Bigfatbillsfan

Didn't we figure out that Government employees had to much time on their hands when it was discovered that instead of regulating Wall Street the SEC was downloading massive amounts of porn?

No way dude. Your stupidity on this matter is way to entertaining right now. Here's some more information for you. I know, I know you don't believe it because it wasn't written by Tom Clancy. http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.174/missile_detail.asp I love how you say that a nuke is like a large fire cracker. I would explain it more like having the sun dropped on your head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

Man, you are really, really stupid. :wallbash: Here's some information for you. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm

Sorry I don't want to split hairs.

The missiles carry multiple warheads. Most SLBMs carry 25-50 megaton warheads. When the payload breaks on reentry it can "shower" the target nation with nukes. Continent buster: Oh yes.

The reason that we have more than one sub is so they can be placed in areas of tactical importance. I'm sure there are some in the arctic ocean as well as off the coast of china and in the Persian Gulf. I am not overestimating the impact of one of these nukes either. Each Trident II missile can carry multiple independently aimed warheads. For instance; we launch 1 trident two at Pakistan. The payload breaks apart in orbit and releases 6 50 megaton warheads aimed at 6 different cities. Night night Pakistan. That's just one of the 24 missiles on the sub. And remember we have 18 of these subs. (I'm sure some are in port at any point in time but most are in service.

Just one of those subs has enough firepower to erase a nation like India as well as throw enough dirt and ash into the atmosphere to block out the sun for decades. Yet for some reason we need 18+ of these.

Like it was discussed before, we don't really know which ones specifically should be dismantled. But if it's not needed get rid of it. I find it hard to believe we need 1500+ weapons. If the Russians want to stockpile more who cares. As fore needing the right weapon at the right place at the right time... Perhaps the right weapon is not a nuclear weapon. Most of the nations that we point them at are so centralized in their line of command that by the time the get the ok from the top to launch, their launch facility isn't there anymore.

Is getting rid of the stockpile of Nuclear weapons really a bad thing? Really? We currently have over 1,500 nuclear weapons in service and if only a fraction of them fly we end up with a nuclear winter and say good-bye to your current way of life. We don't need them all. Why spend the money for upkeep?

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Dems are not winning back the house this fall. I think they'll make some gains but no way they come out with a majority. Not to mention the GOP will most likely hold the senate after the election.

Yes, Chicago is corrupt. And Led Zeppelin broke up. What's your point?

Even NPR was reporting earlier that the budget this year looks more like a stump document. No way this thing gets passed.

I think Will Smith would be a better fit to play Obama.

That would be my point. Why would you enact a tax cut and continue to spend like a drunken sailor.

I would advocate for all over a period of time providing that the economy continues to improve. The important thing in letting those tax cuts go is that they are raised slowly over a period of years as not to shock the economy. Close the deficit slowly.

But wasn't his argument basically that the Bush tax cuts widened the deficit? What does the fact that the government must give back extra money to the people have to do with this?

Maybe you weren't one of them, but there were a number of righties complaining that the 243,000 new jobs was just a result of more people leaving the workforce. It was in the "Boom" thread by DIN.

:lol:

Just the other day you were saying that the unemployment rate was actually getting worse and the 243,000 new jobs number was just the result of liberal spin.

Well, someone has to make sure the Canadians aren't jumping the fence and running across the boarder.

Not to mention the fact that there were quite a few nation calling for the closing of Gitmo but refused to allow prisoners to be expedited to their country after it was closed.

You might not want to call someone a (*^*&%^$^#if you are not even able to comprehend a simple statement. That is, of course, unless you assume that everyone is as stupid as you are. Try reading the post again and see if you can make the distinction.

Yeah so? he's the new GOP flavor of the week.

True, but the deficit needs to be lowered over time as to avoid a shock to the economy and people need to understand that it's going to take a long time to pay down the national debt. It's not going to happen over night they way some seem to think. Earlier today NPR was reporting that it may be as "low" as only 1 trillion dollars as long as the economy continues to pick up.

Statements like this should creep anybody right the f--- out.