research is a pathetic pittance. And given the cost of not being able to defend against attacks, if it were 10 times higher, it would still be worth it (except to you liberalosers).

Umm...because you are using an article from 2000?That particular one was a few years old (and prior to 9/11, which changed the game rules). I have the numbers for FY 2007, and I still support the expenditures.

The costs of NMD have skyrocketed and will continue to do so. It's already cost more than 30 billion.$30B since 1991 is hardly breathtaking. Why are you obsessed with it? Are your parroting the talking points from your anti-American liberal gurus?

For the record:

(CBS) The Sept. 11 attacks will cost New York City $83 billion to $95 billion, partly depending upon how many jobs are permanently shifted out of the city, a new report said Wednesday.

The report released by the city's top financial manager says the attacks may have cost the city as many as 83,000 jobs.

City Comptroller William Thompson says the city and the nation will suffer the economic effects of Sept. 11 "for years to come."Sept. 11 Cost NYC Up To $95 Billion (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520844.shtml)

NYC will suffer up to a $95B cost because of two hijacked jets, but you piss and moan about $30B over 15 years for research on a way to stop an attack that would dwarf the 9/11 toll. And you wonder why it's difficult to take you liberal asswipes seriously.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002239.phpThat's certainly an objective resource. :rolleyes:

Why should we care about your opinion, reactionary?Because unlike yours, liberal, my opinions are worth considering. And what you mean, "we", white man?

No. It's deployment of an unproven system. It is irresponsible to field a weapon that cannot pass muster.It's not a weapon, troll. It's a defense. I hope that it will never be needed, but if it is needed and we don't have it, can you say "We are f**ked!" boys and girls?

Do you have any other dazzlingly brilliant points to share with us, troll?

[Rhino]

If he is actually deluded enough to believe the threat is nonexistent, I'd say arguing with him is pointless. You might as well be arguing that the sun is hot.

[DoctorDoom]

Yep. It's futile to attempt to engage him in an actual discussion/debate. I realized that back in April of 2005 when he registered and immediately started trolling. It's expected from an IIDB atheist. Still, being retired with a lot of free time to kill ...

[Apollo5600]

Looks like there is a good chance Sen. Levin is an agent of the KGB-FSB. I wonder what he gets in return? Or does he just double cross his country for the heck of it? I'd love to expose all the closet enemy agents in our government, toobad they are so powerful and the good guys so weak it'll never happen. Perhaps in a "Red Dawn" situation for the country we can clear them all out.

I, too, have my doubts as to the necessity of a missile defense system. If this country is ever hit by a WMD attack (which I believe is inevitable), it will come via a terrorist attack involving a less-than-conventional delivery system. The only country currently capable of hitting this country with an ICBM -- and actually having the desire to do so -- is North Korea (granted, others could join the club).

You have been forgetting about Russia and China, both are still evil incarnate, even though Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw a good soul. I was reading an article not long ago which talked about Russian/Chinese War games, I recall that their new ICBM was also tested. The official story is that the wargames were carried out (if memory serves) to prepare them to deal with Terrorism! Seems more likely to me that they're preparing for an eventual conflict with us. Naturally, the elected Commies in our country need us to be as weak as possible for that future day.

[Timberwolf]

Desert Fox...I think you need to form an exploratory committee and test the water. With a leader like you, speaking a message like that, the entire country would rally around you.

We might even become the superpower (again) that we'd purported to be.

Y'all got my vote.

[Beowulf]

a give-away to the aerospace industry
*throws yellow flag*
Hey! I work in the aerospace industry as does my father-in-law. You must think that the only thing the aerospace industry is defense work. WRONG!
Since AERO means airplanes and SPACE is just that, you are mistaken. I work on airplanes of the corporate business jet type and my FIL has built conduit cables for Boeing and Airbus. Yes, he has also done defense work.

You Democrats call yourselves the "party of the working man." Well, cutting contracts (funding) to aerospace would go against you claim as there would be less work and therefore, layoffs. Nice job!
And FYI, the company I work for doesn't take nor does it need any Federal $$, even if one of our pilots is the son of Senator Patrick Leahy:fache: and that we sometimes fly some high profile elected officials. Glad to know you want to put us on unenjoyment!

[cerberus]

From a "chicken-hawk" to a chicken-shit, kiss my ass. Sorry I don't swing that way Nancy.

And who gets the money? Is it sent to Mars? Or does it pay people who work for the companies, who in turn support the economies of the plant locations? Or don't you care because you loathe big business just because? Spending valuable resources on unnecessary projects is hardly responsible. So you are justifying government spending to boost the economy? How socialist.


The last time I checked, the defense of America was in the Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The same can't be said for the trillions of dollars that have been utterly wasted on liberal touchy-feely "social programs".
I didn't say the program was in any way unconstitutional, I said it was a waste of taxpayer money. Your loathing of social programs is another topic entirely.

On Sept. 10, 2001, terrorists killing thousands of Americans was a nonexistent problem. On Dec 6, 1941, Japanese planes attacking Pearl Harbor was a nonexistent problem. And until the first missile hits a US city, it will be a nonexistent problem. Thus, by your liberal "logic", we should simply ignore the possibility and not bother to create a defense for it. By that 'logic' there is also a threat the US could be wiped out by an asteroid. Why aren't we spending billions of dollars building the National Asteroid Defense System?!?
The point isn't that there isn't some threat, it's that the probablity is small, the expendature great the claimed benefits dubious at best. It's about allocating scare resources to important projects and NMD is a boondoggle. We managed without it during the Cold War with thousands of Soviet rockets pointed at the US for god's sake.

Troll, you could serve our country better by officially going to work for the enemy.
"Dazzling repartee! Color me awe-stricken. :rolleyes:"
Right back at ya.
I've forgotten more facts than you'll ever know, troll. Clearly. How about remembering some from time to time? It would be a nice change of pace.

And defense of the country is one of the few things that the fedgov is doing that it is constitutionally authorized to do. Nobody's saying it isn't.

And? And I can think of better ways within DoD to allocate those resources.

I've fetched megabytes of data from the DoD, rather than trusting the peacenik websites that you apparently favor. I'll pore through it when I feel like it, but I don't particularly care whether it is or is not the largest. I'll be waiting.

BTW, the proposed NMD budget for 2007 is about $10B out of a total proposed Defense budget of $436B. That's 2.3% of the defense budget, and 0.39% of the $2.576T total (2007 Budget summary tables (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/tables.html)). IMO, given the potential benefits, it's worth it despite what you liberal whiners "think" about it. Still the largest, still money that could go elsewhere, and your uninformed opinion means little.

Directly, not much. But as a percentage of what DC spends every year, most of it unconstitutional, NMD research is a pathetic pittance. And given the cost of not being able to defend against attacks, if it were 10 times higher, it would still be worth it (except to you liberalosers). Clearly someone isn't familiar with cost/benefit analysis. If the cost is extremely high (clearly as it's the largest DoD program), the risk minimal (who exactly is this meant to defend against? A DPRK that can't manage a three stage rocket?) and the benefit dubious (it doesn't work yet, can likely be easily fooled and protects against nothing), I would say it's not worth it.

That particular one was a few years old (and prior to 9/11, which changed the game rules). I have the numbers for FY 2007, and I still support the expenditures. That's because you apparently love big-government expenditures.

$30B since 1991 is hardly breathtaking. Why are you obsessed with it? Are your parroting the talking points from your anti-American liberal gurus? It's been MORE than 30 billion. Why? I object to it because it's a waste of money and when I see every day places in DoD that get nickle and dimed and are always short of supplies, it annoys me. That's why. Why are you so obsessed with keeping it? Parroting reactionary talking points from your masters at the Weekly Standard?


For the record:

Sept. 11 Cost NYC Up To $95 Billion (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520844.shtml)

NYC will suffer up to a $95B cost because of two hijacked jets, but you piss and moan about $30B over 15 years for research on a way to stop an attack that would dwarf the 9/11 toll. And you wonder why it's difficult to take you liberal asswipes seriously.
Clearly NMD would have protected us from this too. :rolleyes:

That's certainly an objective resource. :rolleyes: Then disprove the facts within. It should be easy.

Because unlike yours, liberal, my opinions are worth considering. And what you mean, "we", white man? Why? Because you say so? Because your ego has swelled so large you think your uninformed, uneducated opinion matters one bit?

It's not a weapon, troll. It's a defense. I hope that it will never be needed, but if it is needed and we don't have it, can you say "We are f**ked!" boys and girls? It's classified as a weapon-system genius. And if we need it, you better pray because as of now, it ain't working (yet we still build it....)

Do you have any other dazzlingly brilliant points to share with us, troll? Do you have even one, ogre?

[Wyatt_Junker]

Spending valuable resources on unnecessary projects is hardly responsible.


Subjectivist stool.


So you are justifying government spending to boost the economy? How socialist.

http://www.warresisters.org/images/FY07_deception.jpg

No, 80% of today's taxes are outright socialist feel-good bunk and New Deal bullshit leftovers. Leave the remaining 20% which has the only real constitutionally backed relevance in place, you fuk.


I didn't say the program was in any way unconstitutional, I said it was a waste of taxpayer money. Your loathing of social programs is another topic entirely.

Subjectivist stool.

Besides, you're a non-proliferation guy. You should have a hardon for SDI because if it was in place it would put a pretty large dent in missile/nuke production by making it a eunuch's game.

When the Wright brothers were crashing bad prototypes into the ground, you were the 'we're never gonna make it' ass lesion who didn't see an airlines industry only a generation later. The same could be said for every single technological advance in history. Your shortsightedness would make McGoo a visual prodigy.


By that 'logic' there is also a threat the US could be wiped out by an asteroid. Why aren't we spending billions of dollars building the National Asteroid Defense System?!?


Take your pick.

1 in 200,000?

http://www.slate.com/id/2068546/

Or 1 in 1?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9402&only

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9013&only

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12604&only



The point isn't that there isn't some threat, it's that the probablity is small, the expendature great the claimed benefits dubious at best. It's about allocating scare resources to important projects and NMD is a boondoggle. We managed without it during the Cold War with thousands of Soviet rockets pointed at the US for god's sake.

The same Soviet game won't play out with the jihadi. Go to sleep cerb. Your foreign policy is like giving NoDoze to a narcoleptic.

Besides, a 'boondoggle' is the democrat controlled urban ghetto experiment now over half a century old and growing worser by the day.


And I can think of better ways within DoD to allocate those resources.

Rainbow flag day? Mabye right after we amend don't ask/don't tell.


Still the largest, still money that could go elsewhere, and your uninformed opinion means little.

And yours littler still, Captain Dwarf.


Clearly someone isn't familiar with cost/benefit analysis. If the cost is extremely high (clearly as it's the largest DoD program), the risk minimal (who exactly is this meant to defend against? A DPRK that can't manage a three stage rocket?) and the benefit dubious (it doesn't work yet, can likely be easily fooled and protects against nothing), I would say it's not worth it.

You wanna see a real American tax budget? Try on 80% on American defense for starters. And, oh my, we haven't even dented the integrity of the Constitution.


That's because you apparently love big-government expenditures.

The fact that I want to give our soldiers a double digit increase in their salary means that I know what America's real priorities should be.

Shit, luddite, if the mere mention of SDI was even one of the reasons that caused Russia to hemmorage within, what do you think a real one would do? I thought libs were dreamers. That's their cup of tea. You know, a progressive tommorrow and all that winding rope of emotionally coiling feces? And yet that's where technological advances come from.

So which is it? Are you a progressive or a chickenshit?

You sure as hell aren't a realist. A real IR guy would know about the jihadi school and not put asteroids on the same plane as Amanjinehad. Check out the news and try IRAN on for size. The libs wanted to see WMD real real bad. Well, guess what, they're gonna get to... sooner rather than later.

[DoctorDoom]

Rebutting every sentence can become intolerably long, especially when dealing with liberal trolls.

Sorry I don't swing that way Nancy.No, of course not. But other than poofters, who considers "kiss my ass" to be homoerotic?

Spending valuable resources on unnecessary projects is hardly responsible.We have only your liberal assurance that it is "unnecessary", and your opinions haven't been considered credible since your first post.

So you are justifying government spending to boost the economy? How socialist.If it were socialist, you'd be salivating over it, troll. But since it's being invested in national defense, liberal trolls must oppose it. They are obsessed with rendering the US vulnerable and defenseless. In an earlier day they'd have been called traitors and shot.

I didn't say the program was in any way unconstitutional, I said it was a waste of taxpayer money.Your observation was duly noted and was given all the attention that it merited.

Your loathing of social programs is another topic entirely.Did I hit an exposed nerve there, liberal? You oppose what you deem "a waste of taxpayer money", but support unconstitutional "entitlements" and "social programs" that represent a large majority of the federal budget.

By that 'logic' there is also a threat the US could be wiped out by an asteroid. Why aren't we spending billions of dollars building the National Asteroid Defense System?!?<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/RedHerringSm.jpg" />

The point isn't that there isn't some threat, it's that the probablity is small, the expendature great the claimed benefits dubious at best.Again, those are your opinions, troll, and in the big picture, they are no more more relevant than mine. But I recommend that you put them all in hard copy and mail them to the WH and the Pentagon, where they can be dealt with appropriately.

It's about allocating scare resources to important projects and NMD is a boondoggle.Is there ANY military/defense project that is "important" in the eyes of a liberal? To libeRATs, "important projects" involve wasting trillions of dollars on maintaining the unproductive lifestyles of the dependency-class parasites in return for votes.

We managed without it during the Cold War with thousands of Soviet rockets pointed at the US for god's sake.The technology did not exist then, troll. The stalemate was maintained by the principle of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) that you liberal whiners decried so volubly. It remained a "cold war" because the consequences of a hot war rendered it unthinkable.

However, boy, this is a whole new world, and it's one major act of destruction away from a very hot war. It's better to have and not need ...

Clearly. How about remembering some from time to time? It would be a nice change of pace.Liberal, you wouldn't recognize a fact if it punted your ass into orbit with a size 2000 boot. If you stumbled over a fact, you'd stand up, brush off the dust, and move on pretending that nothing had happened.

We know what libs are like. We have a constant influx of the ignorant, irritating pests.

And I can think of better ways within DoD to allocate those resources.Color me awed by your insight. :rolleyes:

Still the largest, still money that could go elsewhere, and your uninformed opinion means little.As pointed out above, neither your opinion nor mine have any effect on decisions re defense. However, unlike yours, mine are more in tune with the decision-makers.

Clearly someone isn't familiar with cost/benefit analysis.Au contraire, troll. I have as much acquaintance with it as any liberal, and far more than most. Many threads on other topics evince this. Cost-benefit ratios are alien to liberal "thinking".

If the cost is extremely high ...Which it isn't, being 0.36% of the 2007 budget ($10B ÷ $2.8T).

... (clearly as it's the largest DoD program) ...As has been stated before, that proves nothing, whether it's true or not

... the risk minimal (who exactly is this meant to defend against?Whoever has or will have missiles capable of reaching the US from overseas, or from subs or surface ships.

... A DPRK that can't manage a three stage rocket?) ...At this moment, perhaps not. IAC, the DPRK is not a major player. If your "argument" is based on the least dangerous enemies, why should we take you seriously?

... and the benefit dubious (it doesn't work yet, can likely be easily fooled and protects against nothing) ...* Y A W N *

I would say it's not worth it.And now that you have said it (again and again), has anything changed in the world?

That's because you apparently love big-government expenditures.That's a bizarre "argument" from a liberal. But since the fedgov is constitutionally authorized to provide for the defense of the country from present and future enemies, I have no qualms whatever about whatever is required to do so.

It's been MORE than 30 billion.If it were twice as high, over 15 years that's about $4B per year. Your pathetic whining about cost is ringing hollow.

Why? I object to it because it's a waste of money ...So you tell us with drearily tedious regularity.

... and when I see every day places in DoD that get nickle and dimed and are always short of supplies, it annoys me. That's why.No one ever said that the bureaucrats in DC are financial wizards. There's much room for improvement. However, research into a system that will become critical in the near future is hardly one of those things that is expendable because craniorectally-impacted liberals don't like it.

Why are you so obsessed with keeping it?A: because unlike you libeRAT assholes who live in the "now bubble" and who can't see beyond the next election, I look years into the future based on the trends of today and yesterday. And in doing so, I'm aware of the results of failing to learn from history, and how you Chamberlain-wannabe libs are trying to force America to repeat it.

You fools live in the present and think only in terms of what political advantage you can gain day by day. Your TV-level mentality considers everything in terms of what can be accomplished in a couple of hours minus commercials. You don't have a farking clue about how to deal with enemies who think and plan in terms of years, decades and even generations.

You shortsighted numbwits remind me of those idiots who used to laugh derisively about "made in Japan". And while they were giggling and ridiculing, Japan was investing and building with the millions of dollars from "made in Japan" products. And now they're not laughing any more. Japan waited patiently and worked tirelessly, as the Orientals are accustomed to doing, and now it is a major world economic power.

Thinking in the present tense is a sure recipe for disaster, and you tunnel-visioned libeRATs are infamous for it. And you have condemned America to a Congress with that suicidal mindset.

Parroting reactionary talking points from your masters at the Weekly Standard?As opposed, no doubt, to your talking points from DUh, the Nation, MoveOn and the DNC.

Clearly NMD would have protected us from this too.Obviously not, but you're not noted for comprehending points that aren't written in one-syllable words.

Why? Because you say so? Because your ego has swelled so large you think your uninformed, uneducated opinion matters one bit?Boychild, it's not bragging if you can do it. I am brilliant beyond your ability to grasp it. And despite that, I am not egotistical. I am quite humble. Indeed, my humility is one of the finest of my many wonderful traits, and perhaps the most amazing, knowing how unnecessary it is. The sooner you realize that you are in the presence of preternatural greatness, the sooner you will take the first faltering step toward wisdom.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/DDIdol.png

It's classified as a weapon-system genius.Main Entry: 1 weap·on
Pronunciation: 'we-p&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2 : a means of contending against another

Weapons in the traditional sense are offensive. However, liberal, I'll grant this one minor semantic point so that I don't utterly crush you.

And if we need it, you better pray because as of now, it ain't working (yet we still build it....)" ... as of now ..."You have again validated my comments in response to your question, "Why are you so obsessed with keeping it?"

Do you have any other dazzlingly brilliant points to share with us, troll?Do you have even one, ogre?I make more brilliant points in one post than you've made in 921. If you are intellectually unequipped to appreciate my brilliance, that's not my burden. I have no mandate to lower my lofty standards of excellence so that liberal trolls can partake of my wisdom and insight.

But, keep trying. There must be a brain (primitive and undeveloped though it might be) in at least one of those three ugly heads.

[sunsettommy]

CERBERUS,

Instead of answering your superduper long postings.I will just ask you a couple of questions.

Does the Federal Government have a Constitutional mandate to create Medicare/Medicaid,Social Security,and other similar programs?

Does the Federal Government have a Constitutional mandate to "...provide for the common defense..."?

Be careful with your answer.

[cerberus]

CERBERUS,

Instead of answering your superduper long postings.I will just ask you a couple of questions.

Does the Federal Government have a Constitutional mandate to create Medicare/Medicaid,Social Security,and other similar programs?

Does the Federal Government have a Constitutional mandate to "...provide for the common defense..."?

Be careful with your answer.


Why? Neither of these are relevant to the question of the utility or necessity of BMD. The government could constitutionally spend billions building wall between Alaska and Canada in the name of national defense, but it would be massive waste to do so. My point isn't that we shouldn't spend money on defense, it's that there are better things to spend the money on. Your attempts to drag Medicade/care into it is a red herring.

[cerberus]

Rebutting every sentence can become intolerably long, especially when dealing with liberal trolls. It's twice as tedious dealing with ignorant old men who think way too much of themselves....

We have only your liberal assurance that it is "unnecessary", and your opinions haven't been considered credible since your first post. Yeah, just me...that's it...oh except the numerous other defense analysts and organizations that are equally skeptical. Oh, and did I mention the forty-nine retired Generals and Admirals in 2004 that agreed and called for the money to be put toward securing nuclear facilities, ports and the like? But heck, what do they know? Clearly they aren't a bitter, old, uneducated man in Mass. with too much time on his hands and no actual expertise.....:rolleyes:

If it were socialist, you'd be salivating over it, troll. But since it's being invested in national defense, liberal trolls must oppose it. They are obsessed with rendering the US vulnerable and defenseless. In an earlier day they'd have been called traitors and shot. Well not being a liberal, that doesn't apply to me. That, and it would be sort of weird being that i'm one of those involved in the defense of the nation.....
So sorry, keep trying...

Your observation was duly noted and was given all the attention that it merited. Ah, you mean the fact that you choose to dodge it because you can't counter it?

Did I hit an exposed nerve there, liberal? You oppose what you deem "a waste of taxpayer money", but support unconstitutional "entitlements" and "social programs" that represent a large majority of the federal budget. SPEAKING of red herrings.......

Again, those are your opinions, troll, and in the big picture, they are no more more relevant than mine. But I recommend that you put them all in hard copy and mail them to the WH and the Pentagon, where they can be dealt with appropriately. Well, not JUST, mine...as I've already demonstrated.

Is there ANY military/defense project that is "important" in the eyes of a liberal? To libeRATs, "important projects" involve wasting trillions of dollars on maintaining the unproductive lifestyles of the dependency-class parasites in return for votes. I can't speak for liberals, but I find the many defense projects important: the whole net-centric warfare project for instance, the new UH-1Y/AH-1Z helicopters, the life-cycle extension projects for the B-52s etc etc etc.

The technology did not exist then, troll. The stalemate was maintained by the principle of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) that you liberal whiners decried so volubly. It remained a "cold war" because the consequences of a hot war rendered it unthinkable.

However, boy, this is a whole new world, and it's one major act of destruction away from a very hot war. It's better to have and not need ... Indeed. And the same theory applies to North Korea with whom BMD is designed to counter. MAD worked well, I was a big supporter, and still am.

Liberal, you wouldn't recognize a fact if it punted your ass into orbit with a size 2000 boot. If you stumbled over a fact, you'd stand up, brush off the dust, and move on pretending that nothing had happened.

We know what libs are like. We have a constant influx of the ignorant, irritating pests.

Color me awed by your insight. :rolleyes: blah, blah, blah. All childish insults and no substance from mr.doom; must be a day ending with a 'y'. :limp:

As pointed out above, neither your opinion nor mine have any effect on decisions re defense. However, unlike yours, mine are more in tune with the decision-makers. Well "the decider" hasn't had a good track record so far, so I would exactly advertise that little gem. And clearly some with their hands on the purse-strings do agree with me or we wouldn't be having this lovely conversation, would we?

Au contraire, troll. I have as much acquaintance with it as any liberal, and far more than most. Many threads on other topics evince this. Cost-benefit ratios are alien to liberal "thinking". They why don't you, I dunno, use it? Tell me then, at what point under your sophisticated analysis would BMD not be worth it? What's the dollar amount? What other DoD projects would you shut down to pay for it?

Which it isn't, being 0.36% of the 2007 budget ($10B ÷ $2.8T). That doesn't make it small. And that's just one year. Missile defense has already cost over $100 billion.

As has been stated before, that proves nothing, whether it's true or not It is true and given that it is, one would hope that the most expense DoD project on the books would have something to show for itself.

Whoever has or will have missiles capable of reaching the US from overseas, or from subs or surface ships. Wrong. It has a very specific set of limitations to it and "subs or surface ships" ain't within' the parameters.

At this moment, perhaps not. IAC, the DPRK is not a major player. If your "argument" is based on the least dangerous enemies, why should we take you seriously? Because, ignorant moron, the DPRK is exactly the threat that BMD is so often touted to neutralize. Have you even read anything about the program?

* Y A W N * Aww, all the facts making you tired? Perhaps it's time for your nap. Here I'll read you a story. It's about how the interceptor can be fooled by low-tech chaff...

That's a bizarre "argument" from a liberal. But since the fedgov is constitutionally authorized to provide for the defense of the country from present and future enemies, I have no qualms whatever about whatever is required to do so. Well, not being a liberal, it shouldn't be that bizarre an argument. So, just out of curiosity, if it cost a trillion dollars and bankrupted the treasury you'd still support it?

If it were twice as high, over 15 years that's about $4B per year. Your pathetic whining about cost is ringing hollow. I said more than, tin-face. Try over $100 billion.

So you tell us with drearily tedious regularity. Well clearly you are one of the "special" people that needs to have things repeated....

No one ever said that the bureaucrats in DC are financial wizards. There's much room for improvement. However, research into a system that will become critical in the near future is hardly one of those things that is expendable because craniorectally[sic]-impacted liberals don't like it. If it were merely a research program I wouldn't object so much, but the Administration, for purely political reasons is actually deploying the unproven thing.

A: because unlike you libeRAT assholes who live in the "now bubble" and who can't see beyond the next election, I look years into the future based on the trends of today and yesterday. And in doing so, I'm aware of the results of failing to learn from history, and how you Chamberlain-wannabe libs are trying to force America to repeat it. Well then reactionary ass-hat, you would be familiar with the battleship race at the time that nearly bankrupted certain countries only to have the those pretty, expensive battleships rendered impotent by the aircraft carrier.

You fools live in the present and think only in terms of what political advantage you can gain day by day. Your TV-level mentality considers everything in terms of what can be accomplished in a couple of hours minus commercials. You don't have a farking clue about how to deal with enemies who think and plan in terms of years, decades and even generations. I have more expertise than you in the field, amateur, and am very familiar with long-range defense spending, net-assessment and strategic planning. Now go away, I'm sure the Golden Girls is on or something...:limp:

Thinking in the present tense is a sure recipe for disaster, and you tunnel-visioned libeRATs are infamous for it. And you have condemned America to a Congress with that suicidal mindset. Me? Personally? I did it? Wow, I didn't know my influence extended so far.

As opposed, no doubt, to your talking points from DUh, the Nation, MoveOn and the DNC. Or....none of the above. Pretty weak tar&feather attempt. I expected more from you.
...no, wait, I didnt.....

Obviously not, but you're not noted for comprehending points that aren't written in one-syllable words. If you ever made a valid point, you might have some standing to do all that whining you do.

Boychild, it's not bragging if you can do it. I am brilliant beyond your ability to grasp it. ...snip the rhetorical masturbation... Looks like someone needs to adjust their tinfoil hat again...

There it is! The resorting to cheap graphics instead of making an actual sound argument.
<table align="center" bgcolor="black" border="4" bordercolor="#cccccc" cellpadding="8" height="123" width="335"><tbody><tr><td>* DoctorDoom *
An Idiot!
A Puppet!
A-nnoying!

</td></tr></tbody></table>

You have again validated my comments in response to your question, "Why are you so obsessed with keeping it?" or not....

I make more brilliant <snip cheap="" ego-stroking="">. Don't throw your shoulder out patting yourself on the back there....:rolleyes: You must have made all those points prior to 2005 because they have been conspicuously absent in my tenure here.
...unless you consider repeating the mantra "liberal troll, liberal troll, liberal troll" to anyone who disagrees with your inanity a "point". </snip>

[DoctorDoom]

Your monomaniacal obsession with deep-sixing NMD is typical of liberal surrenderists. We get asswarts like you with tedious regularity.

If NMD had been suggested by a RAT administration, you'd be drooling on your bib with your gushing praise for it. However, since it's a Ronaldus Maximus concept (the RAT trash called it "Star Wars", for you children who were still soiling your Pampers at the time), you loathe it because it's the liberal thing to do.

Fact time, boy: neither your opposition nor my support will make one iota of difference. The newly-empowered traitors in Congress will sell America out re NMD, not us.

Don't throw your shoulder out patting yourself on the back there....Unfortunately, child, you aren't yet close to being mature enough to grasp the depth, the height and the breadth of my brilliance. However, I don't hold it against you. All kids are ignorant about things which only experience and wisdom can teach.

You must have made all those points prior to 2005 because they have been conspicuously absent in my tenure here.Your "tenure" has been marked by your uniform lack of comprehension of any concept more complex than "See Spot run."

You were pegged as a liberal troll within a couple of posts. The fact that you're still here after 923 posts evinces that we are very tolerant (perhaps too much so) of precocious children who like to post on grown-up boards. Some show promise. You don't.

Still, being a really nice guy, I have decided to extend to you a job offer that fits your minimal talents.

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Dogpatch.jpg" />

[DesertFox]

It's twice as tedious dealing with ignorant old men who think way too much of themselves....STOP CALLING ME SHIRLEY.

[sunsettommy]

Why? Neither of these are relevant to the question of the utility or necessity of BMD. The government could constitutionally spend billions building wall between Alaska and Canada in the name of national defense, but it would be massive waste to do so. My point isn't that we shouldn't spend money on defense, it's that there are better things to spend the money on. Your attempts to drag Medicade/care into it is a red herring.

Back at post # 12 Cerberus said:

Back on topic. I won't complain one whit if they do gut NMD. It's a massive boondoggle and a give-away to the aerospace industry. It's useless, not needed and costs WAY to much (the single largest line item on DoD's budget). Oh, and did i mention it still ain't workin' right?
Give me theater defense and send the rest of the cash elsewhere, thank you.

That does away with your red herring argument.

The question I asked of you is indeed relevant since you argue that money is being wasted.You have in several ways said so.

That is why my question is relevant on the subject of monetary waste YOU keep bringing up.

I am unaware of the need to build a wall with harmless Canada.

:roar:

Your arguments have been very thin.

Wyatt Junker made the point that your tunnel vision on Defense spending which is a constitutional mandate over NONconstitutional laws such as Medicare and Medicaid and S.S. programs.A revealing expose of your insane liberal thinking.

Those lefist programs were passed since the 1930's and has been a proven waste of money.

Defense is mandated.Those programs are not.

SDI that President Reagan wanted over the objections of pinheads as Carl Levin and their communist allies.Revealed the ossified liberal thinking that brought in the cold war mess in the first place.

Then the USSR revealed their terror of such a shield since it would make all thier missles ineffective.It is plain that you forget how much effort the Russians at the time tried to get Reagan to give up the missle shield.

I remember it since I was in my 20's at the time and seeing the obvious terror the liberals and communists terror over the Presidents proposal.

We should have a missile shield system since we have a few countries making it clear of their hostility against us.

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[cerberus]

Back at post # 12 Cerberus said:



That does away with your red herring argument.

The question I asked of you is indeed relevant since you argue that money is being wasted.You have in several ways said so.

That is why my question is relevant on the subject of monetary waste YOU keep bringing up. It's hardly relevant to this discussion. The topic of discussion is BMD, not general government waste or the constitutionality of this-or-that government program. Your questions as to the constitutionality of medicare etc are therefore a red herring.

I am unaware of the need to build a wall with harmless Canada.

:roar: Indeed there isn't a need (as there is little need for BMD), but if the government chose to do it, it would certainly be constitutional to do so under the provisions of common defense. That's all I was saying there.

Your arguments have been very thin. Well that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Wyatt Junker made the point that your tunnel vision on Defense spending which is a constitutional mandate over NONconstitutional[sic] laws such as Medicare and Medicaid and S.S. programs.A revealing expose of your insane liberal thinking. This has nothing to do with defense spending in general but the utility of BMD specifically. And nowhere, and i mean nowhere did i even imply that i favor Medicare, Soc Sec etc over defense and I challenge to show otherwise. All I said was it's a bad defense program.

Those lefist[sic] programs were passed since the 1930's and has been a proven waste of money.

Defense is mandated.Those programs are not. This has nothing to do with whether or not this particular program is wise, however. The program should live or die based on it's own merits, period.

[sunsettommy]

You are dodging.

:shame:

Back to the posted article:

How the Game is Played


Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney explains how the game works: “The idea is that we put it [missile defense] on ice until absolutely everybody is satisfied. It is a formula for not having the missile defense we need.”

Critics hope to stop missile defense by devoting its entire budget to testing, which is costly. At $100 million dollars or more per test, a test or two could easily absorb the entire Ground-based missile defense budget.


It appears to me that they simply want to stop Missile Defense.

[The Barbarian]

The need for such a defense is obvious. The problem is, we've been letting the contractors get away with amazingly poor performance, rigging tests to succeed, and failing to use money effectively.

Don't scrap it, and don't insist on 100% effectiveness, but do set a realistically high goal. One failure = one city incinerated.

That being said, the mission has changed. We no longer worry about a massive launch of hundreds of MIRVed ICBMs, but a few launches from some degenerate dictator such as the clown in N. Korea.

That is much easier to handle, and it is not unrealistic to think a workable system is possible. Now, if China is a concern, then the odds are not good. But by now, we've got them so dependent on us as a cash cow to finance their rising standard of living, it's unlikely they'd go to war with us, unless we backed them into a corner. It's kind of ironic in the sense that Lenin said the capitalists would sell him the rope he'd use to hang them. Something like the opposite is happening there.

One could argue that the system doesn't actually have to be reliable, so long as the bad guys think it is. This depends on the belief that Kim Jong-Il is a rational being. Not a good assumption, I think.

Bottom line? Keep working on this system, but impose greater accountability for the money we spend. This is too important a mission to let it become the Defense Contractors Full Employment Initiative.

[DesertFox]

They don't need a missile defense in the sense they're talking. They need only set up Metal Storm (http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/579/1/Metal-Storm/Page1.html), firing 40mm HE rounds, at a bunch of sites, including on some carriers off the shores of North Korea. That thing throws so incredibly much steel into the air that several rounds would penetrate a missile and cause it to fail.

[bannerman]

:claps: What America desperately needs is mass arrests, trials and executions of its entrenched traitors.

this is NOT the America I grew up in