PDA

View Full Version : When North Korea Nukes San Fransico....


recxjake
07-06-2006, 09:41 PM
1

Ultra Peanut
07-06-2006, 09:42 PM
ROFL

WilliamTheIrish
07-06-2006, 09:45 PM
It'll kill all them gays that has you so riled up in your other thread.

By the way, GM has the highest % of gays in the auto industry. Especially GMAC.

Braincase
07-06-2006, 09:52 PM
It'll kill all them gays that has you so riled up in your other thread.

By the way, GM has the highest % of gays in the auto industry. Especially GMAC.


...according to the K-State Alumni and Interior Decorating Association...

Sully
07-06-2006, 10:25 PM
I'm sure Sean Connery and Nick Cage will save us.

jAZ
07-06-2006, 10:43 PM
will the survivors still hate Bush and his war against terrorism?
No, his war against Iraq will have been redeemed by the action. He's not conceited, he's just honest.

Mr. Flopnuts
07-06-2006, 10:51 PM
It'll kill all them gays that has you so riled up in your other thread.

By the way, GM has the highest % of gays in the auto industry. Especially GMAC.


GMAC? Hmm. Never thought of it being Gay Mac.

listopencil
07-06-2006, 11:04 PM
I bet all that radiation knocks out the rats and fleas. Not the cockroaches, though.

the Talking Can
07-06-2006, 11:10 PM
will the survivors still hate Bush and his war against terrorism?

I'll bet my life earnings that Bush has asked that exact same question...only he said "me" instead of "Bush" and "my" instead of "his."

Chief Faithful
07-07-2006, 11:49 AM
GMAC? Hmm. Never thought of it being Gay Mac.

Gay Men Assemble Cars

Adept Havelock
07-08-2006, 10:09 AM
GMAC? Hmm. Never thought of it being Gay Mac.

Soon to be "Le Gay Mac-san". :p

stevieray
07-08-2006, 10:29 AM
Someone will claim it was an inside job and a hate crime perpetuated by the Bush Administration.

Hey, at least the fallout will reach the Faiders.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 10:35 AM
will the survivors still hate Bush and his war against terrorism?
Why would they? For focusing on an unnecessary war in Iraq while all but ignoring North Korea, foisting them off on a committee that the North Korean's have no interest in communicating with, until that nation we've been ignoring drops the bomb in our back yard? Nope, can't see them hating him for that.

Bowser
07-08-2006, 11:28 AM
will the survivors still hate Bush and his war against terrorism?

Sure. If we weren't bogged down in Iraq, we wouldn't have to be worried about San Fran or Maui getting nuked.

patteeu
07-08-2006, 11:57 AM
Why would they? For focusing on an unnecessary war in Iraq while all but ignoring North Korea, foisting them off on a committee that the North Korean's have no interest in communicating with, until that nation we've been ignoring drops the bomb in our back yard? Nope, can't see them hating him for that.

When San Fran is attacked by North Korean nuclear missiles, the left will forget to thank GWBush for pushing strategic missile defense early in his presidency and they will forget that for a long time they complained that focusing on missile defense distracted the administration from it's anti-terrorism job.

One of the first acts of this administration was geared toward countering exactly the scenario North Korea presents to us. Maybe some kudos are due instead of the constant ankle biting.

patteeu
07-08-2006, 11:59 AM
Sure. If we weren't bogged down in Iraq, we wouldn't have to be worried about San Fran or Maui getting nuked.

How so? Having our national guard at home working their civilian jobs and our active-duty military back home in their US bases wouldn't do anything to stop a nuclear missile.

Bowser
07-08-2006, 12:10 PM
How so? Having our national guard at home working their civilian jobs and our active-duty military back home in their US bases wouldn't do anything to stop a nuclear missile.

So it's a good thing we're bogged down in Iraq?

patteeu
07-08-2006, 12:15 PM
So it's a good thing we're bogged down in Iraq?

Is that your answer or are you changing the subject?

Bowser
07-08-2006, 12:21 PM
Is that your answer or are you changing the subject?

Heh, I was hoping for a Kotteresque meltdown. FAIL!

No, guardsmen standing around in San Fran aren't going to stop a nuke heading at them at supersonic speeds, nor are a few guardsmen going to invade North Korea. However, if our military were not stretched so thin in the Middle East, and had we not have to dump enough money to buy South America into the region, we may have had the time and resources to deal with Kim Jong Il a little more appropriately. I would bet that Kim thinks we are overtaxed with our efforts in the Middle East, and has become brave because of it.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 12:27 PM
When San Fran is attacked by North Korean nuclear missiles, the left will forget to thank GWBush for pushing strategic missile defense early in his presidency and they will forget that for a long time they complained that focusing on missile defense distracted the administration from it's anti-terrorism job.
So where does that leave all of us who are critical of the Iraq war but never criticized the President over strategic missile programs? It seems you're wanting to take one segment of "the left" and generalize to everyone who falls left of center on the Iraq war.

One of the first acts of this administration was geared toward countering exactly the scenario North Korea presents to us. Maybe some kudos are due instead of the constant ankle biting.
If he had stuck with it rather than getting distracted with an unnecessary war in Iraq, he might deserve kudos. Paying lip service to something, then dropping it when the first distraction comes up, is not something that deserves kudos, in my opinion.

BucEyedPea
07-08-2006, 12:34 PM
Why is the right even complainin' about NK's nukes??
If they hit the west coast...er the left coast...America just might be saved! ROFL

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 12:54 PM
Why is the right even complainin' about NK's nukes??
If they hit the west coast...er the left coast...America just might be saved! ROFL
What about New York? It's pretty far left, too, though the recent court ban on gay marriage there would appear to move it a step more toward the right. On the other hand, by the classical definition of the left, I suppose the government, including the courts, intruding on the issue of gay marriage at all, whether for or against, would move it even more left. I guess that's another issue that depends on how you understand the Left and the Right.

patteeu
07-08-2006, 01:19 PM
Heh, I was hoping for a Kotteresque meltdown. FAIL!

No, guardsmen standing around in San Fran aren't going to stop a nuke heading at them at supersonic speeds, nor are a few guardsmen going to invade North Korea. However, if our military were not stretched so thin in the Middle East, and had we not have to dump enough money to buy South America into the region, we may have had the time and resources to deal with Kim Jong Il a little more appropriately. I would bet that Kim thinks we are overtaxed with our efforts in the Middle East, and has become brave because of it.

That last part seems to me to be a reasonable argument. OTOH, I doubt that we would have done much to North Korea even if we weren't committed to Iraq. IMO, any military action we take against North Korea would result in a major war against a well armed foe in a place where our allies, the South Koreans, have a lot to lose. And with China next door, who knows what other issues it might create.

patteeu
07-08-2006, 01:24 PM
So where does that leave all of us who are critical of the Iraq war but never criticized the President over strategic missile programs? It seems you're wanting to take one segment of "the left" and generalize to everyone who falls left of center on the Iraq war.

You're right that I'm generalizing, but that's what everyone is doing when they talk about the positions of the left and the right. If you applauded missile defense then I'm sure you will appreciate any positive results of those programs. I'm not confident that that will be a majority position on the left.

If he had stuck with it rather than getting distracted with an unnecessary war in Iraq, he might deserve kudos. Paying lip service to something, then dropping it when the first distraction comes up, is not something that deserves kudos, in my opinion.

I'm sure you will be happily surprised when I tell you that one of the fortunate byproducts of having such a bloated federal government is that it is capable of pursuing more than one goal at a time. The Bush administration hasn't ever dropped missile defense as a priority agenda item. It's been pursued since the first days of the Bush administration and continues to be pursued today. So how about those kudos?

Bowser
07-08-2006, 01:29 PM
That last part seems to me to be a reasonable argument. OTOH, I doubt that we would have done much to North Korea even if we weren't committed to Iraq. We might not have had to. Kim Jong Il comes across as a spoiled child that throws a fit when the attention isn't on him. IMO, any military action we take against North Korea would result in a major war against a well armed foe in a place where our allies, the South Koreans, have a lot to lose. Agreed. That alone might be why we haven't taken a more offensive role thus far. And with China next door, who knows what other issues it might create. I think that if North Korea starts lobbing missles towards Hawaii or the West Coast, we will steamroll the country. Kim Jong Il and his Stalinist regime will be pages in history. I believe that. I also think that China and Russia know that, won't have an arguement for us not doing it, and won't back the North as they would prefer. Maybe Kim thinks this as well, and that has stopped him from attacking anyone.

Nightwish
07-08-2006, 01:35 PM
You're right that I'm generalizing, but that's what everyone is doing when they talk about the positions of the left and the right. If you applauded missile defense then I'm sure you will appreciate any positive results of those programs. I'm not confident that that will be a majority position on the left.The OP didn't generalize the left in this regard. You did that on your own. Actually the OP specified only the survivors of the hypothetical bombing, but I am pretty confident it was aimed at critics of the Iraq war in general, which come from all corners of the political spectrum. I am not liberal on the idea of war, just on this particular war. I'm not the only critic of the Iraq war who isn't opposed to war across the board. Hell, we may even be in the majority, I don't know.I'm sure you will be happily surprised when I tell you that one of the fortunate byproducts of having such a bloated federal government is that it is capable of pursuing more than one goal at a time. The Bush administration hasn't ever dropped missile defense as a priority agenda item. It's been pursued since the first days of the Bush administration and continues to be pursued today. So how about those kudos?I offer kudos to any and all who initiated the strategic missile-defense program, who have jumped on board since its inception, and who have stuck with it. That goes way back before Bush, by the way.

WilliamTheIrish
07-08-2006, 05:16 PM
Heh, I was hoping for a Kotteresque meltdown. FAIL!

No, guardsmen standing around in San Fran aren't going to stop a nuke heading at them at supersonic speeds, ...

The only missles around San Francisco capapble of reaching supersonic speeds are the peckers in the bath houses.

And you're right. No guardsman is going to be able to stop them from reaching their intended (hairy) target.

Ultra Peanut
07-08-2006, 06:37 PM
Heh, I was hoping for a Kotteresque meltdown. FAIL!

No, guardsmen standing around in San Fran aren't going to stop a nuke heading at them at supersonic speeds, nor are a few guardsmen going to invade North Korea. However, if our military were not stretched so thin in the Middle East, and had we not have to dump enough money to buy South America into the region, we may have had the time and resources to deal with Kim Jong Il a little more appropriately. I would bet that Kim thinks we are overtaxed with our efforts in the Middle East, and has become brave because of it.You and your... rational thoughts. Ludicrous!

IMO, any military action we take against North Korea would result in a major war against a well armed foe in a place where our allies, the South Koreans, have a lot to lose. And with China next door, who knows what other issues it might create.A pre-emptive action against DPRK would be a horrible thing, but I think Bowser means they'd be less likely to even consider doing anything if they knew the full might of our military could come down upon them if they stepped out of line.

And unless we did something ridiculously stupid like send our military into China, I'm sure they'd probably be happy, at least on a low-key level, to be rid of the embarrassing crazy cat lady of their neighborhood.

Eskimo Joe
07-09-2006, 05:35 AM
Someone will claim it was an inside job and a hate crime perpetuated by the Bush Administration.

Hey, at least the fallout will reach the Faiders.

The fallout will hit Sacremento, the blast will take out Oakland.

Rausch
07-09-2006, 07:30 AM
The fallout will hit Sacremento, the blast will take out Oakland.

Win-Win situation...

patteeu
07-09-2006, 08:30 AM
The OP didn't generalize the left in this regard. You did that on your own.

I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Ugly Duck
07-09-2006, 08:46 AM
The Bush administration hasn't ever dropped missile defense as a priority agenda item. It's been pursued since the first days of the Bush administration and continues to be pursued today. Hey now... don't blame the "left" for what the neocons don't do. Its the Republicans that are in charge. They have the WH, the Senate, the House - they are in charge with complete control. If any neocon scheme doesn't go through, its because they don't get all their Republican henchmen in line. Under the neocon regime, Dems are impotent to stop the Republicans from doing anything they want to do. Only Repubs can block the neocon cabal.

patteeu
07-09-2006, 09:01 AM
Hey now... don't blame the "left" for what the neocons don't do. Its the Republicans that are in charge. They have the WH, the Senate, the House - they are in charge with complete control. If any neocon scheme doesn't go through, its because they don't get all their Republican henchmen in line. Under the neocon regime, Dems are impotent to stop the Republicans from doing anything they want to do. Only Repubs can block the neocon cabal.

What are you talking about? I'm not blaming anyone. I'm saying just the opposite: missile defense hasn't suffered from a lack of attention under the Bush administration despite any attempts to slow it down or stop it from the "left."

stevieray
07-09-2006, 09:08 AM
What are you talking about?

Labels.

Eskimo Joe
07-09-2006, 10:44 AM
Hey now... don't blame the "left" for what the neocons don't do. Its the Republicans that are in charge. They have the WH, the Senate, the House - they are in charge with complete control. If any neocon scheme doesn't go through, its because they don't get all their Republican henchmen in line. Under the neocon regime, Dems are impotent to stop the Republicans from doing anything they want to do. Only Repubs can block the neocon cabal.

That seems to be the only thing you got right in your rant. The dems are too busy trying to undermine the republicans to develop any strategy of their own. The election is coming up and they haven't done jack schit to prepare. It's ashame, they are killing their only chance for balance all by themselves.

Duck Dog
07-09-2006, 10:55 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/duckdog/berkeley-bumpersticker.gif

Wouldn't that be ironic.

Bowser
07-09-2006, 11:14 AM
That seems to be the only thing you got right in your rant. The dems are too busy trying to undermine the republicans to develop any strategy of their own. The election is coming up and they haven't done jack schit to prepare. It's ashame, they are killing their only chance for balance all by themselves.

I'm no expert, but I'd say the dems don't need to try too hard to undermine anybody.

Bowser
07-09-2006, 11:15 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/duckdog/berkeley-bumpersticker.gif

Wouldn't that be ironic.

Am I a bad person for laughing at that?

Eskimo Joe
07-09-2006, 11:17 AM
I'm no expert, but I'd say the dems don't need to try too hard to undermine anybody.

You missed the basic premise of the comment. The democrats are not focusing on an election for winning, they are trying to focus on how to make the republicans lose. They will fail if they don't change direction well before the election.

Walter
07-09-2006, 09:57 PM
Quit picking on the rump rangers, fukkiing homophobes.

Rausch
07-09-2006, 11:11 PM
Hey now... don't blame the "left" for what the neocons don't do. Its the Republicans that are in charge. They have the WH, the Senate, the House - they are in charge with complete control. If any neocon scheme doesn't go through, its because they don't get all their Republican henchmen in line. Under the neocon regime, Dems are impotent to stop the Republicans from doing anything they want to do. Only Repubs can block the neocon cabal.


Remember that the next 2 years when the political polarity shifts and we have a new animal not doing much of anything.

Right now congress is convinced trench warfare is the way to go and as a result the nation isn't going anywhere...

Spicy McHaggis
07-09-2006, 11:25 PM
will the survivors still hate Bush and his war against terrorism?

I've heard that a lot of people in San Fransisco don't like bush.

Eskimo Joe
07-10-2006, 02:05 AM
I've heard that a lot of people in San Fransisco don't like bush.

Now, that's funny!