AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Debra Law wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

She just called cicerone imposter a troll and an idiot. Yet, she claims that she never uses ad hominems.

Of course neither you nor Cicerone has ever been known to use insulting or abusive language towards another poster here !

Indeed overall I believe she is less insulting towards others than either of you.

Stop kissing her ass, george. She's the most condescending person on the boards. If you ever challenge her idiotic and hypocritical statements, she'll be calling you a troll and a idiot too.

Debra, Foxfyre is one of the most decent and polite posters on this forum. If you started in earnest now, you could possibly earn a small measure of her class.

Bill Maher: 'The Racism is Coming from Rush Limbaugh'
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
March 14, 2009 - 12:06 ET

Did you know that the racism in our country is coming from Rush Limbaugh?

That's what HBO's Bill Maher said on Friday's "Real Time."

Not just that, but also the people who are buying guns and ammunition since Election Day are doing so "because they're afraid that Obama and his Negro army are going to come and get" them.

I kid you not.

Such offenses occurred in the following exchange between Maher and his conservative guest Andrew Breitbart (video embedded below the fold, relevant section at 2:37):

ANDREW BREITBART: Right now if you look online you'll see that "Atlas Shrugged" and Ayn Rand's books are, are, you know, flying off of the bookshelves, of the virtual bookshelves...

BILL MAHER: Well, so's ammo in Oklahoma.

BREITBART: Right, well okay...

MAHER: Oklahoma's out of ammo because they're afraid that Obama and his Negro army are going to come and get you.

BREITBART: Who's afraid of, who's, where's this racism coming from? I haven't seen this online.

MAHER: Well, the racism is coming from Rush Limbaugh. It's taking root in Oklahoma.

Imagine that. But there's more, for when Breitbart took offense Maher laughed.

Even better, after Maher's other guest, Georgetown professor and liberal talk radio host Michael Eric Dyson, elaborated on why Limbaugh is a racist, Breitbart pointed out that nobody was a bigger defender of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas than Limbaugh.

This elicited uproarious laughter from Maher and his audience.

Breitbart then deliciously acknowledged the crowd's response: "Thank you MoveOn.org, I appreciate that."

Maher disgustingly replied: "Clarence Thomas, a, a black man who does not represent 95 percent of black people."

Once again, Breitbart correctly took offense:

That's bulls**t...You're allowed to have independent thought in this country. And this kind of intimidation by the black studies intelligentsia crowd that, that intimidates black people who are conservatives...

Maher then asked an amazingly stupid question: "You think black people are intimidated from being conservative?"

Ummm, Bill, you just intimidated black people from being conservative by laughing when Clarence Thomas's name was brought up and insulting him with your claim that he doesn't represent 95 percent of black people.

Unfortunately, Maher is so filled with hatred towards conservatives -- and, of course, black conservatives -- that he missed this obvious hypocrisy.

"Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard

“I’m sorry it’s necessary to say this, and I wanted to separate myself from the others on the air about this. If, at this late date, any television network had of its own accord showed that much videotape, and that much graphic videotape of 9/11, and I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there, it, we, would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize. It is a subject of great pain for many of us still and was probably not appropriate to be shown.”
" MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on September 4 after his network aired a less than three minute 9/11 tribute video shown at the GOP convention. A week later, MSNBC aired more than three hours of 9/11 news coverage as it originally aired on NBC back on September 11, 2001

The subject is fairly complex, and several technologies have sprung out of SDI, or Star Wars, but many more than one test have been carried out, many successful, to the point of actual deployment now of missile defense systems.

The following article is just one example of alot of information out there, Joe, and this articl is more than a year old, and at that time, this was the 7th successful test of that system.

The truth is that the technology is real, it is being perfected, and it is crucial to our defense system, and is no more a boondoggle than liberals cling to want to believe, because the results do not evidence their original predictions.

Liberals wanted Reagan to be wrong and to fail, but Reagan has been proven right, and will continue to be.

Again, the following from an article more than a year old, and more tests and technologies are right now being worked on, tested, and perfected.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWBT00766220070929

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. interceptor missile on Friday shot down a dummy warhead replicating an incoming North Korean missile in the seventh successful test of Boeing Co's long-range missile shield, the Pentagon said.

Dummy warhead with no electronic countermeasures or defenses. It's skeet shooting with missiles. Let's hope the North Koreans are so cooperative when it comes to a real test.

The test marked the sixth successful downing of a target in 10 full-fledged intercept tests since October 1999 in which knocking down the target was the primary objective, said Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency.

joefromchicago wrote:

Dummy warhead with no electronic countermeasures or defenses. It's skeet shooting with missiles. Let's hope the North Koreans are so cooperative when it comes to a real test.

I'm not an expert on skeet shooting, but I think skeet shooters have a better success rate than "Star Wars" does. Let's recall the success rate as described in okie's article:

In the Reuters article okie linked to, the author wrote:

The test marked the sixth successful downing of a target in 10 full-fledged intercept tests since October 1999 in which knocking down the target was the primary objective, said Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency.

Six out of ten? Add the less-then-full fledged intercept tests; add the attempts where the Pentagon improved its success rate simply by saying that knocking down the target was not the primary objective. That probably brings you down to the BA of a Chicago Cubs hitter on a very bad day.

And, not to forget -- how many missiles need the North Koreans sneak through to make a mess of Los Angeles? Or, worse, Ronald Reagan's ranch in Santa Barbara? Just one is enough -- America would have to improve its hit rate at least tenfold, better a hundredfold, for this missile defense system to have a solid impact on national security.

So admit you were wrong, there have been many more than one successful test. There have been many by now, and I did not say we had an operational system deployed, I said we are moving that way in the not too distant future. I imagine what you would be saying about the Wright Brothers if this was 1903. Joe, I can't believe you are still naysaying missile defense systems. Technology is bogus? You are bogus if you believe that.

So admit you were wrong, there have been many more than one successful test.

There have been many by now, and I did not say we had an operational system deployed, I said we are moving that way in the not too distant future.

I imagine what you would be saying about the Wright Brothers if this was 1903.

Joe, I can't believe you are still naysaying missile defense systems. Technology is bogus? You are bogus if you believe that.

Six out of ten? Add the less-then-full fledged intercept tests; add the attempts where the Pentagon improved its success rate simply by saying that knocking down the target was not the primary objective. That probably brings you down to the BA of a Chicago Cubs hitter on a very bad day.

And, not to forget -- how many missiles need the North Koreans sneak through to make a mess of Los Angeles?

okie wrote:

So admit you were wrong, there have been many more than one successful test.

Wrong about what? You said "Star Wars" worked. It doesn't. Even you admit that they're still just testing it.

joefromchicago wrote:

okie wrote:

So admit you were wrong, there have been many more than one successful test.

Wrong about what? You said "Star Wars" worked. It doesn't. Even you admit that they're still just testing it.

I admit nothing. I am saying the same thing I have always said. Joe, if you are going to misquote and give bogus information, such as your stupid assertion that there has been only one test and so forth, I think debating you is a waste of time.

Again, there are enough naysayers around, and you fit the bill. Our missile defense system development is a serious one and it is totally valid. Only a total partisan with his head stuck in the sand would think otherwise.

U.S. missile-defense policy under review
Tue, 03/03/2009 - 5:48pm

Amid reports that U.S. President Barack Obama last month offered in a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to reconsider plans for U.S. missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic in exchange for Russia withholding assistance to Iran’s long range missile program, sources tell The Cable that the U.S. missile defense program is currently under review.

Among those involved in the U.S. missile defense policy review is Barry Pavel, the NSC senior director on defense who was brought over in the fall from the Defense Department, a source said. Obama administration officials sought to downplay the review.

"What is being reviewed relates to questions of the effectiveness of the system, the cost, which will impact its deployability going forward," said an NSC official. "It's not a big policy review. There are elements that need to be examined, for good governance."

Whereas the Obama administration has publicly discussed that reviews of U.S. policy regarding Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are underway, review of U.S. missile defense policy may be more sensitive given that the issue is subject to international negotations at various levels, as Obama's letter to Moscow suggests.

Obama spoke of the letter sent to Moscow in an Oval Office question and answer session following his meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown Tuesday. Obama said that the U.S. missile defense program in Eastern Europe is directed not towards Russia, but Iran.

“What we had was a very lengthy letter talking about a whole range of issues from nuclear proliferation to how are we going to deal with a set of common security concerns along the Afghan border and terrorism,” Obama said. “And what I said in the letter was that, obviously, to the extent that we are lessening Iran's commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure for, or the need for a missile defense system.”

The administration "has framed this up exactly the right way,” said a senior U.S. official. “Missile defense is a means to deal with the growing Iranian threat. If that threat is dealt with, obviously the rationale for missile defense” is reduced. “If the threat is attenuated, there’s added pressure to develop it.”

Arms control advocates such as Joseph Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshares Fund, who contributed advice to the Obama campaign on nonproliferation issues, said the U.S. missile defense program is in great need of review. “On the issues of cost, threat, and effectiveness: this system has not been reliably tested and we have no idea if it will work in the real world,” Cirincione said. “On the threat, the review needs to ask: What is the actual ballistic missile threat that missile defense is needed to counter, what is the future threat, and when will it appear?"

“Thirdly on cost: the [proposed] European system alone costs $14 billion,” Cirincione continued, citing a Congressional Budget Office study released last month. “The overall missile defense program is running at $13 billion a year. Obama all during the campaign said that he’s in favor of missile defense as long as it can be operationally tested, affordable and addresses a real threat.”

Given the shortcomings of the missile defense program on those terms, Cirincione believes the Obama administration is mistaken to try to trade an offer to scrap or delay it in exchange for getting greater cooperation from Moscow on the Iran issue.

Other officials more supportive of the program said that delay in deploying the installations in Eastern Europe was warranted if it bolstered international diplomatic will against the potential Iranian threat that the missile defenses are meant to address.

“We have to have defenses there by the time of the threat,” a senior U.S. official said. “We can wait some time to do this, provided we do not wait too long, to give diplomacy a chance."

White House officials confirmed news reports that the Obama letter was delivered on a visit to Moscow last month by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns.

Administration officials will continue discussions of issues it raised in upcoming face-to-face meetings with Russian leaders.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/03/us_missile_defense_policy_under_review_0