Comments on: The Democrats’ Epic Fail on Missile Defense

By: samuel - texas hunting man

samuel - texas hunting man — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:32:17 +0000

World events are making defense cuts seem pretty weak. Hopefully that will save our bacon and preserve our military somewhat. Let’s cut elsewhere.

By: elephant4life

elephant4life — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:25:06 +0000

Considering there are still some tenacious people demanding that Barry produce his COLB, he’s probably hoping that Hawaii sustains a hit. Then he can claim the document(s) proving (or not) his eligibility were so tragically lost in the attack.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:50:23 +0000

There is nothing surprising about the cuts. Clinton used military slashing to pad his budgets during his entire Presidency. Military morale was at an huge low during this period and it was very telling that it took the US 6 MONTHS to move our forces to the Gulf, requiring the leasing of foriegn transports and pulling ships out of mothball. Now Obama is cutting missle defense and programs such as the F-22… a program which employed tens of thousands in well paying jobs. How much work do you think the average advanced avionics specialist is going to find in the private sector? I don’t think Boeing is quite fielding the same hardware… or requires that form of expertise.

By: snookered

snookered — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:12:51 +0000

Gee, I was getting all depressed lately a this story just saved me a cool $60.

I have renounced violence as it is so counter productive. Unless you can kill-em-all, it just empowers them. But on the other hand if I can get a third party to nuke the home city of ABC, NBC, CBS, AP, and the New York Times I don’t see any fall back especially since I know the perfect, legal, and effective way to do it.

Keep enraging the islamo-fascists with headlines on gay marriage. Back off on any action and continue toothless diplomacy to look weak. Let Koreans test their missiles and nukes. Kowtow in the middle east and attack Israel diplomatically. etc, etc. Most importantly, stop missile defense.

How do I accomplish all of this? Easy, Safe, Effective, Legal. I was going to give $20 bucks each to the DailyKos, MoveOn.org, and the DemocraticUnderground to keep them doing what they do so well. But now they and the Democrats and the MSM have hit my entire to-do list and I get to save $60. WooHoo! Goodbye New York City and the MSM.

Excuse me now while I go back to reading, “The Effect of Nuclear Weapons on Human Beings.” Drool.

By: fred

fred — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:33:58 +0000

He can’t spend a billion on ballistic missile defense program research, but he can spend $88 billion for ACORN. I guess that means he’s waging war against his own society, because that’s the purpose of ACORN.

Our external enemies know that BarryO and his millions of adoring fans are distracted by war against us traditional Americans. It means they can have their way with us. These internal traitors also hate the military, and everyone under the rank of general/admiral knows it. The generals and admirals mostly go along with the usurpation of power.

By: Dave F

Dave F — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:16:18 +0000

Turner explains, “They claim the issue was monetary but obviously they have no concern with spending anywhere but on defense.”
This is not completely true. Actually, the Dept of Justice also took hits, FBI, ATF, DEA, US Marshals. In short anyone who carries a gun is obviously a bad guy and his budget should be cut. Any one who wears an ACORN t-shirt is good and his budget is dangerously low.

By: vivo

vivo — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:23:14 +0000

50. donttreadonme:

“Vivo,41.
That was an insult, you rock-head! You are the Black Knight in The Holy Grail!! “Your arm’s been cut off!” “No its not, its just a flesh wound! Have at you!””

Sorry, I don’t do Start Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter or whatever it is you play.

46. myth buster:

“3. The real scary thing about MAD is not so much that our enemies are crazy, but that our President has zero credibility. People don’t believe that he actually would launch a nuke.”

I fully agree with that perception.

Did you see how he killed that fly?

Quietly but swiftly. Take it, you paranoids.

By: Class Clown

Class Clown — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:18:44 +0000

Don’t worry, nukes aren’t dangerous. Well, they were back when Reagan and Thatcher had them, but not anymore.

By: Themistocles

Themistocles — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:48:41 +0000

Scaring the West has gotten Kim a constant flow of FREE MONEY [eg: "aid"]. Game theory is predicated on rewards for correct behavior. In North Korea’s case, “correct behavior” means threatening the West in return for free taxpayer money; it’s called “enabling.”

So the Norks will certainly escalate, threatening the West [including Japan and South Korea] with nuclear annihilation. What will that get them?

Based on past experience, it will get Kim much more free money ["aid"] than he got previously. Just the mere possession of credible nukes will result in Kim’s blackmail of the West over today’s blackmail, doubled and squared.

This is a chess game that Kim is playing with 0bama — and winning [the EU makes consistently wrong moves in this game, and as a result, they must be disregarded].

Since toothless threats have already gotten Kim hundreds of $Billions in “aid”, imagine what the threat of missile-borne nukes will get him!

Is there no leader in the West who will call Kim’s bluff??

By: sjc-tx

sjc-tx — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:15:28 +0000

46. myth buster:

“”Time for a nuclear engineer to provide some answers. Fortunately, I happen to be one….. Nuclear War is quite survivable, but the aftermath is ugly. “”

My background in chemistry and medicine disagrees with your ’simplistic” comments…

As I’ve said before… ARROGANCE and COMPLACENCY…