« Acornistas Pontificate on Healthcare | Main | Moonbats Respond to Tea Parties »

Long 3.5 years to go. Gird your loins.

You have to wonder what else is in his college work. We've already seen Michelle's. Surprise.

Today, zero stands at -3 index. Overall total approval 52%. Tomorrow's number will reflect the first population after the horrible jobs number came out.

Frank Luntz even as of last night was saying zero's approval was at 60%. I don't know if he's referencing a March poll or something, but I'm getting tired of hearing it.

Frankly we should take every darn treaty we signed with those commie russkies and run them all through a paper shredder their not worth the paper their printed on and the russinas violated everyone

The thing that many do not understand about our nuclear weapons program is the strategy behind it.

For some insight, think of the game of chess. Most folks who play chess - that is, casual to very good players - employ an offensive strategy, attack the center of the board, are somewhat cavalier about trading pieces, and generally "go for the throat" of the opponent to produce a checkmate.

The masters of chess do not play this way. Aside from employing a very defensive positioning (and being loathe to trade pieces), it can be persuasively argued that most are not playing to win; They are, instead, playing so that their opponent cannot win. In the worst case, the game ends in a draw. In better cases, the opponent becomes frustrated and makes a mistake, allowing for further positioning that would make his opponent's defeat inevitable (generally even "wins" - the opponent resigns - are accomplished with the loss of very few pieces on either side).

The same could be said for our nuclear weapons program. The number, accuracy, reliability, and positioning of our missiles is to ensure that the opponent (whomever they may be) cannot possibly win - any attack on their part would result in them being completely annihilated.

The Russians were always great chess players, as their players (by and large) were infinitely patient and able to wear an opponent down until they revealed a weak spot in their defenses. The problem with reducing our missile numbers is that it would force a less rigorous defensive positioning of missiles, thereby drastically increasing the chances that a weak spot will emerge to be exploited.

The disturbing aspect of, say, Iran getting nuclear weapon capability is that they seem rather eager to inflict whatever damage on America they can regardless of whether it would result in their own annihilation. This is where a top-notch missile defense system would be of maximum value: opposition to it in the days of the Soviet threat was that it could only shoot down, say, 90 of 100 missiles, leaving 10 to get through. Against Iran or a similarly small nuclear weapon force, stopping 9 out of 10 would save millions upon millions of American lives.

[Disclosure: My father, after winning a bunch of medals in WWII as a member of the 1st Infantry Division, was assigned to the US nuclear weapons program in 1948. After 14 more years in the Army, he left the service in 1962 to become the Director of Maintenance for US Nuclear Weapons Systems, which he held until he retired in 1974.]

The average, naive undergrad may, I suppose, be forgiven for believing the nonsense spouted by professors who spent the 1960's getting stoned and reading Marx. Normally, a few years of life experience knocks some sense into a person. However, if one either stays in academia, or enters a field like "community organizing", then life often won't provide the hard knocks sufficient to correct one's thinking. That seems to be what happened with Obama.

The Left machine must have missed this copy from their ongoing censor-sequestor campaign of BO's track record.

Revealing in this thesis is not only confused thinking, but a hopelessly immature view of a "New World Order" that from any reasonable interpretation, reeks of communism.
He could not of course, refrain from indicting whites as nuclear fascists in a twisted society that in his view, the U.S. has become.

Watch the machinations of Hugo Chavez and you see the hope and dreams of BO.

Isn't "social justice" another word for "mob rule", or "hangin' party"?

Close, Eric. "Social justice" means "communism." A small distinction, I grant you.

Whenever I see that communist phrase "social justice" I always think we have (or at least had) "social justice;" those who work hard and contribute get rewarded, the layabouts get the dregs. I'd call that "justice" and leave out the "social" part.

Eric:

The difference is easily determined. Is your neck in the noose, or your hand on the running end?

Thanks a lot, Democrats.

I don't think there's a more vapid phrase in the English language than "social justice."

J, in Ayn Rand parlance it's known as an "anti-concept." It destroys the entire meaning of justice. Anyone that buys in to it loses all idea of real actual justice. That's the purpose of an anti-concept. It destroys. And so, Obama wants someone like Sotomayor on the Supreme Court "to do justice."

Thanks a lot, Democrats.

Frankly seeing OLD GLORIE with the commie hammer and psycle on it is as offensive as having the 70s chicken footprint on it

Liberals believe that one can surrender their way to peace and prosperity

Talk about embarrassing.
I used to hear this very dreamy talk at University during meal breaks. I thought it made sense then.
Cringe.

The disturbing aspect of, say, Iran getting nuclear weapon capability is that they seem rather eager to inflict whatever damage on America they can regardless of whether it would result in their own annihilation.

That's a natural result of Islam. Islam is (1) collectivist, individuals don't matter, and (2) anybody who dies in war with the infidel is a "martyr" and guaranteed entrance to heaven. Indeed, it's the only guaranteed way into heaven.

Libs either just don't get deterrence, or don't want deterrence, but the great communicator did:

"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."

Ronald Reagan

I challenge any troll to provide evidence to refute that wisdom. Unilateral disarmament is anti-American, foolish, and is advocated by communist sympathizers and subversives.