1

The dissapoinments for liberals just keep adding up.  Why do they hate the U.S. defending itself?  Do they think it's "not fair" unless we give our techonology to everyone?   Remember Liberals Laughing at "Star Wars?"

 

2

You may want to rethink that one GM.

Shooting down a disabled satellite is far too easy compared with downing an incoming enemy missile, especially when the enemy takes countermeasures.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel versus hitting one high-powered rifle bullet with another.

Star Wars may well work as an offensive technology and, in that, may be worth studying as long as we don't pour too much money into it. But scientists have long since debunked the idea that it could ever be an effective DEFENSIVE technology. The countermeasures, e.g. decoys, are just too easy.

3 If the military pursued the priorities of the liberals, they wouldn't even be able to shoot down one target--period, and this satellite would still be a threat.  Liberals oppose just about anything that has the word "military" associated to it.  Their arguments don't have to make sense or to be valid., which they rarely are.

4

I guess I'm not a liberal then.

I support research into space weapons, but I don't think it should be a priority and, at the moment, it should be suspended because we just can't afford that kind of exotic research.

My objection to "Star Wars'' has been the silly Reagan/Bush rhetoric claiming it would be a defensive weapon.

The offensive capabilities of any such weapon would be spectacular while as a defensive weapon it would be useful only against the extremely low-tech missiles.

Defense spending research and develop requires balance. Too much is simply wasteful and counterproductive. If that makes a liberal, than I surely am.

5 "the dissapoinments for liberals just keep adding up."

 Woodster, that's just funny on so many levels. How many previous tests have failed miserably, exactly?

6

McL... "You may want to rethink that one GM."

Actually not, if you take a look at the graphics noted at Fausta's Blog, you will see the difficulty of hitting an object at a closing speed of over 22,000 mph.  Especially when you have to insure that the two objects are at exactly the same place at the same time.  I'd think your knowledge of physics is somewhat lacking so you may want to rethink your position.

7

It appears to have been a "one shot, one kill" scenario and a direct hit in the fuel tank.  The Navy did a fine job of targeting the satillite.

Did you happen to hear all the scuttlebut about Russia, China and another of those pain in the butt countries mad about us shooting it down because they said we were doing it to destroy "spy secrets" and risking the debris hitting people to do it???  I have one thing to say about that.  "And your point would be...????"  I'm sure the fuel wasn't the only consideration.  I don't know of any "fuel type" that wouldn't "burn  up" reentering the atmosphere.  So, your thoughts GM???

Oh, and I want to send you my very best get well wishes!!!!

8 Hoosier Mom, from what I understand there was a fear that the tank
wouldn't burn up in re-entry, and hydrozine is some extremely nasty stuff.

9 This was a spy satellite that failed to reach proper orbit, and many classified components could have hit the Earth intact and be retrieved by our enemies.  If the Chinese want our technology, make them buy it from the Democrats. 

10

Mac:  My objection to "Star Wars'' has been the silly Reagan/Bush rhetoric claiming it would be a defensive weapon.

Decide for yourself, after reading Reagan's speech, whether it was he or McLovin who is silly.

Reagan's Address to the Nation on Defense and National Security March 23, 1983

What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?

I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.

- - -

Mac:  The offensive capabilities of any such weapon would be spectacular while as a defensive weapon it would be useful only against the extremely low-tech missiles.

Like those of China, Iran, and North Korea?

11

Not to mention it sent an important, and much overdue signal to the Chinese.  Of course, now they will redouble their efforts, and we will need to redouble ours . . . and rocket scientists will have a job for years into the future.  Well, that is unless Obama dismantles the DoD, NASA, and the State Department.

Semper Fi

12

Of course that kind of weapons technology would have some practical applications, such as fending off the very minor, outlying threat of an intercontinental scud attack from Pyongyang.

But one difference between adults and children is that adults understand you have to make difficult choices in a world of scarcity.

For adults, the question isn't simply whether it would be good to have space weapons, but whether it's worth the sacrifices we'd have to make to get them.

At a moment when we're borrowing up to our eyebrows just to maintain a couple of wars against tiny bands of ragtag militia and fake religious gangsters, I think we just can't afford the luxury of spending much money on these kinds of weapons.

Let's figure out how to pay for the defense we need now before we go launching on major projects that have such distant possiblity for effective application.

13

McLovin, you're with the same crowd during the moon race who said that the U.S. shouldn't waste money on space but should spend it on people.  The techonologies developed in our space research have paid far greater dividends to mankind than throwing money at unappreciative people who use it once or waste it.

I'm sure that the people whose lives were saved in Israel from the Scud missiles appreciate the research that we had developed to that point.

 

14

Success requires making difficult decisions from among imperfect choices.

In a perfect world, there would be no problem about spending billions on star wars. Though in a perfect world, there'd be no need for such things.

Adults understand that you can't always get what you want. For adults, the question isn't whether there is any benefit to star wars, but whether the benefit outweighs the costs.

Children, on the other hand, only point to the benefits of getting what they want. They ignore the costs and just keep repeating the benefits to themselves and others.

 

 

15

Mac: Children, on the other hand, only point to the benefits of getting what they want. They ignore the costs and just keep repeating the benefits to themselves and others.

Mac, why didn't you tell us that you are a Republican?

One difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want what is best for the country and Democrats want what is best for themselves as individuals.

 

16

Conservatives are in a perpetual battle to find and maintain a moral and fiscal blank check.

Note how many times they repeat: "We're in a war now" as if that justifies subverting the Constitution to spy on Americans, subverting treaty obligations to use torture and spending like drunken sailors, without any hint as to how we'll pay for it.

Without a horrific enemy, the right wing demands to curtail civil rights, expand government power and spend on the military without limits have no logic.

This is why so many right wing American's actually join bin Laden in trying to make his ragtag band of fake religious gangsters out to be some kind of massive global threat that's poised to take over the free world. This is why so many right wing Americans cannot even admit that moderate Muslims exist, let alone acknowledge their role on the front lines battling Muslim extremism.

Always be suspicious of people who demand blank checks.

17

Mac, you've diverted from dicussing the subject or answering our responses.   Now, you are simply cutting and pasting typical liberal and wrong characterizations of conservatives--very wrong. What we say is what we feel as individuals.  What you say is what you're told by the group with which you identity. 

Wouldn't it be better to stay on topic than to post bland attacks that you're regugitating?

18

Woody, you constantly depart from the subjects of posts. You do it here and on other blogs as well. You have no right whatsoever to criticize me for it.

You only try to bring that up because you have no other rational response to the points I've raised.

The concept of a blank check is completely relevant to Star Wars, anyway.

My criticism of Star Wars has been that it costs too much for the potential benefits. Part of my critique of that includes pointing out how right wing Americans are never willing to acknowledge that weapons spending could possibly be too much. They much prefer to argue that the enemy we face is really, really, really scary, so we have NO CHOICE but to spend ourselves into oblivion.

If you have a relevant point, Woody, make it. If not, you may want to consider leaving the conversation to those who do.

 

19

Mac, I suspect that I know who you, although you use a different name here.  At least I'm consistent in identifying myself.

Your response in No. 16 was nothing but a general criticism of conservatives that you likely save as a word document and use whenever you're out of ammunition.  When I bring it up, then you say that I'm guilty of it. 

Ann Coulter was right about talking with liberals.

"If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder." -- P. 3

Blank checks are what liberals think exist for all welfare programs, which never expire and are never capped.  At least a missile defense system shows results and has an end objective that can be measured and then is over.

 

 

20

The Supreme Court has turned down the first preliminary challenge to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The decision Monday to reject an appeal from a former custom aprons personalized. Republican state lawmaker in California was no surprise because a federal appeals court has yet to consider the case. The high court almost never reviews cases before the issues custom bib apron personalized have been aired in lower courts. Of more significance is the sign that all the justices took custom chef apron personalized part in rejecting the appeal. New Justice Elena Kagan fitted custom hats personalized refused to say during her confirmation hearings whether she would take part in the court's deliberations over the health care law. Kagan was Obama's solicitor general before joining the court.

21 MPEG4 Converter Mac enables users to convert general videos (MPEG4, WMV, AVI, MOV, VOB, DIVX etc.) as well as HD videos (MTS, M2TS, TOD, MOD, MKV, etc) driectly to the portable devices, like iPod, iPad, iPhone, iPod Nano, iPhone 4G, iPad 3G, and so the forth.
 VOB to MPEG4 Mac  is the first choice for users to convert VOB to MPEG4 on mac with super fast speed and excellent quality.
If you want to convert MOV to MPEG4 on mac, I highly recommend this MOV to MPEG4 Mac to you which can get output MPEG4 files with 1:1 quality of original files or a totally new one with much better effect.
FLV to MPEG4 Mac is an all-in-one video converter for Mac OS X, it can smartly convert between various kinds of video and audio formats. All the formsts like HD video, general video, audio, flash video are supported.

22 One of the benefits of organic foods is that they do not have as many chemicals such as pesticides on or in them. Also, many studies have shown organic foods to have higher levels of some nutrients. Some of these minerals were Calcium and Magnesium.


organic supplements
natural supplements
organic vitamins