I'd just like to say again. This little defense project will not protect against nukes delivered via some creepy guy with a larger than usual suitcase working for Saddam. And it is more likely that it will happen that way than it would via missle. You guys seem to want to ignore that fact.

quote:

---

PianOmega47: Oh, and as for defending ourselves, you DO have people pointing nuclear missiles at your home.

JeffKardde: And how many times has MAD failed?

PianOmega47: It can fail.

JeffKardde: How many times HAS it failed?

PianOmega47: A) How many world dictators are totally insane?

PianOmega47: DArned enter key...

PianOmega47: B) how many countries have nuclear missiles?

JeffKardde: How many world dictators are THAT insane?

PianOmega47: It's only a matter of time until these two overlap.

PianOmega47: You'd be surprised.

PianOmega47: MAD can fail. You deny?

JeffKardde: MAD has not failed. STAR WARS is unproven technology. You deny?

JeffKardde: Speaking of which: http://flare.solareclipse.net/cgi2/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=000732

PianOmega47: SDI is experimental tech, and thus by definition unproven. It is, however, promising, considering that it just worked.

JeffKardde: So this makes, what, two tests is passed ... and two it failed?

PianOmega47: See, the problem with MAD is the "mutual" part. I prefer assured destruction for the other side and NOT ours. How 'bout you?

PianOmega47: No, that makes one test it's passed with flying colors, and none it's failed. This system has never been tested before.

JeffKardde: Well ... MAD isn't really accurate anymore, there being no superpowers left but the US.

PianOmega47: So what's your problem?

JeffKardde: So it's more like, SUICIDE. They hit us with two or maybe three missiles, and they get toasted. Unless you're trying to convince me Saddam-baby has two hundred nukes he's driving around on 18-wheelers to keep hidden.

PianOmega47: OK, so now, someone hits us with two or three nukes, kills tens of millions, and they're toasted. With SDI, someone tries to hit us with two or three nukes, no one dies, and they're toasted. Sounds good to me.

JeffKardde: However, the concept is even more sound now, when you consider that if some crazed dictator did fire off a nuke, he would know that, at most, he'd kill a few million Americans -- and in return, his entire country would be reduced to atomic dust.

PianOmega47: He might not care.

PianOmega47: Dictators are like that.

PianOmega47: Read: stupid.

JeffKardde: And how long until SDI is ready? And you're assuming a conventional nuke launch -- why not smuggle one across the Mexican or Canadian borders?

JeffKardde: Yes, and I'm sure the soldiers who actually fire the missile will be perfectly okay with knowing that they, their families, their homeland, is about to be destroyed.

PianOmega47: You deal with what you can.

PianOmega47: They don't have to know, now do they?

JeffKardde: Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

PianOmega47: It boils down to this:

If you're right, and I'm wrong, and we implement SDI, we waste a bit of money. Something like 10% of the anual federal budget, spread out over several years. And Democrats never minded wasting money before, so that shouldn't bother you at all.

If I'm right, you're wrong, and we DON'T implement SDI, then tens of millions die.

PianOmega47: You assume it ain't broke.

JeffKardde: When did it break?

PianOmega47: There is a hole in our defense. Disagree?

JeffKardde: Very.

PianOmega47: Well, you're an idiot.

PianOmega47: Someone can nuke us. This does not qualify?

JeffKardde: Aren't you the same dude who liked bitching about ad-hominems?

JeffKardde: How many crazy dictators posess both the ability to deliver a nuclear missile by ICBM and the desire to?

PianOmega47: Only when you thought you were actually making a point. I'm just calling you an idiot because it makes me feel better. The truth is where it needs to be.

PianOmega47: Thanks to Bill Clinton, any crazy dictator with a bit of cash can.

JeffKardde: But, what's easier? Building an ICBM and launching it? Or putting a nuke in the back of a pickup truck and driving it across the Mexican border? (Gee, thanks for passing NAFTA, Republican Congress!!!)

JeffKardde: Of course, if they do drive a nuke across the Mexican border, hopefully they'll detonate it in Texas, so no big loss.

PianOmega47: Jeff, you still don't get the point.

JeffKardde: If I'm not getting the point, it's probably because your pitch needs work.

PianOmega47: We can be nuked. We can prevent it with minimal trouble and cost. Why not do it?

JeffKardde: 10% of the national budget over the next several years doesn't seem minimal.

PianOmega47: Well, it is.

PianOmega47: 10% of ONE YEAR's budget.

JeffKardde: Hey, if you think that way, fine. Just don't criticize Democratic spending.

PianOmega47: No, no, I'm talking about spending on a legitimate government expenditure: protecting its people. You guys like spending money just 'cause you have it, whether you have any right to spend in on what you do or not, whether it's wasteful or not.

JeffKardde: Frankly, I'd rather see the money spent on education ... but, then, I'm just an idiot liberal.

PianOmega47: The federal government doesn't have the right to do that.

PianOmega47: But then, you're against a tax cut in any form, too...

JeffKardde: Right. So missiles: good, education: bad. Gotcha.

PianOmega47: *L*

JeffKardde: Hell, you guys wanna waste all this money on a defense system that's MORE likely to get us nuked by paranoid powers then on improving education!

PianOmega47: So do you do that on purpose, or are you really that dumb and/or pre-programmed to read your own beliefs about me into everything I say?

PianOmega47: *L*

JeffKardde: That's what you just said, dude.

PianOmega47: No, it's not.

JeffKardde: Missiles = good, education = no-no

PianOmega47: No, it's not.

JeffKardde: Oh, right, I forgot, you're the same dude who thinks the highway systems are un-Constitutional.

PianOmega47: I said that the federal government has no right to spend money on education, whereas missile defense is a legitimate expenditure.

PianOmega47: Which they are, when federally administered.

JeffKardde: How is missile defense legitimate, and the highways not?

PianOmega47: Missile defense is a military expenditure, and is covered in the constitution. Highways can not be read into the constitution in any way, form, or manner.

JeffKardde: Military expenditure.

PianOmega47: Nope.

JeffKardde: You said it yourself

JeffKardde: Yep. Do you know WHY the highways were built?

PianOmega47: Really?

JeffKardde: Indeed. To facilitate the mobilization of the US Armed Forces and their transport across this great BIG land of ours

PianOmega47: They were built because someone wanted something to spend money on. They CLAIMED that it was because they needed a way to move tanks from place to place, even though interstates are totally unsuited for that.

JeffKardde: Hardly. The Marines drive tanks on I-95 down in N Carolina all the time.

PianOmega47: Try driving one cross-country.

PianOmega47: We use planes for transportation of personel and equipment over any distance.

JeffKardde: But, dude, did we use planes like that back in the '30's? Hardly.

PianOmega47: Then how do you justify continued expenditure?

JeffKardde: Interstate commerce.

JeffKardde: What, you want them to fall into disrepair? It'd shut down the economy!

PianOmega47: Hardly. Regulation of interstate commerce does not lead to facilitating it.

PianOmega47: No, I want them under state jurisdiction and funding.

JeffKardde: But they weren't built to facilitate commerce: that was a fortunate hapanstance.

PianOmega47: They weren't built to regulate it, either.

JeffKardde: Most states can't AFFORD to fund them. And for the most part, they ARE under state jurisdication. Do you see Federal agents pulling people over for speeding, or State Troopers?

PianOmega47: Once their military application was eliminated, they should have been sold. Who would have bought them? The individual states, of course.

JeffKardde: Do you see Federal highway contruction crews out repairing them? Or State?

JeffKardde: The individual states CAN'T afford them. They're pretty fucking expensive given repairs, maintenance, et al

PianOmega47: Most states have idiots in charge of their budgets. Mine, for example. And if the federal government lowered taxes, the individual states would have more leeway to fund things.

JeffKardde: Ah, yes, Tennessee. The state you don't live in.

PianOmega47: Did I say that?

JeffKardde: That you don't live in Tennessee?

PianOmega47: But with Democrats in charge, the money saved would just go to some other pork-barrel program. Notice that even with a six trillion dollar surplus, they didn't want a tax cut?

PianOmega47: Huh.

JeffKardde: Huh? Huh to what?

PianOmega47: Just "huh".

JeffKardde: In response too ... ?

PianOmega47: Nothing at all.

JeffKardde: Okaaaaay.

---

quote:

---

I said that the federal government has no right to spend money on education, whereas missile defense is a legitimate expenditure.

---

quote:

---

For fuck's sake...

---

----

I say we put a big plastic bubble over the United States. That would work just as well and it might cost just as much.

We really don't need to educate people in...well, you pick out your least favorite 20 states. The children in those states will move to mud huts and we'll give them hoes. They should be able to do something worthwile with a hoe. Wait! We don't GIVE them anything. If we give them a hoe they will weed, but if we teach them how to make a hoe...I think they are still weeding. Sorry kiddies, the Bubble needs you.

Or we can tell North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, New York, Tennessee and Pennsylvania to turn in their highways and land grant universities. Bubble money.

Long live the Bubble. The bubble will stop 30% to 45% of missles launched from Ubitchistan. It works best if the Ubitchistany military coats their missles in butter first. It also works best if the military of Ubitchistan does not use any nuclear tipped Tomahawk type missile or any missles that might not be an ICBM.

Not that that would be a "conceivable threat" that could be not be met by the Bubble.

All hail the Bubble.

Heck, let's just call it what is really is. Call it the Sponge Defense...cause 55% to 60% will still get though. As long as they do what we want them to do. That's somehow better and worth a spending tons and tons of money on. Yup, sound fisical policy that...with the added benefit that I feel reeeeeeally secure now!

Oh, and don't forget the concept of the MIRV, previously quoted in my post. Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, one missle, many warheads.

Here's a strikingly new, unusual, and different approach. We could try and get along with the other inhabitants of our little world. We can try to make the lives population of this here planet better so petty little dictators don't get to come to power in the first place.

And for goodness sakes, someone please tell Reactionary Boy, Republican Hero that he and we (the US) aren't the only people on the planet.

Oh, and for good measure:

quote:

---

We use planes for transportation of personel and equipment over any distance.

---

Quick, someone tell the interstate truckers that they don't exist.

[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

Come to think of it, I'm not sure WHAT the Federal Education programs do except employ lots of otherwise useless psychologists and implement programs that don't work...

Re: SDI will not protect against smuggled weapons.
The response to that is: Nothing else will, either, barring ending all entry into the country. This point is MOOT. A system which protects against ONE form of attack remains superior to a system which defends against NOTHING.

Hoo Boy.........

Okay, the proponents say that it will promote national security by effectively removing the threat with this shield. Fine.

Taking into account Fo2's "Cats and Dogs" statement, this is a purely liberal viewpoint as it changes the status quo, rule everything, and tell everyone else how to live.

But the critics say that it is far more worth it if these threats are removed by word of dialogue, and not by risking world peace with a shield that can promote a nuclear arms race, another Cold War, and possibly another World War.

quote:

---

OIL CITY (June 25, 2001)?PENNDOT will complete the last phase of construction for the Grove City Park Bike Trail, scheduled for late July.

Crews will complete the final stage of the project to construct the bike trail, which will concentrate on one mile of paving over the concrete base already laid.

Rhino Construction of Lower Burrell, PA has been contracted to complete the work for PENNDOT at a cost of $182,973.60. Most funding is drawn from federal funds, with the remainder to be supplied by local municipalities.

---

and ...

quote:

---

OIL CITY (May 29, 2001)?PennDOT has announced the future construction of a bridge on Route 8, Crane Road, in Washington Township, Erie County.

Francis J. Palo, Inc. is the contractor on the project, and will complete the work for PennDOT at a cost of $546, 346 using both state and federal funds.

---

and ...

quote:

---

Elizabeth S. Voras, PennDOT Deputy Secretary for Aviation and Rail Freight, and U.S. Cong. Timothy Holden presented symbolic oversized checks totaling $818,780 during a 1:30 p.m. ceremony at the airport.

"Through this partnership, the state Bureau of Aviation and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are able to invest in Pennsylvania's airport system," Voras said. "We are committed to ensuring that our 140 public use airports and heliports are prepared to meet the transportation challenges they confront."

Voras said $43,094 comes from the state's Aviation Development Grant Program. The remaining $775,686 is from an FAA block grant to Pennsylvania, administered by PennDOT's Bureau of Aviation. The improvement costs borne by the airport will be $43,094.

---

and (most damning):

quote:

---

Construction of the $499,000 intersection improvement project began in the spring of this year. The work included widening U.S. Route 6, new signals at the junction of Routes 6 & 590 and at the CVS Driveway, along with new turning lanes and concrete islands. The project also included new guide rail, resurfacing and pavement markings. The cost including design costs was $680,000. It was paid for with 80% federal funds and 20% state funds. The contractor is American Asphalt Paving Company of Shavertown.

---

Look *URL removed because it was too long for the UBB to handle, and it was making the page all fubar* for more articles about Federal funding for PENNSYLVANNIA'S ROADS (and airports, and bike paths, and so on).

[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]

[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]

Therefore, you have a grand total of two examples, one of which makes no mention of the proportion of local to federal funds, and one of which was done on a grant, rather than being part of the regular state budget, AND includes a Federal road (That's what "US Route 6" means).

And Pennsylvania has how many hundred thousand miles of roads? (Not counting Interstates [US Route 70, US Route 81, etc.], which are legitimately federally funded)

Non-examples. Should I applaud?

[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]

quote:

---

I said that the federal government has no right to spend money on education, whereas missile defense is a legitimate expenditure.

---

This is an entirely true statement. What's your problem with it?

The Constitution specifically gives the Federal government power to provide for the common defense of the United States (Article 1, Section 8). Nowhere does it, or any of the Amendments, mention education. And since the 10th Amendment clearly relegates all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the States, Education is supposed to be a State matter, not a Federal one. This was made especially clear when the state of Kansas made itself a laughingstock a few years back, remember?

(Nevertheless, to keep standards uniform throughout the country, it is helpful to have National guidelines, but not more than that.)

quote:

---

Maybe you're just dumb

---

Your style of debate is sheer genius. Cause I've been found out...it's not like I pulled random states from out of thin air or anything.

[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

Frankly I'm rather glad that I don't live in a United States with your's and Omgea's ideology. That would be a crappy place to live.

Do however keep arguing about the Swiss Cheese missile defense package and tell me that somehow it's sound fisical policy when it's a bunch of Reaganite sycophants who want to mindlessly pursue one of the Gipper's lame brained ideas.

[ July 21, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

Swiss cheese? Wherever did you get that idea? What, do you think we can build a thousand ICBM's and warheads but not two thousand warhead-killers? Is there any logic to that statement at all?