Can NASA also protect us from Republicans?

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger, I was heartened to read in the HuffingtonPost today that NASA is appointing someone they call a “Planetary Defense Officer” as part of an overall effort to defend our earth from asteroids, meteors, and other space-based projectiles that threaten the very existence of us Earthlings. I guess they are trying to do whatever they can to try and protect us from threats from space, while Republicans from the Fringe Lunatic Right (which are about 99.7% of Republicans, lately) do their best to destroy our Earth by rejecting all evidence of global warming (“I’m not a scientist, BUT….”) and scoffing at attempts to reduce carbon emissions, etc. Question for NASA: Can you also protect against Earth-bound threats such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, The Koch Brothers, and the NRA?

 

Artists rendering of us all getting killed

The Red Ranger: What a great idea, I suggest we round up some far left radicals and assign them to patrol the universe.  I say we send DiBlasio, Sanders, the Clintons (Bill and Hill) and the Obama’s into space on a never ending search for asteroids, meteors, etc.  The cost of providing them a one-way trip through the universe will surely be less than the cost they would inflict on humans should they remain on earth.

Speaking of costs, in the article it indicates that the cost of this effort is budgeted at $50 million in 2016 which is up from $4 million in 2010.  This is a 52% compound annual growth rate. That is outrageous even by Obama’s standards.  I am sure that if they identify an object on a collision course with the earth some bleeding heart liberal will argue against destroying it claiming we must not have borders and these alien objects have every right to enter the earth.

Nattering Naybob: You have proven yourself a true deficit hawk. You would rather save money than help save the world, literally. I’m surprised you aren’t supporting an idea that your Conservative icon and God, Ronald Reagan, first proposed. One of his few good ideas.

The Red Ranger: I am not a deficit hawk just one for sound fiscal policies.  I am not against spending just want to make sure money is spent wisely with the highest benefit return for all.

Nattering Naybob: One would think that saving the planet from getting hit by an asteroid that would potentially cause the mass extinction of most or all animals and human beings, would be something with a high benefit attached. But that’s just me…

 

 

 

As we were saying…

 

Nattering Naybob: Hello Red Ranger and Happy New Year! I hope you and your wonderful family had a great Holiday season.

I guess it’s fair to say that it’s been a while since our last exchange of ideas. A lot has happened between then and now. I stipulate right here and now that the interruption in our little blog has been all my fault…. mostly. Let me explain. Since our start in July 2012, we were guilty of foisting, by my count, 79 separate blogs on our small but loyal (and re-forming) followers. Due to all the horrible, false, and scurrilous negative propaganda that The Red Ranger had spewed forth during this time, in this space, upon our dear and resolute soon-to-be departed President, I found it necessary to retire for eighteen months to a silent retreat at a monastery in a remote section of Kenya (none of the many elders I spoke to can remember anyone named Barack Obama being born there). Only after an intensive program of self-reflection, meditation, and study, was I able to clear my mind and overcome the deleterious effects of your often well-intentioned but wholly misguided analysis of our society and our body politic. So let’s hit the re-set button and light this candle again! There’s a lot to catch up on and there will be even more to talk about during the year(s) ahead. At the risk of getting sued for trademark infringement by ring announcer Michael Buffer…let’s get ready to RUMMM-BULLLLLLLLLLL !!!!!

The Red Ranger: Great day to start up Second Grade Minds again.  The President is clearly over stepping his bounds and acting as a dictator in his efforts to restrict gun purchases.  Much like when Hillary says Trump is the best recruiter for ISIS (or ISIL, if you are Obama), Obama is the best gun salesman.  His efforts will probably spur gun sales tenfold from what they would have been if no action had been taken.  Even my wife is seriously considering joining a gun club and perhaps purchasing a piece of her own.  Hopefully, it is not to take me out.  You do not realize what you have until it is taken away or is threatened to be taken away.

The biggest issue I have with Obama’s actions are the inability to come to some sort of compromise with Congress rather than taking Executive Action (EA).  His MO seems to be to refuse to compromise in any way and then take EA.  I know you are going to say it is the Republicans who will not compromise but he had a Democratic congress for his first four years.

That being said, I believe some of the changes (I do not know all of the aspects of the bill yet) are reasonable.  If you are on Social Security and unable to manage your own finances then you probably shouldn’t own a gun nor should you be able to vote or drive a car. So if EA is taken on voting and driving also, then I think it makes sense.

Just so many things to discuss my mind is a jumbled mess right now but this is the topic of the day. Glad to have you back to pummel.

Nattering Naybob: I am not sure when we became a nation of scaredy-cats where everyone has to go out and buy a gun to protect themselves from “varmints” in response to a proposal to increase common-sense gun safety. Obama has been in office exactly 7 years minus 15 days. Please tell me when, during that time he has enacted or signed into law, ANY restrictions on the sale or ownership of guns. To my recollection there has not been a single such act (which incidentally is a black mark against him, from my perspective). But to hear the Lunatic Right (i.e., all Republicans who are not supporting John Kasich for President), Obama has “taken our guns away”. Boulder-dash, I say!!

If your wife (whose name I obviously know full well, yet am withholding due to privacy reasons– would she really want to be associated with these rantings of ours?) has any plans to brandish a gun in your direction to help keep you in line, that is a use of a firearm which I think is totally reasonable and has my complete support.

But I digress. I see nothing has changed, Red Ranger. You continue to cling to the fantasy of the Republican-led Congress being willing to work with this President. They are not, never have been, and never will be. Secondly, your criticism that Obama should have rammed thru this kind of legislation while Democrats were still in control of both houses of Congress during his first two years in office, is patently absurd. You know darn well that HAD he done that, you and the rest of your band of anarchic progress-blockers, would be assailing him for being a dictator. So put that metaphorical gunpowder in your metaphorical gun barrel and smoke it, The Red “LaPierre” Ranger.

The Red Ranger: I do not believe that we are a nation of scaredy-cats, I believe that we are a nation of rational individuals who see an uptick in crime due in part to weakened policing efforts and an influx of illegal aliens.  Therefore, they are doing what any rational person would do to try to protect themselves when the government seems to be failing in that regard.

How can you honestly say that the Republican Congress is unwilling to work with the President?  Wasn’t it just a few short weeks ago that they approved the Omnibus bill to keep the government functioning.  Didn’t this bill include funding for that aborted baby part selling organization, Planned Parenthood one of Obama favorites.  As I say before I think it is the exact opposite that Obama is unwilling to compromise on anything and when he doesn’t get his way just takes Executive Action.

I see that during the absence of Second Grade Minds you have failed to broaden your horizons and continue to get your talking points from MSNBC (which I am surprised is still on the air).

Nattering Naybob: I think it may be useful to narrow down the reason why you think it is rational for a person to go out and buy a gun. Is it because President Obama shows indications of “taking away people’s guns” or is it because of your anecdotal claims that there is an uptick in crime due to “weakened policing and an influx of illegal aliens”? Or maybe a combination of all these reasons that you deploy strategically to fit the needs of whatever situation you are focusing on at the time? Do your Republican friends share any blame from you for sponsoring the bill you referenced below that you find so odious? Or is it all Obama’s fault as per usual?

 

 

 

Kentucky Senate race

The Red Ranger: I was disappointed to see that Ashley Judd is not going to be running for the Senate from Tennessee, sorry Kentucky.  I was looking forward to seeing her face on the news every night.  Sure beats seeing Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton.

As much as I disagree with her viewpoints on most issues she would have made the race interesting with her frequent controversial and illogical comments.

Nattering Naybob: Yes, it would have been an interesting contrast, on the one hand you would have had Ashley Judd and on the other, Mitch McConnell, who looks like those well-preserved Pharoah mummies that the Egyptian guy with the hat always uncovers on the Discovery Channel.

I think it’s safe to say that if Ashely Judd would have run, and somehow would have won, if she had at some point served under a Republican president, she would not have made her main legislative goal to be the defeat of that opposite-party president, as McConnell stated was his goal following Obama’s first election.

Is it “Jimmy Obama” or “Barack Carter”?

The Red Ranger: The presidencies of Obama and Carter are really becoming strikingly similar. Both have proven to be inept at managing the US economy and now just like Carter, Obama is facing a crisis in the Middle East. Carter’s presidency ended with an economy in recession or at least on its way there and hostages in the Middle East. Obama leads an economy with a persistent 8%+ unemployment rate and US citizens murdered in the Middle East and our embassies under attack in multiple countries.

In contrast to one of your prior posts the attacks in Libya were part of a planned assault not part of some random protest. I watched your favorite, Rachel Maddow, last night for a little bit before I got nauseous and even he admitted to that fact.

Now there are reports that Hillary may have actually gotten some intelligence about these possible attacks but did not act upon the information.  Remember when under Bush we had threat levels and they varied based upon either upcoming events or “chatter” heard in the intelligence community. Those threat levels were too much for the Obama administration to handle so I believe they were done away with. Probably because someone felt they were offending our Muslim friends. These threat levels were routinely raised on the 9/11 anniversary and at least reminded everyone to be extra vigilant.

One of the “changes” hoped for under Obama was improved relations in the Middle East. Obviously, this is an abject failure on his part. Even he admits that Egypt is no longer an ally of the US. This leaves the US with only Israel and Saudi Arabia as stated allies in the Middle East. Nice job by Obama.

Please do not come back with some illogical rant about Romney. An illogical rant about how wonderful Obama’s policies in the Middle East are would be much more enjoyable

Nattering Naybob: I have noticed that Republicans enjoy comparing President Obama to Jimmy Carter. I guess that is understandable since so many observers rightly contrasted the administrations of George W. Bush and Herbert Hoover. I suppose there is no “expiration date” to the comparisons of current Presidents, to past Presidents, such as comparing say Harry Truman to James K. Polk, or perhaps the George H.W. Bush to Chester Arthur. The possibilities are endless.

The Obama-Carter comparison is factually correct only in that the most recent US Ambassador to have been killed took place under Jimmy Carter’s term in 1979. I only hope that no future President has to be compared on a like-for-like basis to our most recent (Republican) President, under whose administration over 2,000 people were killed on US soil due to a report that may have been ignored.

To say that Obama is “soft” on Muslims, or afraid to hurt their feelings, is patently ridiculous. Why would have Obama ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden, if he were worried about the reaction of Muslims? Wouldn’t this act have had the most potential for violent backlash against the U.S. or its Western allies? I don’t know how you or any another Republican can logically think that the almost simultaneous conversion of several Middle Eastern nations from totalitarian rule, to a more democratic model, would be seamless and without bloodshed or unrest of any kind.

I think The Red Ranger’s conduct and his view in this post, are a mirror to the conduct of his Republican candidate, who likewise tried to score political points (and failed miserably) by exploiting an international tragedy without first gathering all the facts.