Frankly, neither should be trusted. Fraud has been proven on both sides. For example, scientists that disagreed with the UN report on global warming had their names included as if they signed off on it. Scientists have admitted exaggerating the effects of climate change. Scientists have been caught trying to silence critics of their work.
Citations, please. It is impossible to agree or disagree with an opinion. Please provide citations so those reading can see the basis of your opinions to see if they come to the same conclusion.
...scientists that disagreed with the UN report on global warming had their names included as if they signed off on it...
I can't find the articles explaining who the authors were that were listed as in the IPCC report that disagreed with the conclusion that GW was man made. In the mean time, here is another article by an author who states what I said, that the IPCC was a political body, whose authors were selected by their representative governments, whose purpose was political, for example, to get the US to sign the Kyoto protocol....Scientists have admitted exaggerating the effects of climate change....
There was a Slashdot story on this not too long ago....Scientists have been caught trying to silence critics of their work....
Islam is a religion of peace in the same sense that Christianity is. Do Timothy McVeigh or Anders Behring Breivik make Christianity a religion of war? Would it be a religion of war if there was some middle-eastern country full of Christian fundamentalists?
Ah! There it is. The moral equivalency argument. First, McVeigh and Breivik were not "Christian fundamentalists", and did not do their crimes in the name of Jesus. Even if they had, it would obviously be against the teachings of Christ. Christ, for example, never waged war or led an army. Mohammed did. Also, you don't see Christians rioting and killing people in mass every time a Bible is burned or someone makes a cartoon of Jesus. Hell, Southpark has Jesus as a recurring cast member. He plays a talkshow host and super hero who looks at porn. And while I'm sure SouthPark's advertisers may have been threatened with a boycott or something similar, no one rioted and no one died.
In other words, your moral equivalency argument is bullshit.
He caused the death of innocents, including Americans, to prove a point we already knew. Swell guy, no blood on his hands.
No, we didn't already know that. Every day, I hear that Islam is a religion of peace and the people saying this actually believe it. This guy proved them wrong. If everyone could agree that Islam tends to incite violence among its followers much more so than any other religion, he would not have found it necessary to burn the Koran.
Curious to know what well funded entities are paying money to people to have them make up stuff that would encourage people to want "Big Government".
George Soros.
One thing I'd like to know is this: for the last few decades there's been a concerted campaign to make conservatives distrustful of government
FTFY
When government pays studies that show that government needs more power, I'm skeptical. You SHOULD be too.
1. Why? Why target conservatives specifically with anti-science propaganda? Why aren't liberals being targeted too? (Arguments like "Conservatives are more gullible" will be ignored for obvious reasons.)
Answered above.
2. Why is there no backlash from conservatives themselves? How many conservatives actually want to (a) be subject to anti-science propaganda that will, inevitably, result - thanks to the wonder of echo chambers - in believing something that's wrong and (b) want to be in a group that will inevitably be considered anti-science?
Well, that's just it. You accuse conservatives of falling for "anti-science" propaganda. Conservatives will accuse you of falling for big government propaganda. Having standards is good. Having double standards is bad. You have to apply the same rules to both sides if you are truly understand the answers to you questions.
The way I see it, those that stand to gain the most from AGW (governments) are the ones funding the research. When governments fund the research, they usually get the answers they want. When they don't, they toss out the results and discredit the scientists responsible for them. The same can be said from those who have the most to lose from AGW legislation (oil and car companies). They pay for studies that say AGW is bunk and reject any studies that say otherwise. I believe the difference is that conservatives actually trust companies more than governments.
Frankly, neither should be trusted. Fraud has been proven on both sides. For example, scientists that disagreed with the UN report on global warming had their names included as if they signed off on it. Scientists have admitted exaggerating the effects of climate change. Scientists have been caught trying to silence critics of their work.
The problem is that there is no or little private, unbiased research in climate science because there is no money to be made from it. The groups that pay for climate research do so to back up their existing position, never to disprove it.
He knew what would happen, it was culturally inevitable for the people of Afghanistan. That doesn't say anything good about them, but he knew what he was doing would likely cost lives and he did it anyway. He's at least as bad as those who physically did the killing, he lives in a first-world country, the FBI even came to him and described the implications, he wasn't some religiously brainwashed bronze-age illiterate goat farmer.
I agree that he shouldn't have done it, but I'd hardly blame him. I know every day when I get on the freeway that if I look at the person driving the car next to me, they might shoot me. If I look at someone and they shoot me, am I just as guilty as the shooter? He had a point to make and radical Islamist proved him right.
These people were not mad because he burned a Koran. They were already mad. All he did was give them an excuse and bring them out from the rocks they've been living under. His burning of a Koran had no effect on their lives, whatsoever. They CHOSE for it to have an effect and they chose what effect it would have.
Again, he probably should not have done it, but I won't say he has blood on his hands. That title is reserved for the people that actually got blood on their hands.
It works both ways. If you are going to call someone a "shill" for the people paying the bills, then you have to be fair and apply the same standard for both side.
The odds of death by terrorist are lower than death by a spacerock falling from the sky & hitting you on the head. Stop being afraid of unlikely events.
Source? Well over 3000 people have been killed by terrorists since 2000. How many have been killed by falling space rock?
But the largest deficit spending happens when we have a Republican president and Democrat Congress. I don't know what that means, except that they're all spending too much of our money
Compromise! Democrats tell a Republican President, "You'll get the money to fund your projects (military, wars, NASA), but only if you sign off on the money we want to fund ours (social programs, unemployment benefits, planned parenthood, NPR)." Republicans tell a Democratic President, "We'll fund your project (interest rate cuts for student loans) with funds we cut from another one of your projects (Obamacare "slush fund")."
Right. I used years where the same party controlled both congress and the White House. 2007 was the last budget year for Republicans. 2011 was the last budget year for Democrats. In 2008 and 2009, Democrats held both houses of Congress and Bush was in the White House. Remember, Congress controls the purse strings.
If I wanted to cherry pick, I would have used the 2012 projection of $1,327 billion.
Maybe not, but $2 Trillion in war spending, plus $2 Trillion in unfunded Bush tax cuts (Funny the republicans didn't think it necessary to pay for the extension of their tax cuts) does make a sizable dent in our national deficit. Here's an interesting article on exactly this topic. Go look at historic trends of deficit spending and it's surprising that republicans are responsible for some of the largest rises in debt.
Deficits: FY 2007: $161 billion (R Congress R Whitehouse) FY 2011: $1,300 billion (D Congress D Whitehouse)
It should also be noted that the US took in MORE money after the Bush tax cuts than before. This is because the economy boomed and the unemployment rate was under 5% much of the time. You actually get a bigger piece when you take a smaller piece from a large pie than when you take a larger piece from a smaller one.
I'm not trying to cherry pick. That's why I linked the whole page.
The key here is who spends the money. It's not the president. Now go back to your data and calculate who was in charge of congress by year. The president means nothing. That's why I chose 2007. 2007 was the last budget passed by a Republican Congress before Pelosi and Reid took over in Jan 2007.
THIS chart is much better as it shows the party in Congress as well as the party that controls the White House. It shows that, at lest over the past 20 years, that Republicans tend to be better stewards of the treasury than Democrats, with some exceptions, of course.
Also, I tend not to look at "projected" deficits of 2012 and 2013.
Of course, Bush inherited an actual surplus and benefited from a much larger housing bubble.
I actually think the surplus was the cause of the increase during the early Bush years. It's hard to say, "We can't afford that. There's no money in the budget." when you are coming off of a surplus. It also doesn't help when congress is evenly split. This is when compromise happens. "We'll fund your pet projects if you fund ours." kinda thing.
Maybe not, but $2 Trillion in war spending, plus $2 Trillion in unfunded Bush tax cuts (Funny the republicans didn't think it necessary to pay for the extension of their tax cuts) does make a sizable dent in our national deficit. Here's an interesting article on exactly this topic. Go look at historic trends of deficit spending and it's surprising that republicans are responsible for some of the largest rises in debt.
Deficits: FY 2007: $161 billion (R Congress R Whitehouse) FY 2011: $1,300 billion (D Congress D Whitehouse)
It should also be noted that the US took in MORE money after the Bush tax cuts than before. This is because the economy boomed and the unemployment rate was under 5% much of the time. You actually get a bigger piece when you take a smaller piece from a large pie than when you take a larger piece from a smaller one.
The LEFT is all about funding NASA, the problem is the RIGHT's obstinate blocking of anything related to INVESTMENT in our future. Why don't we have a Shuttle program? Yet give out more than NASA's ENTIRE budget to the oil industry EVERY YEAR?
Really? Are you serious? When Bush was president and Republicans held both houses, the Shuttles were flying, a replacement was planned and funded (Constellation program), and the James Webb Telescope and Mars exploration programs were secure.
Hell! Obama and the Democratic Congress has us depending on the Russians to do our heavy lifting. About the only thing NASA can do now is put a satellite in low orbit.
It is very difficult to look at the Bush presidency - some of it including control of both houses of congress - and come away with a feeling that the Republicans represent fiscal discipline.
That may be so, but very few Republicans these days are fiscal conservatives. Many more are only social conservatives, like Rick Santorum: ready and willing to tell other people how to live their lives.
Corporations, on the other hand, get free rein.
That's because as soon as a group tries to steer the Republican party to being "fiscal conservatives", they are labeled "racists" by Democrats. Take THIS group for example.
Funny, I've always seen it as the "fiscal conservatives" want us to quit "wasting" money in space so instead things have to be billed under the military to get anything done.
Find me a liberal who opposes NASA funding based off of it going to military purposes, cause I think you are full of shit.
Really? I wonder because it has not been the "fiscal conservatives" in charge of the White House and Congress these past few years. Hell, back in 2006 when Republicans held both houses and the White House, the shuttles were still flying and there was a funded plan to replace them, and the deficit was 1/5 of what it is today.
It makes me wonder, though. If liberals don't oppose NASA, as you say, and I know that conservatives don't oppose NASA, then why the cuts? I think the difference is that conservatives consider NASA more important than, say, social programs, where as liberals think it's more important to fund the social programs. Liberals see social programs as feeding the poor, conservatives see social programs as rewarding the lazy. It's a difference of opinion that we will probably never resolve.
Bullshit. The Dems wasted a lot of time trying to reach out to the Republicans by supporting their ideas. The individual mandate, end of life counseling (now called death panels), cap and trade, the DREAM act... all of those were Republican ideas that they turned violently against as soon as the Democrats supported them.
The whole reason NASA is even being cut is because the GOP took the country hostage last summer over the debt ceiling. Nevermind that most of the debt comes from the wars they supported and the tax cuts they demanded.
Sorry, but the $2-3 trillion in war funding over 10 years doesn't make a dent in the $1.5 Trillion added to the deficit every year.
Are you illiterate?? I'm so tired of typing it that I'm just going to copy and paste now. Have someone read this to you: Next, you mention America's submarine and bomber force. You do realize that Russians have those too, right? While they do not have stealth bombers, their bomber force is more than adequate and their submarine force is either second to the US only or second to none.
This system is no threat to MAD.
And the Russians were invited to inspect the system and even take part, but refused.
Relax, Sparky, it was a joke. No reason to get MacPanties in a iWad over it.
See, the joke is that Apple fanbois hate all nonApple products and want to destroy all companies other than Apple so we are all forced to use Apple products and world will be a better place.
I hate it when I have to explain a joke, especially when it seems that everyone else got it.
Russian missiles are set to travel over the North Pole, not over Europe. This system would only defend against missiles targeting Europe,
Europe is where the U.S. keeps most of its first strike nukes. Protecting those with a missile defense system leaves Russia at a huge disadvantage in any nuke war--and seriously upsets the Mutually-Assured-Destruction balance of power.
Submarines assure MAD. There is only one level of destroyed when talking about nuclear weapons. In other words, there are enough nuclear missiles in submarines to ensure the total destruction of the US. The US will not sacrifice itself for the purpose of protecting Europe. It's not like we are going to move our entire population over there.
Next is the point "Europe is where the U.S. keeps most of its first strike nukes." So Russia is mad because they will lose their ability to conduct a first strike on our first strike nukes? Are they mad because if our first strike came from Europe, they will not be able to strike our now empty European silos? The only benefit to attacking these European nuke sites is that they would not be able to perform a first strike. Well, in this case, the best they could do is a "second strike" since attacking the Euro silos would have been the first strike. The worst this ABM system could do is prevent a Russian first strike in Europe, and frankly, I'm OK with that. Attacking missile silos with nuclear missiles is hardly a defensive move. It is at best an anti retaliatory move, which would imply a Russian first strike.
As has been stated, this system is worthless against a Russian attack on the US. For starters, the shortest distance from Russia to the US is over the Arctic. This is the path the missiles would take and this system is worthless against missiles following a northern trajectory.
Next, you mention America's submarine and bomber force. You do realize that Russians have those too, right? While they do not have stealth bombers, their bomber force is more than adequate and their submarine force is either second to the US only or second to none.
A "pre-emptive strike" against a defensive system is not justified. The Russians should also consider that any "pre-emtpive strike" will result in retaliation and weigh that before deciding. If the Russians are willing to go to war against the US over and defensive installation that we have offered them unfettered access to, then they really just want war anyway.
Signed, An American Soldier
I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.
I'll start with the easy one, Afghanistan. Remember 9-11? Remember who was the most responsible for that? Yeah, that Bin Laden guy. Do you know where he was? That's right! Afghanistan. When we asked nicely for the Taliban to hand him over, they balked. So, we assisted the Northern Alliance in defeating them.
Iraq was a bit more complicated. We'll skip the 19 violated UN resolutions and go straight to the acts of war against the US. For starters, there was the repeated firing on US military and civilian personnel trying to enforce those 19 UN resolutions. Then, of course, there was the attempted assassination of a former US President. I'm sure you don't care about the mass graves filled with the corpses of young mothers still holding their children. And there is no doubt that you couldn't care less that the mother had the bullet hole in her head while the toddlers and infants did not. After all, they are only brown people, right? Why should we care about non-white people? (yes, there is sarcasm in there).
Also, would you consider a missile launch silo as an offensive or defensive system?
A launch system is neither. It's the missiles that make that determination. Since these are ground to air missile interceptors, they have no offensive capabilities. Now, if were to put ground to ground missiles in those silos, then it would be an offensive system. We have no plans of doing so and have offered to let the Russians inspect the facilities to confirm that.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, neither should be trusted. Fraud has been proven on both sides. For example, scientists that disagreed with the UN report on global warming had their names included as if they signed off on it. Scientists have admitted exaggerating the effects of climate change. Scientists have been caught trying to silence critics of their work.
Citations, please. It is impossible to agree or disagree with an opinion. Please provide citations so those reading can see the basis of your opinions to see if they come to the same conclusion.
...scientists that disagreed with the UN report on global warming had their names included as if they signed off on it...
I can't find the articles explaining who the authors were that were listed as in the IPCC report that disagreed with the conclusion that GW was man made. In the mean time, here is another article by an author who states what I said, that the IPCC was a political body, whose authors were selected by their representative governments, whose purpose was political, for example, to get the US to sign the Kyoto protocol. ...Scientists have admitted exaggerating the effects of climate change....
There was a Slashdot story on this not too long ago. ...Scientists have been caught trying to silence critics of their work....
This one is easy.
Islam is a religion of peace in the same sense that Christianity is. Do Timothy McVeigh or Anders Behring Breivik make Christianity a religion of war? Would it be a religion of war if there was some middle-eastern country full of Christian fundamentalists?
Ah! There it is. The moral equivalency argument. First, McVeigh and Breivik were not "Christian fundamentalists", and did not do their crimes in the name of Jesus. Even if they had, it would obviously be against the teachings of Christ. Christ, for example, never waged war or led an army. Mohammed did. Also, you don't see Christians rioting and killing people in mass every time a Bible is burned or someone makes a cartoon of Jesus. Hell, Southpark has Jesus as a recurring cast member. He plays a talkshow host and super hero who looks at porn. And while I'm sure SouthPark's advertisers may have been threatened with a boycott or something similar, no one rioted and no one died.
In other words, your moral equivalency argument is bullshit.
He caused the death of innocents, including Americans, to prove a point we already knew. Swell guy, no blood on his hands.
No, we didn't already know that. Every day, I hear that Islam is a religion of peace and the people saying this actually believe it. This guy proved them wrong. If everyone could agree that Islam tends to incite violence among its followers much more so than any other religion, he would not have found it necessary to burn the Koran.
Curious to know what well funded entities are paying money to people to have them make up stuff that would encourage people to want "Big Government".
George Soros.
One thing I'd like to know is this: for the last few decades there's been a concerted campaign to make conservatives distrustful of government
FTFY
When government pays studies that show that government needs more power, I'm skeptical. You SHOULD be too.
1. Why? Why target conservatives specifically with anti-science propaganda? Why aren't liberals being targeted too? (Arguments like "Conservatives are more gullible" will be ignored for obvious reasons.)
Answered above.
2. Why is there no backlash from conservatives themselves? How many conservatives actually want to (a) be subject to anti-science propaganda that will, inevitably, result - thanks to the wonder of echo chambers - in believing something that's wrong and (b) want to be in a group that will inevitably be considered anti-science?
Well, that's just it. You accuse conservatives of falling for "anti-science" propaganda. Conservatives will accuse you of falling for big government propaganda. Having standards is good. Having double standards is bad. You have to apply the same rules to both sides if you are truly understand the answers to you questions.
The way I see it, those that stand to gain the most from AGW (governments) are the ones funding the research. When governments fund the research, they usually get the answers they want. When they don't, they toss out the results and discredit the scientists responsible for them. The same can be said from those who have the most to lose from AGW legislation (oil and car companies). They pay for studies that say AGW is bunk and reject any studies that say otherwise. I believe the difference is that conservatives actually trust companies more than governments.
Frankly, neither should be trusted. Fraud has been proven on both sides. For example, scientists that disagreed with the UN report on global warming had their names included as if they signed off on it. Scientists have admitted exaggerating the effects of climate change. Scientists have been caught trying to silence critics of their work.
The problem is that there is no or little private, unbiased research in climate science because there is no money to be made from it. The groups that pay for climate research do so to back up their existing position, never to disprove it.
He knew what would happen, it was culturally inevitable for the people of Afghanistan. That doesn't say anything good about them, but he knew what he was doing would likely cost lives and he did it anyway. He's at least as bad as those who physically did the killing, he lives in a first-world country, the FBI even came to him and described the implications, he wasn't some religiously brainwashed bronze-age illiterate goat farmer.
I agree that he shouldn't have done it, but I'd hardly blame him. I know every day when I get on the freeway that if I look at the person driving the car next to me, they might shoot me. If I look at someone and they shoot me, am I just as guilty as the shooter? He had a point to make and radical Islamist proved him right.
These people were not mad because he burned a Koran. They were already mad. All he did was give them an excuse and bring them out from the rocks they've been living under. His burning of a Koran had no effect on their lives, whatsoever. They CHOSE for it to have an effect and they chose what effect it would have.
Again, he probably should not have done it, but I won't say he has blood on his hands. That title is reserved for the people that actually got blood on their hands.
You might have missed the protests he triggered in Afghanistan:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=afghanistan+protests+koran+burning+florida+2011&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=jSQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=7hepT9PyBYec8QSq97we&ved=0CAsQpwUoAA
I'm sorry, but are you mad "people" acted violent because he called people violent.
Shills for the oil industry.
^^^^^^^
Shill for big government.
It works both ways. If you are going to call someone a "shill" for the people paying the bills, then you have to be fair and apply the same standard for both side.
The odds of death by terrorist are lower than death by a spacerock falling from the sky & hitting you on the head. Stop being afraid of unlikely events.
Source? Well over 3000 people have been killed by terrorists since 2000. How many have been killed by falling space rock?
But the largest deficit spending happens when we have a Republican president and Democrat Congress. I don't know what that means, except that they're all spending too much of our money
Compromise! Democrats tell a Republican President, "You'll get the money to fund your projects (military, wars, NASA), but only if you sign off on the money we want to fund ours (social programs, unemployment benefits, planned parenthood, NPR)." Republicans tell a Democratic President, "We'll fund your project (interest rate cuts for student loans) with funds we cut from another one of your projects (Obamacare "slush fund")."
Right. I used years where the same party controlled both congress and the White House. 2007 was the last budget year for Republicans. 2011 was the last budget year for Democrats. In 2008 and 2009, Democrats held both houses of Congress and Bush was in the White House. Remember, Congress controls the purse strings.
If I wanted to cherry pick, I would have used the 2012 projection of $1,327 billion.
Maybe not, but $2 Trillion in war spending, plus $2 Trillion in unfunded Bush tax cuts (Funny the republicans didn't think it necessary to pay for the extension of their tax cuts) does make a sizable dent in our national deficit. Here's an interesting article on exactly this topic. Go look at historic trends of deficit spending and it's surprising that republicans are responsible for some of the largest rises in debt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html
Deficits:
FY 2007: $161 billion (R Congress R Whitehouse)
FY 2011: $1,300 billion (D Congress D Whitehouse)
It should also be noted that the US took in MORE money after the Bush tax cuts than before. This is because the economy boomed and the unemployment rate was under 5% much of the time. You actually get a bigger piece when you take a smaller piece from a large pie than when you take a larger piece from a smaller one.
Modded (Score -1, Fact)
The really hilarious thing isn't that you cherry-picked data. It's that you linked back to the un-cherry-picked table:
Obama Deficits
FY 2013*: $901 billion
FY 2012*: $1,327 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion
Bush Deficits
FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
I'm not trying to cherry pick. That's why I linked the whole page.
The key here is who spends the money. It's not the president. Now go back to your data and calculate who was in charge of congress by year. The president means nothing. That's why I chose 2007. 2007 was the last budget passed by a Republican Congress before Pelosi and Reid took over in Jan 2007.
THIS chart is much better as it shows the party in Congress as well as the party that controls the White House. It shows that, at lest over the past 20 years, that Republicans tend to be better stewards of the treasury than Democrats, with some exceptions, of course.
Also, I tend not to look at "projected" deficits of 2012 and 2013.
Of course, Bush inherited an actual surplus and benefited from a much larger housing bubble.
I actually think the surplus was the cause of the increase during the early Bush years. It's hard to say, "We can't afford that. There's no money in the budget." when you are coming off of a surplus. It also doesn't help when congress is evenly split. This is when compromise happens. "We'll fund your pet projects if you fund ours." kinda thing.
Maybe not, but $2 Trillion in war spending, plus $2 Trillion in unfunded Bush tax cuts (Funny the republicans didn't think it necessary to pay for the extension of their tax cuts) does make a sizable dent in our national deficit. Here's an interesting article on exactly this topic. Go look at historic trends of deficit spending and it's surprising that republicans are responsible for some of the largest rises in debt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html
Deficits:
FY 2007: $161 billion (R Congress R Whitehouse)
FY 2011: $1,300 billion (D Congress D Whitehouse)
It should also be noted that the US took in MORE money after the Bush tax cuts than before. This is because the economy boomed and the unemployment rate was under 5% much of the time. You actually get a bigger piece when you take a smaller piece from a large pie than when you take a larger piece from a smaller one.
The LEFT is all about funding NASA, the problem is the RIGHT's obstinate blocking of anything related to INVESTMENT in our future. Why don't we have a Shuttle program? Yet give out more than NASA's ENTIRE budget to the oil industry EVERY YEAR?
Really? Are you serious? When Bush was president and Republicans held both houses, the Shuttles were flying, a replacement was planned and funded (Constellation program), and the James Webb Telescope and Mars exploration programs were secure.
Hell! Obama and the Democratic Congress has us depending on the Russians to do our heavy lifting. About the only thing NASA can do now is put a satellite in low orbit.
It is very difficult to look at the Bush presidency - some of it including control of both houses of congress - and come away with a feeling that the Republicans represent fiscal discipline.
Deficits:
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
I don't think it's that difficult. You are just not trying.
That may be so, but very few Republicans these days are fiscal conservatives. Many more are only social conservatives, like Rick Santorum: ready and willing to tell other people how to live their lives.
Corporations, on the other hand, get free rein.
That's because as soon as a group tries to steer the Republican party to being "fiscal conservatives", they are labeled "racists" by Democrats. Take THIS group for example.
Funny, I've always seen it as the "fiscal conservatives" want us to quit "wasting" money in space so instead things have to be billed under the military to get anything done.
Find me a liberal who opposes NASA funding based off of it going to military purposes, cause I think you are full of shit.
Really? I wonder because it has not been the "fiscal conservatives" in charge of the White House and Congress these past few years. Hell, back in 2006 when Republicans held both houses and the White House, the shuttles were still flying and there was a funded plan to replace them, and the deficit was 1/5 of what it is today.
It makes me wonder, though. If liberals don't oppose NASA, as you say, and I know that conservatives don't oppose NASA, then why the cuts? I think the difference is that conservatives consider NASA more important than, say, social programs, where as liberals think it's more important to fund the social programs. Liberals see social programs as feeding the poor, conservatives see social programs as rewarding the lazy. It's a difference of opinion that we will probably never resolve.
Bullshit. The Dems wasted a lot of time trying to reach out to the Republicans by supporting their ideas. The individual mandate, end of life counseling (now called death panels), cap and trade, the DREAM act... all of those were Republican ideas that they turned violently against as soon as the Democrats supported them.
The whole reason NASA is even being cut is because the GOP took the country hostage last summer over the debt ceiling. Nevermind that most of the debt comes from the wars they supported and the tax cuts they demanded.
Sorry, but the $2-3 trillion in war funding over 10 years doesn't make a dent in the $1.5 Trillion added to the deficit every year.
Try again. Your boogie man is a lie.
So to fight global warming, everyone holds in their farts, until we get spontaneous human combustion?
Holding them in won't help. Lighting them is the answer.
Are you illiterate?? I'm so tired of typing it that I'm just going to copy and paste now. Have someone read this to you:
Next, you mention America's submarine and bomber force. You do realize that Russians have those too, right? While they do not have stealth bombers, their bomber force is more than adequate and their submarine force is either second to the US only or second to none.
This system is no threat to MAD.
And the Russians were invited to inspect the system and even take part, but refused.
You forgot to post your drivel as an AC
Relax, Sparky, it was a joke. No reason to get MacPanties in a iWad over it.
See, the joke is that Apple fanbois hate all nonApple products and want to destroy all companies other than Apple so we are all forced to use Apple products and world will be a better place.
I hate it when I have to explain a joke, especially when it seems that everyone else got it.
All it takes is one Apple Fanboi to screw the whole thing up!
Russian missiles are set to travel over the North Pole, not over Europe. This system would only defend against missiles targeting Europe,
Europe is where the U.S. keeps most of its first strike nukes. Protecting those with a missile defense system leaves Russia at a huge disadvantage in any nuke war--and seriously upsets the Mutually-Assured-Destruction balance of power.
Submarines assure MAD. There is only one level of destroyed when talking about nuclear weapons. In other words, there are enough nuclear missiles in submarines to ensure the total destruction of the US. The US will not sacrifice itself for the purpose of protecting Europe. It's not like we are going to move our entire population over there.
Next is the point "Europe is where the U.S. keeps most of its first strike nukes." So Russia is mad because they will lose their ability to conduct a first strike on our first strike nukes? Are they mad because if our first strike came from Europe, they will not be able to strike our now empty European silos? The only benefit to attacking these European nuke sites is that they would not be able to perform a first strike. Well, in this case, the best they could do is a "second strike" since attacking the Euro silos would have been the first strike. The worst this ABM system could do is prevent a Russian first strike in Europe, and frankly, I'm OK with that. Attacking missile silos with nuclear missiles is hardly a defensive move. It is at best an anti retaliatory move, which would imply a Russian first strike.
As has been stated, this system is worthless against a Russian attack on the US. For starters, the shortest distance from Russia to the US is over the Arctic. This is the path the missiles would take and this system is worthless against missiles following a northern trajectory.
Next, you mention America's submarine and bomber force. You do realize that Russians have those too, right? While they do not have stealth bombers, their bomber force is more than adequate and their submarine force is either second to the US only or second to none.
This system is no threat to MAD.
A "pre-emptive strike" against a defensive system is not justified. The Russians should also consider that any "pre-emtpive strike" will result in retaliation and weigh that before deciding. If the Russians are willing to go to war against the US over and defensive installation that we have offered them unfettered access to, then they really just want war anyway.
Signed,
An American Soldier
I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.
I'll start with the easy one, Afghanistan. Remember 9-11? Remember who was the most responsible for that? Yeah, that Bin Laden guy. Do you know where he was? That's right! Afghanistan. When we asked nicely for the Taliban to hand him over, they balked. So, we assisted the Northern Alliance in defeating them.
Iraq was a bit more complicated. We'll skip the 19 violated UN resolutions and go straight to the acts of war against the US. For starters, there was the repeated firing on US military and civilian personnel trying to enforce those 19 UN resolutions. Then, of course, there was the attempted assassination of a former US President. I'm sure you don't care about the mass graves filled with the corpses of young mothers still holding their children. And there is no doubt that you couldn't care less that the mother had the bullet hole in her head while the toddlers and infants did not. After all, they are only brown people, right? Why should we care about non-white people? (yes, there is sarcasm in there).
Also, would you consider a missile launch silo as an offensive or defensive system?
A launch system is neither. It's the missiles that make that determination. Since these are ground to air missile interceptors, they have no offensive capabilities. Now, if were to put ground to ground missiles in those silos, then it would be an offensive system. We have no plans of doing so and have offered to let the Russians inspect the facilities to confirm that.
How can you be stupid is beyond me.
I think this part speaks for itself.