Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
It seems that the Japanese now don't think that SDI is all that stupid. One wonders when the liberals in this country will come around. Maybe when North Korea launches a missile over our airspace.

Tokyo approves anti-missile bill

Friday, July 22, 2005; Posted: 1:56 a.m. EDT (05:56 GMT)


TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- Japan's parliament has passed legislation giving the country's defense chief the authority to shoot down incoming missiles without approval from the prime minister or Cabinet.

The bill was approved by the upper house in a 126-94 vote. It passed the more powerful lower house last month, meaning the legislation will be enacted.

Japan's postwar pacifist constitution renounces the use of force to settle international disputes, but Tokyo has recently become increasingly concerned about possible threats posed by North Korea.

Tokyo is jointly researching a missile defense system with the United States, and Defense Agency chief Yoshinori Ono said Tuesday that Washington had agreed to let Japan manufacture new Patriot missile systems under license.

He said the two countries signed an agreement in March allowing Japan to produce Patriot Advanced Capability-3, or PAC-3, missiles for planned deployment during fiscal 2006. The missiles are designed to intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and enemy aircraft.

Worries in Japan about North Korea have risen as the communist country moves ahead with its nuclear weapons programs. A top North Korean official told a U.S. television network last month that his government is building more nuclear bombs and is able to mount nuclear warheads on its missiles.

North Korea has test-fired short-range missiles many times in the past. In 2003, it launched short-range land-to-ship missiles at least three times during a period of heightened tensions over its nuclear weapons program.

North Korea shocked Japan in 1998 by blasting a Taepodong-1 missile over its territory and into the Pacific Ocean. The North said it was an attempt to put a satellite in orbit.

Have the Rs proposed such legislation? Would it be the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of Homeland Security?

Honestly, I have never heard of such a proposal. It seems like it's the President who makes the call here.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
It seems that the Japanese now don't think that SDI is all that stupid. One wonders when the liberals in this country will come around. Maybe when North Korea launches a missile over our airspace.

They're the ones most at threat, I say let them pay to develop it and work the bugs out. Then we can just buy it from them, like Playstation. However, I see your point about firing a missile over our airspace. By "our," though, I mean "Texas." I believe in States Rights. Let the states that feel most threatened build their own fucking missile shield.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
They're the ones most at threat, I say let them pay to develop it and work the bugs out. Then we can just buy it from them, like Playstation. However, I see your point about firing a missile over our airspace. By "our," though, I mean "Texas." I believe in States Rights. Let the states that feel most threatened build their own fucking missile shield.

Let's get real. The only state that could pull this off is California. No red state has the brainpower to do it - they're all arguing over what level of hell is reserved for them what believes we comes from apes. New York and Mass. have some brains but no infrastructure to build it. No it's California, and if we ever get around to it, we'll charge for the protection. Texas doesn't want to pay? Hell, then, we'll just wave the missiles targeted to Dallas on through. When Ft. Worth is a flickering green glow the others will line up, checkbooks in hand.

[Spanky]

I have always been of the belief that the reason liberals hate SDI so much is that Reagan proposed it. There really was no rational reason to be against it. Who could be against shooting down nuclear warheads?

Once the cold war ended, the argument that SDI could never get all the soviet missiles also became obsolete (of course if you were in one of the cities which was saved by some of the missiles being shot down you might have a different opinion). Also the argument that it would be destabilizing (screwing up the whole MAD scenario) went out the window.

After we shot down a few of the scuds in the gulf war you would have thought that would have ended the argument - but no.

Today, with North Korea having the possiblity of hitting a city on the west coast, and being a person that lives in one of those cities, I would say the SDI is the most important thing the government spends it money on.

The only mistake I see is that we didn't put more resources into the project sooner.

It still baffles me that a person with an IQ above twenty could have ever been against Star Wars, and I find it even more perplexing that some people to this day are against funding for SDI. Isn't it time for the liberals to admit they were wrong on this one?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Let's get real. The only state that could pull this off is California. No red state has the brainpower to do it - they're all arguing over what level of hell is reserved for them what believes we comes from apes. New York and Mass. have some brains but no infrastructure to build it. No it's California, and if we ever get around to it, we'll charge for the protection. Texas doesn't want to pay? Hell, then, we'll just wave the missiles targeted to Dallas on through. When Ft. Worth is a flickering green glow the others will line up, checkbooks in hand.

I'll believe you can do it when you can make it through the summer without blackouts.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have always been of the belief that the reason liberals hate SDI so much is that Reagan proposed it. There really was no rational reason to be against it. Who could be against shooting down nuclear warheads?

Once the cold war ended, the argument that SDI could never get all the soviet missiles also became obsolete (of course if you were in one of the cities which was saved by some of the missiles being shot down you might have a different opinion). Also the argument that it would be destabilizing (screwing up the whole MAD scenario) went out the window.

After we shot down a few of the scuds in the gulf war you would have thought that would have ended the argument - but no.

Today, with North Korea having the possiblity of hitting a city on the west coast, and being a person that lives in one of those cities, I would say the SDI is the most important thing the government spends it money on.

The only mistake I see is that we didn't put more resources into the project sooner.

It still baffles me that a person with an IQ above twenty could have ever been against Star Wars, and I find it even more perplexing that some people to this day are against funding for SDI. Isn't it time for the liberals to admit they were wrong on this one?

Um, I think there have been major problems when things are tested. And it's not like there isn't a ton of money going into this, from what I can see. And more power to money going into it, I say.

[Shape Shifter]

[Penske_Account]

Last week CT Governor Jodi Rell, who I have been a fan and follower of since the 70s, issued a press release precipated by the Kelo decision where she said that eminent domain is:

"the 21st century equivalent of the Boston Tea Party." This time, she said, "it is not a monarch wearing robes in England we are fighting; it is five robed justices at the Supreme Court in Washington."

I read between the lines that it may be time for the exercise of some Second Amendment Rights! Boo ya!

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I read between the lines that it may be time for the exercise of some Second Amendment Rights! Boo ya!

As long as no applicable laws are broken?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
As long as no applicable laws are broken?

I respond with the words of two disparate yet prolific patriots:


"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -the Honourable Sen. Barry Goldwater

"There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice when they experience the blackness of corroding despair." -the Rev. Martin Luther King

"I have been greatly disappointed with the moderates." -the Rev. Martin Luther King

Indeed Reverend, indeed, but don't forget the liberals, they are greatly disappointing too!

[Penske_Account]

Writer and historian Caleb Carr wrote the following in this weeks WSJ, describing how when the cowardly liberals fill their diapers with shite at the thought of W's America taking strong and decisive action against the Islamofacist terrorists, such liberal stink increases the risks to our society:

But whatever the ultimate reaction of the British people to these latest terrorist outrages, we must hope that American intellectuals and celebrities will not emulate Britain's recent exercises in wavering, revisionist behavior. Already there has been unfortunate evidence that the tendency to "blame the victim" after July 7 was greater in America than it was in Britain. Such words and actions only cause the scent that emerges from our own communities to become that of fear -- and should al Qaeda again detect such an odor inside our borders, we may expect attacks such as those that struck our oldest and most trusted ally to once more visit our own shores. And we may expect them very soon.

[Spanky]

What exactly does that term mean? What these terrorists are striving for does not seem to me fascist as far as I understand the word.

These people are religious fanactics. Religious fundamentalists that want to create a muslim theocratic state. I think many conservatives, that feel that there is a threat to religion in this country, don't want to be associated with these terrorists, hence the term islamofascist. The reality is that these terrorists are motivately solely by religion so the term does not make sense.

Term that are appropriate: Terrorist (which, by the way, the attack on the Cole was not a terroist attack), fundamentalist, religious, theocratic, muslim, and islamist. But I don't think Fascist is an appropriate term.

Clinton used to try and spin terms like this. Instead of tax cut, he called it a tax "scheme". Calling someone an islamorfascist strikes me as the same sort of spin.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
What exactly does that term mean? What these terrorists are striving for does not seem to me fascist as far as I understand the word.

These people are religious fanactics. Religious fundamentalists that want to create a muslim theocratic state. I think many conservatives, that feel that there is a threat to religion in this country, don't want to be associated with these terrorists, hence the term islamofascist. The reality is that these terrorists are motivately solely by religion so the term does not make sense.

Term that are appropriate: Terrorist (which, by the way, the attack on the Cole was not a terroist attack), fundamentalist, religious, theocratic, muslim, and islamist. But I don't think Fascist is an appropriate term.

Clinton used to try and spin terms like this. Instead of tax cut, he called it a tax "scheme". Calling someone an islamorfascist strikes me as the same sort of spin.

I once tried to introduce the term "'Slamis" to replace the then-fashionable slur "camel schtuppers." It never really caught on.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have always been of the belief that the reason liberals hate SDI so much is that Reagan proposed it. There really was no rational reason to be against it. Who could be against shooting down nuclear warheads?

Once the cold war ended, the argument that SDI could never get all the soviet missiles also became obsolete (of course if you were in one of the cities which was saved by some of the missiles being shot down you might have a different opinion). Also the argument that it would be destabilizing (screwing up the whole MAD scenario) went out the window.

After we shot down a few of the scuds in the gulf war you would have thought that would have ended the argument - but no.

Today, with North Korea having the possiblity of hitting a city on the west coast, and being a person that lives in one of those cities, I would say the SDI is the most important thing the government spends it money on.

The only mistake I see is that we didn't put more resources into the project sooner.

It still baffles me that a person with an IQ above twenty could have ever been against Star Wars, and I find it even more perplexing that some people to this day are against funding for SDI. Isn't it time for the liberals to admit they were wrong on this one?

Query: How many scuds have been shot down by Patriot missiles? I expect a recent cite.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I respond with the words of two disparate yet prolific patriots:


"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -the Honourable Sen. Barry Goldwater

"There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice when they experience the blackness of corroding despair." -the Rev. Martin Luther King

"I have been greatly disappointed with the moderates." -the Rev. Martin Luther King

Indeed Reverend, indeed, but don't forget the liberals, they are greatly disappointing too!

Ah. So you've changed your postion re: Eric Rudolph.